CAR_Public/190626.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, June 26, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 127

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Pease Residents File Federal Class Action Suit
ACE HARDWARE: Faces Toles Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
ADDUS HOMECARE: Alvarez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ADVANCE AUTO: Still Defends Delaware Class Suit
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Conditional Class Cert. Bid in "Iverson" Denied

ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Continues to Defend Wyche Class Action
AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Initial Approval of Faulkner Settlement Pending
ALTA MESA: Class Suits vs. Alta Mesa Resources Underway
ALTIMATE CARE: Does not Properly Pay Nurses, Bell Suit Says
AMAZON.COM INC: Alexa Devices Record Minors, Hall-O'Neil Claims

AQUANTIA CORP: Ergene Sues over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
AQUANTIA CORP: Stewart Files Suit Over Marvell Merger Deal
AVX CORPORATION: Still Defends Capacitor Price-Fixing Class Suit
AZZ INC: Mullins Class Action Suit Concluded
BANK OF AMERICA: MUFG, 3 Others Dismissed from Contant

BENIHANA NATIONAL: Primo Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
BLC LEXINGTON: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Johnson Class Suit
BNSF RAILWAY: Macias Sues for Property Damage Due to Flood
BOOT BARN: Pays Settlement in Calif. Employees Class Suit
BP WEST: California Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Bartlett Suit

BUDGET RENT A CAR: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Smith Alleges
CANCER GENETICS: NJ Consolidated Securities Class Suit Ongoing
CEMIG: Class Action Suits Against Cemig GT Ongoing
CEMIG: Class Suits over Electricity Supply Contracts Ongoing
CEMIG: Suit over Capim Branco Hydroelectric Plant Ongoing

CEMTREX INC: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in NY Class Suit
CENTERLINE SOLUTIONS: Dirocco Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
CJS SOLUTIONS: Vallone et al. Seek Minimum & OT Wages for Workers
CLIENT SERVICES: Court Certifies FDCPA Class
CLIENT SERVICES: Greene Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.

COCA-COLA CO: Spaner Seeks to Stop Illegal Calls to Consumers
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
CORECIVIC OF TN: Bid for Richards Deal Approval Filing Due July 15
CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Slinger Claims

DIAMOND NAILS: Arneaud Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
EGALET CORP: Appeal in Pennsylvania Class Suit Ongoing
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Davis Class Action Dismissed
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Valerio Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit

EXXIZZ FOODS: Denial of Treadway Conditional Certification Affirmed
FCA US: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Tomassini Class Suit
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Perdomo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FLEX LTD: Case Management Conference Set for July 17
FLOOR & DECOR: RM LAW Files Securities Fraud Class Suit

FORSTER & GARBUS: Green Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FUTURE ENERGY: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GOHEALTH LLC: Blackbourn Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
GOOGLE LLC: Cabrera Appeals Ruling in Woods Suit to Ninth Circuit
GOTHAM HALL LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Reid Questions Sale of Herbal Cigarettes
GTX INC: Continues to Defend Oncternal-Merger Related Class Suits
GUARANTEED RATE: Malec Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
HENKEL CORP: Class Action Settlement OK'd Over DOJ's Opposition
HILL'S PET: Jacoby-Hale Files Fraud Class Suit in Kansas

HOME AWAY: Fails to Warn of Scammers, Spacil Claims
HOUSTON, TX: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Ruling in Hernandez Suit
HP INC: Appeal in Jackson Class Action Ongoing
HP INC: Forsyth Class Action Remains Shelved
HP INC: Settlement in Printer Firmware Suit Wins Final Approval

I3 GROUP: Campbell Suit Alleges TCPA Breach
INTEGRATED TECH: Monplaisir Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
INTUIT INC: Consolidated Class Action Dismissed
J&K DRYWALL: Does not Pay Workers for All Hours Worked, Scott Says
JAGUAR HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plant Class Suit Underway

JANSSEN BIOTECH: Pipe Trades Fund Sues Over Abiraterone Monopoly
JOARDER PROPERTIES: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Kessler FLSA Suit
JONES SEPTIC: Rumph Seeks Overtime Compensation for Laborers
JRX CAPITAL: Pascal Sues Over Illegal Text Messages
JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Zhi Suit Over Misleading IPO Statement

LA VILLE DELIVERY: Ponce Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
LAND O'FROST: Oldham Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
LUXURY NAILS: Murerwa Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
LYFT INC: Bernstein Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
MARRIOTT INT'L: Rivera Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff

MATCO TOOLS: Appeals Order in Fleming Suit to 9th Circ.
MAXWELL TECH: Duffy Claims Tesla Merger Documents Misleading
MDL 2804: Roofers Sues over Opioid Prescription Drugs
METRO BANK: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
METRO BANK: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit

MICHAEL D BLUHM: Muse Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pa.
MII AMO NAIL: Murerwa Sues Over TCPA Violation
MOMO INC: July 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
MOMO INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MRS BPO LLC: Domke Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida

NATIONAL CREDIT: Accused by Rusk Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
NATORI RETIAL: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
NAVISTAR INT'L: $135 Million Settlement Reached in MaxxForce Suit
NEW ENGLAND FAT LOSS: Charged With Illegal Telemarketing Calls
NIXON ENGINEERING: Conditional Class Certification Sought

ONE STOP: L. Cherry Suit Remanded to Maryland State Court
PENNSYLVANIA: Weyandt Files Civil Rights Suit v. Officials
PETMED EXPRESS: Faces Fischler Class Action in New York
PETMED EXPRESS: Reid ADA Class Action Filed in New York
PLANTRONICS INC: Shin Class Action Concluded

PROGRESSIVE RESTAURANT: Capel Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Tips
PROSPECT CHARTERCARE: Settlement in Del Sesto Has Prelim Approval
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: DeMarco Sues over Personal Data Breach
RCI HOSPITALITY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
REVLON INC: SAP Disruption Leads to Class Action Lawsuit

ROBINSON REAGAN: Griffin Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
ROOF ON WILSHIRE: Landini Sues over Wrongful Termination
SCIPLAY CORPORATION: Fife Suit vs. Scientific Games Ongoing
SIG SAUER: Briefing & Amended Scheduling Order Issued in Gordon
SKYGROUP INVESTMENTS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SMITH MEDICAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
SNAP INC: Melgoza et al. Seek to Certify Class
SPROUT IRA LLC: Getz Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
SUNCOKE ENERGY: Zolotarev Alleges Misleading Registration Statement
SUPER MICRO: NY Trades Council & Hotel Association Suit Ongoing

SYMANTEC CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending
TARGET CORP: Rigney Files Suit Over Health Plan Coverage Dispute
TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders' Class Action in Initial Stages
TCF FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Merger-Related Suits
TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Garity Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts

TRANS-INDIA: Turner Sues over Shikai Products' "Natural" Label
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Ronquillo Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
UNITED STATES: Moler Files Suit v. FBOP in Kentucky
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Files Petition for Cert. in Peterson ERISA Suit
US AVIATION: Court Rejects $880,000 Settlement

VITAL DATA: Turizo Suit Seeks Redress for TCPA Breach
WAGEWORKS INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Virgin Islands Case
WAITR HOLDINGS: Provisional Certification of Driver Class Sought
WELLS FARGO: Singer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WITKES LAW FIRM: Stevens Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio

XING YUE INC: Wang Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Pease Residents File Federal Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Annie Ropeik, writing for New Hampshire Public Radio, reports that
people who say they were exposed to PFAS chemicals at what's now
Pease International Tradeport are suing a group of chemical
companies.

The federal class-action suit was filed just days before New
Hampshire sued the same companies and one other for statewide water
contamination.

The suits name companies like 3M and DuPont, as well as makers of
firefighting foams that contained PFAS.

The state's lawsuits are broad and don't focus on specific points
of exposure, but the class-action suit is different.

It includes 21 plaintiffs who lived, worked or went to school at
Pease -- back when it was a military base, or more recently.

Pease was found in 2014 to have extremely high levels of PFAS in
its drinking water, likely due to past military activities.

The plaintiffs in the class-action suit have medical problems that
have been linked to PFAS exposure, including some cancers, high
cholesterol and thyroid problems.

Like the state lawsuits, the class-action suit alleges these
companies sold the chemicals despite knowing they could pose
serious health risks.

Similar class-action suits to this one have been consolidated into
an ongoing PFAS docket in federal court. [GN]


ACE HARDWARE: Faces Toles Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
RANDOLPH TOLES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ACE HARDWARE CORPORATION, Case No. 4:19-cv-00376-JM
(E.D. Ark., May 30, 2019), is brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act arising from the
Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week, and a lawful minimum wage for all
hours worked.

Ace Hardware Corporation is a foreign limited liability
corporation, registered and licensed to do business in the state of
Arkansas.

Ace is a hardware store corporation that has retail hardware stores
across the United States, as well as distribution centers that
supply those stores across the United States.  Ace operates
multiple distribution facilities countrywide, including a facility
in Maumelle, Arkansas, and has one corporate United States
headquarters that centralizes all pay, time, and human resource
policies so that they are the same across its facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris W. Burks, Esq.
          Brandon M. Haubert, Esq.
          WH LAW, PLLC
          1 Riverfront Pl., Suite 745
          North Little Rock, AR 72114
          Telephone: (501) 891-6000
          E-mail: chris@whlawoffices.com
                  brandon@whlawoffices.com


ADDUS HOMECARE: Alvarez Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Lorina Alvarez, in behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Addus Homecare, Inc. and Options Services, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-00325 (D. N.M., April 5, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to provide the
Plaintiff with overtime premiums and instead paid only straight
time for overtime hours worked.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant Options around June 2013
as a caregiver to provide assistance to invalid patients and was
paid hourly. The Plaintiff is still employed by the Defendant
Options as a home health nurse.

The Defendants provides in-home healthcare services to its clients.
Defendant Addus acquired Defendant Options' assets and liabilities
in late 2017. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADVANCE AUTO: Still Defends Delaware Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 20, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court,
District of Delaware.

On February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf of
purchasers of our securities who purchased or otherwise acquired
their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), was commenced against us and
certain of its current and former officers in the United States
District Court, District of Delaware.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose
material adverse facts about our financial well-being, business
relationships, and prospects during the alleged Class Period in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The case is still in its
early stages.

Advance Auto Parts said, "We strongly dispute the allegations of
the complaint and intend to defend the case vigorously."

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

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. provides automotive replacement parts,
accessories, batteries, and maintenance items for domestic and
imported cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and light and heavy
duty trucks. Advance Auto Parts, Inc. was founded in 1929 and is
based in Raleigh, North Carolina.


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Conditional Class Cert. Bid in "Iverson" Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, JEB B. IVERSON, Individually and on
behalf of all similary situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs.
ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES SOLID WASTE MIDWEST LLC, the Defendants,
Case 3:18-cv-00867-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Jugde Brian J.
Davis entered an order on June 7, 2019:

   1. denying Defendant's renewed motion to strike Plaintiff class
allegations;

   2. denied as moot Defendant's motion to stay discovery;

   3. granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion to amend expert
disclosure and class briefing deadlines;

   4. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's conditional motion for
class certification; and

   5. denying as moot Defendants' motion to extend Defendants'
response to Plaintiff's conditional class certification.

The court said, "Plaintiff's expert report(s) shall be served to
Defendants no later that 30 days following the Magistrate Judge's
ruling on Plaintiff's motion to compel production of discovery. The
Defendants shall provide their expert reports no later than 14 days
after Plaintiff provides his expert reports. The Court expects
strict adherence to these deadlines. A new case management and
scheduling order will enter following resolution of the motion to
compel. The Plaintiff shall refile his motion for class
certification no later than 10 days following Defendants' service
of their expert reports."[CC]

ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Continues to Defend Wyche Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 30, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in the
case, Christopher Wyche, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al., are
awaiting court's order on plaintiff's motion for relief from final
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.

On July 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action, Christopher
Wyche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al. (Case No.
1:15-cv-05955-KPF), was commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (the "District Court"), naming
the Company, along with Joseph A. Chlapaty, the Company's former
Chief Executive Officer, and Mark B. Sturgeon, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, as defendants and alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.

An amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2016. The amended
complaint alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during
the period from July 25, 2014 through March 29, 2016, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On March 10, 2017, the District Court dismissed plaintiff’s
claims against all defendants in their entirety and with prejudice.


Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, and on October 13, 2017 the District Court's
judgment was affirmed by the Second Circuit. On October 27, 2017,
plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing with the Second Circuit.

The Second Circuit denied the petition for rehearing on November
28, 2017. On November 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for
relief from final judgment and for leave to file an amended
complaint with the District Court.

The defendants have opposed the plaintiff's motion and are awaiting
a decision by the District Court.

Advanced Drainage said, "While it is reasonably possible that this
matter ultimately could be decided unfavorably to the Company, the
Company is currently unable to estimate the range of the possible
losses, but it could be material."

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets
thermoplastic corrugated pipes and related water management
products, and drainage solutions for use in the underground
construction and infrastructure marketplace in the United States
and internationally. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. was founded in
1966 and is headquartered in Hilliard, Ohio.


AKERS BIOSCIENCES: Initial Approval of Faulkner Settlement Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Akers Biosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement in  Faulkner v. Akers
Biosciences, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-10521 (D.N.J.) and Gleason v. Akers
Biosciences, Inc., No. 2:18-cv-10805 (D.N.J.), is still pending.

On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff Tim Faulkner filed a class action
complaint alleging securities violations against Akers Biosciences,
Inc. ("Akers"), John J. Gormally, and Gary M. Rauch ("Individual
Defendants") (together with Akers, "Defendants") on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased publicly traded Akers securities
from May 15, 2017 through June 5, 2018 (the "Faulkner Action").

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants, and violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual
Defendants.

In particular, the complaint alleges that Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose in its
first, second, and third quarter 2017 10-Qs and its 2017 10-K that:
(1) Akers was improperly recognizing revenue for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2017; and, (2) Akers had downplayed weaknesses
in its internal controls over financial reporting and failed to
disclose the true extent of those weaknesses.

On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff David Gleason filed a class action
complaint under the caption Gleason v. Akers Biosciences, Inc., No.
2:18-cv-10805 (D.N.J.) based on the same allegations and causes of
action (the "Gleason Action").

On November 21, 2018, the Faulkner and Gleason Actions were
consolidated under the Faulkner Action docket.

The parties conducted a mediation on January 10, 2019 and agreed to
a settlement in principle disposing of the consolidated action as
to all Defendants, including the Individual Defendants.

On March 8, 2019, the parties signed a settlement agreement,
subject to approval by the Court, whereby the Company agreed to pay
$2,250,000 in exchange for full releases and discharge of all
claims against the Company.

On the same day, Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement and to establish notice procedures. That
motion remains pending.

Akers Biosciences, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, and supplies rapid screening and testing products
designed to deliver healthcare information to healthcare providers
and consumers in the United States, the People's Republic of China,
and internationally. Akers Biosciences, Inc. was founded in 1989
and is headquartered in Thorofare, New Jersey.


ALTA MESA: Class Suits vs. Alta Mesa Resources Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Alta Mesa Holdings, LP said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that Alta Mesa Resources, Inc.
continues to defend several class action suits in New York related
to its allege dissemination of false and misleading proxy statement
in connection with the Business Combination.

On January 30, 2019, Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. (AMR), James T.
Hackett, AMR's interim Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board, certain of AMR's former and current directors, Thomas J.
Walker, AMR's former Chief Financial Officer, and Riverstone
Investment Group LLC were named as defendants in a putative
securities class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY Complaint").

The plaintiff, Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund,
alleges that the defendants disseminated a false and misleading
proxy statement in connection with the Business Combination and,
therefore, violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 14-9 promulgated
thereunder. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that Riverstone and
the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

The plaintiff is seeking compensatory and/or rescissory damages
against the defendants.

On March 14 and 19, 2019, two additional putative securities class
action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas ("SDTX Complaints") against the same
defendants named in the SDNY Complaint, and Harlan H. Chappelle and
Michael A. McCabe, AMR's former President and Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively.

These complaints are the same claims asserted in the initial
complaint, but also add claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against AMR and certain
of its current and former officers on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Silver Run or AMR
securities between March 24, 2017, and February 25, 2019.

The new claims are based upon alleged misstatements contained in
AMR's proxy statement and made after the Business Combination.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and/or rescissory damages against
the defendants.

Alta Mesa said, "The outcome of the above securities class action
complaints is uncertain, and while we believe that AMR has valid
defenses to the plaintiff's claims and intend to defend the
lawsuits vigorously, no assurance can be given as to the outcome of
the lawsuits. We are not a party to these suits but an adverse
outcome could potentially impact our business."

Alta Mesa Holdings, LP engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, and production of oil, natural gas, and natural gas
liquids in the United States. The company primarily holds interest
in the Sooner Trend Anadarko Basin Canadian and Kingfisher County
field located in Oklahoma. The company was founded in 1987 and is
based in Houston, Texas. Alta Mesa Holdings, LP is a subsidiary of
SRII Opco, LP.


ALTIMATE CARE: Does not Properly Pay Nurses, Bell Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Bell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Altimate Care LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00751 (N.D. Ohio, April 4,
2019), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The Defendants provides home care and health care assistance to
patients. Its principal place of business is in Cuyahoga County,
Ohio. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Licensed
Practical Nurse between August 2017 and March 2019.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's practice and policy of
not paying the time the employees worked between appointments,
including driving to and from client homes, frequently paying less
than the applicable minimum wage for all hours worked, and failure
to keep accurate records, violates the FLSA and OMFWSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 696-5000
      Fax: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
              chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
              anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Alexa Devices Record Minors, Hall-O'Neil Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Amazon.com, Inc.
and a2z Development Center, Inc. d/b/a Amazon Lab126 for alleged
violations of several state privacy laws of Florida, Illinois,
Michigan, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and
Washington, in connection with the intentional and unlawful
recording performed by Alexa devices. The case is captioned C.O., a
minor, by and through her guardian Alison Hall-O'Neil, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and A2Z DEVELOPMENT
CENTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00910 (W.D. Wash., June 11, 2019).

Alison Hall-O'Neil seeks to obtain redress for all Florida,
Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire,
Pennsylvania, and Washington minors who have used Alexa in their
home and have therefore been recorded by Amazon, without consent.

Amazon.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters
and principal place of business at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle,
Washington. a2z Development Center, Inc., d/b/a Amazon Lab126, is a
Delaware corporation with its headquarters and principal place of
business located at 1120 Enterprise Way, Sunnyvale, California.
Amazon Lab126 employs thousands of individuals, many of whom work
on Alexa-enabled devices and software at its Sunnyvale
headquarters, and is a subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew S. Brown, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
     600 University St., Ste. 2800
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: 206.905.7000
     Facsimile: 206.905.7100
     E-mail: andybrown@quinnemanuel.com

             - and –

     Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq.
     Stephen Swedlow, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUELURQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
     191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: 312.705.7400
     Facsimile: 312.705.7401
     E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com
             stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com

             - and -

     Ashley C. Keller, Esq.
     Travis D. Lenkner, Esq.
     J. Dominick Larry, Esq.
     KELLER LENKNER LLC
     150 N. Riverside Plaza, Ste. 4270
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 741-5220
     Facsimile: (312) 971-3502
     E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com
             tdl@kellerlenkner.com
             nl@kellerlenkner.com
             
             - and -

     Warren D. Postman, Esq.
     KELLER LENKNER LLC
     1300 Street N.W., Suite 400E
     Washington, D.C.
     Telephone: (202) 749-8334
     Facsimile: (312) 971-3502
     E-mail: wdp@kellerlenkner.com


AQUANTIA CORP: Ergene Sues over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Aquantia Corp and
its Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duties and for
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The case is captioned HASSAN ERGENE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. AQUANTIA
CORP., FARAJ AALAEI, LIP-BU TAN, DMITRY AKHANOV, BAMI BASTANI, KEN
PELOWSKI, GEOFFREY G. RIBAR, SAM SRINIVASAN, and ANDERS SWAHN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03301-MMC (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2019).

Plaintiff Hassan Ergene alleges that the Defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due care and
disclosure by, inter alia, (i) agreeing to sell Aquantia without
first taking steps to ensure that Plaintiff and Class members would
obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the
circumstances; and (ii) engineering the proposed transaction to
benefit themselves and/or Marvell without regard for Aquantia
public stockholders. Accordingly, this action seeks to enjoin the
proposed transaction and compel the Individual Defendants to
properly exercise their fiduciary duties to Aquantia stockholders.

Aquantia, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops, and
markets advanced high-speed communication integrated circuits for
Ethernet connectivity in the data center, enterprise
infrastructure, access, and automotive markets worldwide. Aquantia
is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and has its
principal place of business at 91 East Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA.
Shares of Aquantia common stock are traded on the NYSE under the
symbol AQ. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    Evan J. Smith, Esq.
    Ryan P. Cardona, Esq.
    BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
    9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
    Beverly Hills, CA 90212
    Telephone: (877) 534-2590
    Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
    E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
            rcardona@brodskysmith.com


AQUANTIA CORP: Stewart Files Suit Over Marvell Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
JEFF STEWART, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AQUANTIA CORP., LIP-BU TAN, FARAJ AALAEI,
DMITRY AKHANOV, BAMI BASTANI, KEN PELOWSKI, GEOFFREY G. RIBAR, SAM
SRINIVASAN, and ANDERS SWAHN, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01087-UNA (D. Del., June 13, 2019) is a stockholder class
action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other
public stockholders of Aquantia Corp. against Aquantia and the
members of its Board of Directors for their violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Aquantia will be acquired by Marvell Technology
Group Ltd. through its wholly owned subsidiary, Antigua Acquisition
Corp. ("Merger Sub").

On May 6, 2019, Aquantia and Marvell issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger.
Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Aquantia's stockholders
will receive $13.25 per share in cash for each Aquantia share they
own. On May 29, 2019, in order to convince Aquantia's public
stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,
Defendants caused Aquantia to file a Definitive Proxy Statement
with the SEC which omits or misrepresents material information
concerning the Proposed Transaction. The failure to adequately
disclose such material information renders the Proxy Statement
false and misleading, says the complaint.

For these reasons, Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the
Exchange Act as Aquantia stockholders need more information in
order to make a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction or seek appraisal. Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction unless and
until such Exchange Act violations are cured, the complaint
relates.

Plaintiff is the owner of Aquantia common stock.

Aquantia provides design, development, and marketing of advanced,
high-speed communications ICs for Ethernet connectivity in the Data
Center, Enterprise Infrastructure, Access, and Automotive
markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
     O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
     901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 778-4000
     Email: rernst@oelegal.com

          - and -

     Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
     BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
     885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 308-5858
     Fax: (212) 486-0462
     Email: fortunato@bespc.com


AVX CORPORATION: Still Defends Capacitor Price-Fixing Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AVX Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a
series of cases alleging price-fixing in the capacitor market.

During calendar year 2014, AVX was named as a co-defendant in a
series of cases filed in the United States and in the Canadian
provinces of Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba alleging violations of United States, state and Canadian
antitrust laws asserting that AVX and numerous other companies were
participants in alleged price-fixing in the capacitor market in the
Northern District of California.

The cases in the United States were consolidated into the Northern
District of California on October 2, 2014. Some plaintiffs have
broken off from the United States class action and filed actions on
their own, although AVX is not named in all of these independent
actions.

The cases in Canada have not been consolidated. All of these cases
are still in progress.

AVX believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously
defend the cases.

AVX Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures,
supplies, and resells various electronic components, interconnect
devices, sensing and control devices, and related products
worldwide. The company operates through Electronic Components; and
Interconnect, Sensing and Control Devices segments. The company was
founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Fountain Inn, South
Carolina. AVX Corporation is a subsidiary of Kyocera Corporation.


AZZ INC: Mullins Class Action Suit Concluded
--------------------------------------------
AZZ Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended February 28, 2019, that the class action suit entitled,
Logan Mullins v. AZZ, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-00025-Y, has
been concluded.

On January 11, 2018, Logan Mullins, acting on behalf of himself and
a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities between April 22, 2015 and January 8, 2018,
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (the "Court") against the Company and
two of its executive officers, Thomas E. Ferguson and Paul W.
Fehlman. Logan Mullins v. AZZ, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:18-cv-00025-Y.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's SEC
filings contained statements that were rendered materially false
and misleading by the Company's alleged failure to properly
recognize revenue related to certain contracts in its Energy
Segment in purported violation of (1) Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 and (2) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

After the Court appointed a Lead Plaintiff in the case, but before
the Company was required to respond to the lawsuit, the Plaintiff
voluntarily sought dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.

On January 16, 2019, the Court dismissed the case without
prejudice. No other parties have sought to reopen the case;
therefore, the legal matter is no longer pending.

AZZ Inc. provides galvanizing and metal coating services, welding
solutions, specialty electrical equipment, and highly engineered
services to the power generation, transmission, distribution,
refining, and industrial markets. The company operates through two
segments, Energy and Metal Coatings. AZZ Inc. was founded in 1956
and is headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.


BANK OF AMERICA: MUFG, 3 Others Dismissed from Contant
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES CONTANT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17 Civ. 3139 (LGS) (S.D.
N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Consolidated Class
Action Complaint filed by Foreign Defendants Barclays Bank PLC, BNP
Paribas Group, HSBC Bank plc, MUFG Bank, Ltd., The Royal Bank of
Scotland plc, Societe Generale, Standard Chartered Bank, UBS AG and
UBS Group AG, for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).

The case concerns an alleged conspiracy among the world's largest
banks to fix prices in the foreign exchange ("FX") market.  The
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased FX instruments from retail FX
dealers at prices that were artificially inflated on account of the
Defendants' manipulation of the FX market.  The Plaintiffs' Second
Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges violations of state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.
From approximately 2007 to 2013, the Defendants conspired with each
other to fix prices in the FX market.  They exchanged confidential
customer information and coordinated their trading strategies in
order to manipulate FX benchmark rates.  As a result of the
onspiracy, the Retail Dealers purchased FX instruments at
artificially inflated prices, and passed on the anticompetitive
overcharges to retail customers, including the Plaintiffs.  

All of the Foreign Defendants are incorporated and have their
principal places of business overseas.  The Plaintiffs are 10
individuals and one entity domiciled in, and engaged in FX
transactions in, various states of the United States, including New
York.

The Foreign Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  

Among other things, Judge Schofield finds that the Complaint
sufficiently alleges the participation of all of the Foreign
Defendants except for UBS Group AG.  The Complaint alleges that
each Foreign Defendant participated in chat rooms in which traders
coordinated trades and exchanged information about orders, spreads,
exchange rates and fixes.  But the Complaint lacks any
"non-conclusory and fact-specific" allegations regarding UBS Group
AG's participation in the alleged conspiracy.

The Complaint lumps together UBS AG and UBS Group AG (as well as
the U.S. entity UBS Securities LLC) under the name "UBS."  The
fact-specific allegations in the Complaint regarding "UBS" --
including a "UBS" trader's participation in the "Cartel" chat group
and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") and
Department of Justice's ("DOJ") enforcement actions against "UBS"
for its FX-related conduct -- all concern UBS AG, not UBS Group AG,
as is evident from the CFTC Order finding that "UBS AG" violated
the Commodity Exchange Act and the DOJ plea agreement with "UBS AG"
related to a conspiracy to manipulate benchmark interest rates.
Because the Complaint lacks non-conclusory, facts-pecific
allegations regarding UBS Group AG's participation in the alleged
conspiracy, the Plaintiffs have not made a prima facie showing of
jurisdiction.  The motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is
granted as to UBS Group AG.

The Judge also finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges that
"a co-conspirator's overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy had
sufficient contacts with New York to subject that co-conspirator to
jurisdiction.  The Complaint cites several New York Department of
Financial Services ("NYDFS") and DOJ enforcement actions against
certain Defendants relating to their manipulation of the FX market
in New York.

The Judge further finds that the Plaintiffs have not made a prima
facie showing that MUFG, RBS or SocGen could reasonably foresee
being haled into court in New York for their conspiracy-related
conduct.  The conclusory allegation that all the Defendants
communicated regularly with Defendant traders in New York for
purposes of carrying out the unlawful conspiracy is insufficient.
The Complaint does not specifically allege that MUFG, RBS or SocGen
engaged in suit-related conduct aimed at or taking place in New
York.  Nor does the Complaint connect these Defendants'
participation in the conspiracy to New York in some other way.  In
the absence of such allegations, the Judge cannot conclude that
MUFG, RBS and SocGen should reasonably anticipate being haled into
court in New York for their conspiracy-related conduct.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction is granted as to these three Defendants.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Foreign Defendants have not
suggested or shown that any state's substantive social policies
would be undermined by permitting the case to go forward in New
York," rather than in another state.  The Foreign Defendants have
not presented a compelling case why interstate comity concerns
would render the exercise of jurisdiction unreasonable.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Schofield granted the Foreign
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(2) as to MUFG, RBS, SocGen and UBS Group AG, and denied it as
to the other Foreign Defendants.  The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket No. 197.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/uluxc0 from Leagle.com.

James Contant, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Frank Burton Ulmer, McCulley
Mccluer PLLC, Garrett W. Wotkyns -- gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
-- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, L.L.P., Michael C.
Dell'Angelo -- mdellangelo@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, pro hac
vice, Michael J. Kane, Berger Montague PC, R. Bryant McCulley --
bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com -- McCulley McCluer PLLC, Stuart
Halkett McCluer -- smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com -- McCulley Mccluer
PLLC & Joshua Ripley -- jripley@bm.net -- Berger Montague PC, pro
hac vice.

Martin-Han Tran, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Carlos Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Ugnius Matkus, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Jerry Jacobson, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Paul Vermillion, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Sandra Lavender,
Victor Hernandez, FX Primus Ltd., Charles G. Hitchcock III & Tina
Porter, Plaintiffs, represented by Garrett W. Wotkyns , Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, L.L.P., Michael C. Dell'Angelo ,
Berger Montague PC, pro hac vice, Michael J. Kane , Berger Montague
PC, R. Bryant McCulley , McCulley McCluer PLLC, Stuart Halkett
McCluer , McCulley Mccluer PLLC & Joshua Ripley , Berger Montague
PC, pro hac vice.

FXDirectDealer, LLC, Movant, represented by Stefan Savic,
Balestriere Fariello.

Bank Of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A. & Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Defendants, represented by Adam Selim
Hakki, Shearman & Sterling LLP, Jeffrey Jason Resetarits, Shearman
& Sterling LLP & Richard Franklin Schwed -- rschwed@shearman.com --
Shearman & Sterling LLP.

The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Kenneth Anthony Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP, Michael E. Gertzman, Paul Weiss, Anand Sithian, Paul Weiss &
Maxwell Arlie Halpern Kosman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison.

Barclays Bank PLC & Barclays Capital Inc., Defendants, represented
by David Harold Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Matthew Alain
Peller, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Matthew Alexander Schwartz,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

BNP Paribas Group, BNP Paribas North America, Inc., BNP Paribas
Securities Corp. & BNP Paribas Prime Brokerage, Inc., Defendants,
represented by David C. Esseks, Allen & Overy, LLP, Andrew Rhys
Davies, Allen & Overy, LLP, Laura Rose Hall, Allen & Overy, LLP &
Rebecca Rose Delfiner, Allen & Overy, LLP.

Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citicorp & Citigroup Global Markets
Inc., Defendants, represented by Alan M. Wiseman, Covington &
Burling, L.L.P., Andrew D. Lazerow, Covington & Burling, L.L.P.,
Andrew Arthur Ruffino , Covington & Burling LLP & Jamie A. Heine,
Covington & Burling, L.L.P.

Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse AG & Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Defendants, represented by David George Januszewski,
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Elai E. Katz, Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP, Herbert Scott Washer, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Jason
Michael Hall, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP & Margaret Ann Barone,
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP.


BENIHANA NATIONAL: Primo Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Primo, Kin Wai Wong, Pema Sherpa, and Santurino Carrasco, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Benihana
National Corp., Haru Holding Corp., Haru Third Ave. Corp., et.al.
Case No. 507466/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., April 4, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of New York Labor Law
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants violated the NYLL and FLSA by applying tip credit to
Plaintiffs' wages and paid them a reduced minimum wage rate and for
failing to pay overtime compensation.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as tipped employees. The
Plaintiff Primo from in or around March 2011 through August 2017,
the Plaintiff Wong from in or around June 2016 through October
2017, the Plaintiff Sherpa from in or around July 2017 through
September 2017, and the Plaintiff Carrasco from in or around
July 2007 through August 25, 2017.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in New York. The
Defendants are part of a single integrated enterprise that has
jointly employed the Plaintiffs. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 300-0375


BLC LEXINGTON: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in Johnson Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Carrie Johnson filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled CARRIE JOHNSON v. BLC LEXINGTON SNF, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00064, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky at Lexington.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(assigned Case No. 18-CI-3625) was removed on February 21, 2019,
from the Fayette Circuit Court to the District Court and is
assigned to the Hon. Danny C. Reeves.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Carrie Johnson, Case No.
19-506, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner CARRIE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Laraclay Drake Parker, Esq.
          GOLDEN LAW OFFICE
          771 Corporate Drive, Suite 750
          Lexington, KY 40503
          Telephone: (859) 469-5000
          Facsimile: (859) 469-5001
          E-mail: lparker@goldenlawoffice.com

Defendants-Respondents BLC LEXINGTON SNF, LLC, dba Brookdale
Richmond Place SNF (KY); ARC RICHMOND PLACE, INC., dba Brookdale
Richmond Place PCH (KY) dba Brookdale Lexington IL/AL/MC (KY) dba
Brookdale Home Health; AMERICAN RETIREMENT CORPORATION; BROOKDALE
SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC.; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC.; ANN
PHILLIPS, in her capacity as Executive Director and Administrator
of Brookdale Richmond Place; EMERITUS CORPORATION; PARK PLACE
INVESTMENTS, LLC; BKD PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES, LLC; HORIZON
BAY MANAGEMENT, LLC; EMERICARE, INC.; BKD RICHMOND PLACE PROPCO,
LLC; BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE SERVICES - CORPORATE LLC; BROOKDALE
EMPLOYEE SERVICES, LLC; BKD TWENTY ONE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.;
and BENITA DICKENSON, in her capacity as Managing Employee of
Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF, are represented by:

          J. Peter Cassidy, III, Esq.
          Matthew Coleman Cocanougher, Esq.
          Donald Lee Miller, II, Esq.
          QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.
          2452 Sir Barton Way, Suite 300
          Lexington, KY 40509
          Telephone: (859) 226-0057
          E-mail: pcassidy@qpwblaw.com
                  mcocanougher@qpwblaw.com
                  dmiller@qpwblaw.com

Defendants-Respondents BRE KNIGHT SH KY OWNER, LLC; ARC THERAPY
SERVICES, LLC; BROOKDALE ASSOCIATE FUND, INC.; LUCINDA BAIER, in
her capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants; CHAD C.
WHITE, in his capacity as Owner of and Manager of various
defendants; MARY SUE PATCHETT, in her capacity as Owner of and
Manager of various defendants; JOANNE LESKOWICZ, in her capacity as
Owner of and Manager of various defendants; GEORGE T. HICKS, in his
capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants; LABEED
DIAB, in his capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF;
GERALDINE GORDON-KRUPP, in her capacity as Owner of Brookdale
Richmond Place, SNF; BRYAN RICHARDSON, in his capacity as Owner of
Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF; and THOMAS SMITH, in his capacity as
Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF, are represented by:

          Matthew Coleman Cocanougher, Esq.
          QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER, P.A.
          2452 Sir Barton Way, Suite 300
          Lexington, KY 40509
          Telephone: (859) 226-0057
          E-mail: mcocanougher@qpwblaw.com


BNSF RAILWAY: Macias Sues for Property Damage Due to Flood
----------------------------------------------------------
LETICIA MACIAS, ELIZABETH MAGANA ZAMORA, SAN JUANITA SCHNEIDER,
ASHLEY NEGRETE, and JUAN CARLOS VASQUEZ, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BNSF RAILWAY
COMPANY, MILES LEASING LLC, UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY
AND KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, TERMINAL CONSOLIDATION COMPANY, AMINO
BROS. CO., LLC, and JANE/JOHN DOE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02305-CM-GEB (D. Kan., June 13, 2019)
is a class action against Defendants due to their conduct,
contributing to the flooding during the Summer of 2017 causing
material injury to Plaintiffs' property through trespass,
negligence, gross negligence, and nuisance

The Defendants own and/or operate and/or work on and/or near the
land at or about 42nd and Swartz, Kansas City, Kansas 66106. On
recurrent and intermittent occasions, Plaintiffs' property
including Plaintiffs' neighborhoods, residences and yards have been
invaded by flood waters. The flood waters which entered Plaintiffs'
property was a result, inter alia, of a clogged drainage creek
located about 1/4 of a mile west of the Plaintiff's property,
running east and west along Swartz Road. Plaintiffs' believe debris
caused by Defendants clogged the drainage creek, diverting waters
from heavy rain onto their properties and into their homes. In the
past year alone, Defendant's actions have been the subject of
and/or engaged in substantial clean-up and rehabilitation of the
residential area and/or nearby the Plaintiffs' properties that
could have been undertaken well before this time period.

The flooding experienced by area residents constitute an unfit
living condition that no reasonable person should be expected to
endure. Among the problems and issues that Plaintiffs have been
forced to deal with is the persistent problems stemming from water
damage to their homes. This includes but is not limited to the loss
of use and enjoyment of their property. The invasion of Plaintiffs'
property by flood waters has caused Plaintiffs to suffer injuries
including but not limited to property damage and exposure to
contaminated water, says the complaint. The Defendants
intentionally, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, maliciously,
grossly and negligently failed to construct, maintain and/or
operate their business and/or property without causing build up in
the drainage creek, and caused the invasion of Plaintiffs' property
by flood waters on intermittent and reoccurring dates, the
complaint adds.

Plaintiffs were owners and/or residents and are owners and/or
residents of, in possession of and residing on certain tracts of
land located in the Argentine Neighborhood of Kansas City, Kansas.

BNSF Railway Company has operated and maintained and continues to
operate and maintain a rail yard which lies directly north of the
Plaintiffs' properties.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gerald Lee Cross, Jr., Esq.
     CROSS LAW FIRM, LLC
     8000 Foster Street
     Overland Park, KS 66204
     Office Phone: (913) 236-5297
     Fax: (913) 904-1650
     Email: lcross@cross-lawfirm.com


BOOT BARN: Pays Settlement in Calif. Employees Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Boot Barn Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended March 30, 2019, that the company has made
payments on the settlement amount reached in the California
employees class action suit.

On April 28, 2016, two employees, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated employees, filed a wage-and-hour class
action, which includes claims for penalties under California's
Private Attorney General Act, in the Fresno County Superior Court,
Case No. 16 CE CG 01330, alleging violations of California's wage
and hour, overtime, meal break and statement of wages rules and
regulations, among other things.  

On April 10, 2017, the Company reached a settlement with the
employees for an amount that is not material to the consolidated
financial statements.

The amount of the settlement was previously accrued until payment
was made to the employees in August 2018.

Boot Barn Holdings, Inc., a lifestyle retail chain, operates
specialty retail stores in the United States. The company's
specialty retail stores offer western and work-related footwear,
apparel, and accessories for men, women, and kids. The company was
formerly known as WW Top Investment Corporation and changed its
name to Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. in June 2014. Boot Barn Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1978 and is based in Irvine, California.


BP WEST: California Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Bartlett Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD BARTLETT et al., Plaintiffs, v. BP WEST COAST
PRODUCTS LLC; et al., Defendants, Lead Case No. 18-cv-01374-L-AGS,
Consolidated with Case No. 18cv1377 (S.D. Cal.), Judge M. James
Lorenz of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (i) granted the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss,
with leave to amend; and (ii) denied without prejudice the motions
to dismiss filed by BP and Alon USA Energy, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased gasoline in California
processed by one or more Defendant gasoline refineries: BP, Chevron
U.S.A. Inc., Tesoro Refining & Marketing Co., LLC, Equilon
Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Shell Oil Products US, Exxon
Mobil Corp., Valero Marketing and Supply Co., Phillips 66, and
Alon.  They allege that the Defendants conspired to manipulate the
gasoline market in California and caused historically high retail
prices in 2012 and 2015.  In their operative consolidated
complaint, they allege violations of the Cartwright Act, and the
Unfair Competition Law.

The Court incorporates by reference the background and discussion
in the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Persian Gulf, Inc. v. BP
West Coast Products LLC et al., case no. 15cv1749-L-AGS, because
the named Defendants, factual allegations and legal claims asserted
in the action are nearly identical.

Pending before the Court are three motions to dismiss for failure
to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).  The Defendants jointly move
to dismiss the action as time barred insofar as it seeks damages
prior to June 21, 2014.  In addition, BP separately moves to
dismiss the remainder of the claims asserted against it based on
the sale of its Carson, California refinery in 2013 and
insufficiency of factual allegations.  Finally, Alon separately
moves to dismiss the action for insufficient factual allegations.
The Plaintiffs opposed all motions.

As alleged, the wrongdoing prior to June 21, 2014, including the
2012 price spikes, meets neither the rule nor the equitable purpose
of the continuing violation doctrine.  Judge Lorenz therefore
rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that the continuing violation
doctrine applies to render the entire complaint timely.

The Plaintiffs have also not alleged when and how they discovered
the Defendants' alleged wrongdoing or any of the circumstances
surrounding their discovery.  They have not attempted to explain
why it took them years longer than the plaintiffs in Persian Gulf
to discover the same facts.  The Plaintiffs have therefore not
alleged tolling of the statute of limitations.  The Defendants'
motion to dismiss is granted insofar as the complaint seeks
recovery for damages prior to June 21, 2014.

Because it may be possible for the Plaintiffs to allege tolling
under the fraudulent concealment doctrine, the Judge will grant
leave to amend.
Finally, based on its sale of the Carson, California refinery in
June 2013, BP argues that all claims asserted against it should be
dismissed because the pre-sale claims are barred by the statute of
limitations and because the Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient
facts to state a claim based on BP's conduct after the sale.
Similarly, Alon argues that the Plaintiffs do not allege sufficient
facts to state a claim against Alon, particularly if its pre-June
21, 2014 conduct is disregarded.  

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' recovery for alleged conduct
before June 21, 2014 is subject to leave to amend.  With regard to
the post-June 21, 2014 time period, BP does not dispute that it
continued to operate its refinery at Cherry Point in Washington,
which accounts for approximately 20% of California's state-wide
capacity.  To the extent BP's and Alon's motions are based on the
insufficiency of factual allegations, they are denied for the
reasons stated in the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss in Persian
Gulf.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Lorenz granted with leave to amend
the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss.  He denied without
prejudice the Motions filed by BP and Alon.

If the Plaintiffs choose to file an amended complaint, they must do
so no later than June 10, 2019.  The Defendants' responses, if any,
will be filed no later than the time set forth in Rule 15(a)(3).
Should the Plaintiffs forego further amendment, the Defendants will
file their responses, if any, no later than June 24, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/IMtwmG from Leagle.com.

Richard Bartlett, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Kristine Snyder, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Joshua Ebright, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, Paul Lee, On Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated & David Rinaldi, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Brian J. Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com --
Robbins Arroyo LLP, George C. Aguilar -- gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
-- Robbins Arroyo LLP, Eric M. Carrino, Robbins Arroyo LLP & Jenny
L. Dixon, Robbins Arroyo LLP.

BP West Coast Products LLC, Defendant, represented by Diane Lee
McGimsey -- mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP,
Michael P. Murtagh -- murtaghm@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, Robert Andrew Sacks -- sacksr@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, Jackson Samuel Trugman, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP &
Robert M.W. Smith -- smithrob@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP.

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, represented by Cynthia E. Richman,
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Glen Swanson,
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Jagannathan P. Srinivasan, Gibson Dunn and
Crutcher, Samuel Grant Liversidge , Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Steven
Eugene Sletten, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher & Theodore Joseph
Boutrous, Jr., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC, Defendant, represented by
Cheryl L. O'Connor, Jones Day, David Craig Kiernan, Jones Day, Eric
Patrick Enson, Jones Day, Rasha Gerges Shields, c/o Jones Day &
Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Jones Day.

Equilon Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented by Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Brian Ming Hom, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius & Colin Charles West, Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Frederick
William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Hubert Kim, Wilson
Petty Kosmo and Turner, Katherine Marie McCray, Wilson Turner Kosmo
LLP & Robin Assaf Wofford, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP.

Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Defendant, represented by
Gerald E. Hawxhurst, Alexander Robert Safyan, Crone Hawxhurst LLP &
Kyle Foltyn-Smith, Crone Hawxhurst LLP.

Alon USA Energy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carl W. Hittinger,
Baker & Hostetler, pro hac vice, Jeanne-Michele Mariani, Baker
Hostetler, pro hac vice, Jeffry William Duffy, Baker & Hostetler,
pro hac vice, Michael R. Matthias, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Tyson
Herrold, Baker & Hostetler, pro hac vice.

Phillips 66, Defendant, represented by Christina Noelle Daniele,
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Joshua D. Lichtman, Norton Rose
Fulbright US LLP & Layne E. Kruse, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP,
pro hac vice.


BUDGET RENT A CAR: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Smith Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and all aggrieved employees v. BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM,
INC., AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., and DOES 1 to 10, Case No.
2:19-cv-04720 (C.D. Cal., May 30, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' alleged failure to properly pay the Plaintiff and other
employees, in violation of the California Labor Code and the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Budget Rent a Car System, Inc., is a corporation that is qualified
to do business in California.  Avis Budget Group, Inc. is a
corporation that is qualified to do business in California.  The
Plaintiff is unaware of the true names or capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Defendants provide car rental services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Rose, Esq.
          Emanuel Starr, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Road, #2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-mail: adam@frontierlawcenter.com
                  manny@frontierlawcenter.com

               - and -

          Sam Donabedian, Esq.
          DONABEDIAN LAW
          21550 Oxnard Street, 3rd Floor
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (213) 761-7268
          Facsimile: (213) 799-3000
          E-mail: sdonabedian@donabedianlaw.com


CANCER GENETICS: NJ Consolidated Securities Class Suit Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Cancer
Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

On April 5, 2018 and April 12, 2018, purported stockholders of the
Company filed nearly identical putative class action lawsuits in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, against the
Company, Panna L. Sharma, John A. Roberts, and Igor Gitelman,
captioned Ben Phetteplace v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al., No.
2:18-cv-05612 and Ruo Fen Zhang v. Cancer Genetics, Inc. et al.,
No. 2:18-06353, respectively.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 based on
allegedly false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
our business, operational, and financial results.

The lawsuits sought, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages in connection with purchases of the company's stock between
March 23, 2017 and April 2, 2018, as well as interest, attorneys'
fees, and costs.

On August 28, 2018, the Court consolidated the two actions in one
action captioned In re Cancer Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation
(the "Securities Litigation") and appointed shareholder Randy Clark
as the lead plaintiff.

On October 30, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding Edward Sitar as a defendant and seeking, among other things,
compensatory damages in connection with purchases of CGI stock
between March 10, 2016 and April 2, 2018.

On December 31, 2018, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

Cancer Genetics said, "The Company is unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of the Securities Litigation and therefore cannot
estimate possible losses or ranges of losses, if any."

Cancer Genetics, Inc. develops, commercializes, and provides
molecular and biomarker-based tests and services in the United
States, Europe, and Asia. Cancer Genetics, Inc. was founded in 1999
and is based in Rutherford, New Jersey.


CEMIG: Class Action Suits Against Cemig GT 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
class action suits against Cemig GT, is ongoing.

The Public Attorneys of Minas Gerais State, together with an
association and individuals, have brought class actions requiring
CEMIG Geracao e Transmissao S.A. (Cemig GT) to invest, since 1997,
at least 0.5% of the annual gross operating revenue of the
Emborcaçao, Pissarrao, Funil, Volta Grande, Poquim, Paraúna,
Miranda, Nova Ponte, Rio de Pedras and Peti plants in environmental
protection and preservation of the water tables of the counties
where these power plants are located, and proportional indemnity
for allegedly irrecoverable environmental damage caused, arising
from omission to comply with Minas Gerais State Law 12,503/1997.

Cemig GT has filed appeals to the Higher Appeal Court (STJ) and the
Federal Supreme Court (STF).

CEMIG said, "Based on the opinions of its legal advisers, Cemig GT
believes that this is a matter involving legislation at
infra-constitutional level (there is a Federal Law with an
analogous object) and thus a constitutional matter, on the issue of
whether the state law is constitutional or not, so that the final
decision is one for the national Higher Appeal Court (STJ) and the
Federal Supreme Court (STF). No provision has been made, since
based on the opinion of its legal advisers management has
classified the chance of loss as ‘possible'. The amount of the
contingency is R$ 148 (R$ 127 at December 31, 2017)."

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: Class Suits over Electricity Supply Contracts 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
company and Cemig D continue to defend several class action suits
related to the nullity of the clause in the Electricity Supply
Contracts.

Cemig and CEMIG Distribuiçao S.A. (Cemig D) are defendants in
several public civil claims (class actions) requesting nullity of
the clause in the Electricity Supply Contracts for public
illumination signed between the Company and the various
municipalities of its concession area, and restitution by the
Company of the difference representing the amounts charged in the
last 20 years, in the event that the courts recognize that these
amounts were unduly charged.

The actions are grounded on a supposed error by Cemig in the
estimation of the period of time that was used in calculation of
the consumption of energy for public illumination, funded by the
Public Lighting Contribution (Contribuiçao para Iluminação
Pública, or CIP).

The Company and its subsidiary believes it has arguments of merit
for defense in these claims, since the charge at present made is
grounded on Aneel Normative Resolution 456/2000.

As a result it has not constituted a provision for this action, the
amount of which is estimated at R$ 975 (R$ 1,224 at December 31,
2017).

The Company has assessed the chances of loss in this action as
"possible", due to the Customer Defense Code (Código de Defesa do
Consumidor, or CDC) not being applicable, because the matter is
governed by the specific regulation of the electricity sector, and
because Cemig complied with Aneel Resolutions 414 and 456, which
deal with the subject.

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 over Capim Branco Hydroelectric Plant 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 against CEMIG Geracao e Transmissao S.A. (Cemig
GT) related to the formation of a Permanent Preservation Area (APP)
around the reservoir of the Capim Branco hydroelectric plant
remains pending.

The Public Attorneys' Office of Minas Gerais State has filed class
actions requiring the formation of a Permanent Preservation Area
(APP) around the reservoir of the Capim Branco hydroelectric plant,
suspension of the effects of the environmental licenses, and
recovery of alleged environmental damage.

CEMIG said, "Based on the opinion of its legal advisers in relation
to the changes that have been made in the new Forest Code and in
the case law on this subject, Cemig GT has classified the chance of
loss in this dispute as "possible". The estimated value of the
contingency is R$ 87 (R$ 79 at December 31, 2017)."

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.


CEMTREX INC: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in NY Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cemtrex, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in the
consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York are awaiting the court's final
approval of settlement.

Three securities class action complaints were filed against the
company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 24, 2017.

Under the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995, these three alleged class actions, as well as any
further related actions, were consolidated into a single lawsuit on
March 9, 2018.

A follow-on, related derivative complaint also was filed against us
and our executive officers and directors in New York State court on
April 10, 2017. That derivative action has been stayed by agreement
of the parties until after the motion to dismiss process in the
consolidated alleged class actions has run its course.

Pursuant to a stipulated District Court schedule, plaintiffs filed
an Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 7, 2018.

The company filed a motion to dismiss this class action with the
Court on July 6, 2018. On October 4, 2018, the Company reached a
settlement on the securities class action litigation through a
mediator for an amount of $625,000 and also reached a settlement on
Derivative action for an amount of $100,000. This settlement is
subject to a final court approval which will take several months.

Cemtrex said, "The settlement amounts shall be paid by the
Company's insurance carrier."

Cemtrex, Inc. primarily provides electronic manufacturing services.
The company operates through three segments: Advanced Technologies,
Electronics Manufacturing, and Industrial Technology. The company
was formerly known as Diversified American Holding, Inc. and
changed its name to Cemtrex, Inc. in December 2004. Cemtrex, Inc.
was incorporated in 1998 and is headquartered in Long Island City,
New York.


CENTERLINE SOLUTIONS: Dirocco Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit JOSEPH DIROCCO, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CENTERLINE SOLUTIONS LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
6:18-cv-01056-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying action as a collective action under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); and

   2. authorizing notice to the collective action class.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com

CJS SOLUTIONS: Vallone et al. Seek Minimum & OT Wages for Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE VALLONE and ERASMUS IKOGOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE CJS SOLUTIONS
GROUP, LLC, d/b/a THE HCI GROUP, the Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-01532 (D. Minn., June 10, 2019), alleges that Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated workers, as W-2 employees, did not
receive applicable minimum wages and/or overtime compensation for
all of their hours worked for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the Minnesota and New York state laws.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendant
during the applicable statute of limitations periods under the FLSA
and Minnesota and New York state laws. The Plaintiffs estimate that
the putative Classes will include over 1000 similarly situated
workers.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers were
compensated by Defendant on an hourly basis. The Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated workers were not paid on a salary basis.
They worked over 40 and/or 48 hours during the regular workweek
seven days per week, 12 hours per day.

Additionally, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers
were not compensated for out-of-town travel time, even when it took
place during normal business hours, including hours worked over 40
and/or 48 each week, the lawsuit says.

Defendant is a corporation providing information technology
educational services for the healthcare industry across the
country. HCI maintains its corporate headquarters in Jacksonville,
Florida and is incorporated in Florida. HCI provides staffing
services to customers throughout the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes are:

          T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
          Kelly A. Lelo, Esq.
          ARSON | KING, LLP
          30 East Seventh St., Suite 2800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          Facsimile: (651) 312-6618
          E-mail: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com
                  klelo@larsonking.com

CLIENT SERVICES: Court Certifies FDCPA Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JACQUELYN A. VANDEHEY, on her own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., a Missouri Corporation, and
JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case No. 18-C-1669 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Hon. William C. enterered an order on June 7, 2019, certifying a
class of:

   "all natural persons to whom Defendant mailed a written
   communication in the form of Exhibit A to an address in
   the State of Wisconsin on a charged-off Capital One
   credit card account during the Class Period which begins
   on October 19, 2017 and ends on November 9, 2018."

The Court said, "Plaintiff has fulfilled the requirements of Rule
23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion for class
certificationis granted. The Clerk is directed to schedule this
matter for further proceedings to address the form of notice to the
members of the class. It makes sense to hold that a defendant’s
net worth limitation on liability in an FDCPA action is an
affirmative defense on which the defendant has the burden of proof,
not only because such a limitation is a matter of avoidance, but
also because the defendant is in the best position to present
evidence of its own net worth. Absent proof of the defendant debt
collector's net worth, the $500,000 cap on class liability applies.
It thus follows that Plaintiff was not required to produce evidence
of net worth at this stage of the proceedings and instead the
burden of proof on this issue belongs to Defendant. Defendant cites
its response to Plaintiff's Rule 36 Requests to Admit, in which
Defendant denied that its net worth exceeded $100,000 as the only
evidence on its net worth. But the denial of an opposing party's
Request to Admit is not evidence. A set of Requests To Admit is
simply a procedural device for clarifying what is in dispute and
what is not; a denial means the party must prove the fact for which
an admission was sought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). Absent proof that
Defendant's net worth is such that an award to individual class
members of only pennies would result, I conclude based on the
evidence and Rule 23 considerations that a class action is superior
to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating
the controversy."

Jacquelyn A. Vandehey alleges Defendant Client Services, Inc.
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by sending
Plaintiff a debt collection letter that was materially false,
deceptive, and misleading to an unsophisticated consumer.[BN]

CLIENT SERVICES: Greene Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CLIENT SERVICES, INC.
The case is styled as GLORIA J GREENE, OBO HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED,, Plaintiff v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 620478/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., June 17, 2019).

The case type is stated as "E-FILED CONTRACT CASE".

Client Services Inc. offers collection services and provides
accounts receivable management, debt collection services, and
customer care solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

     LIPPES MATHIAS WEXLER FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
     50 FOUNTAIN PLAZA, STE 1700
     BUFFALO, NY 14202
     Phone: (716) 853-5100


COCA-COLA CO: Spaner Seeks to Stop Illegal Calls to Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN SPANER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE COCA-COLA CO., Case No. 1:19-cv-22210-CMA (S.D.
Fla., May 30, 2019), seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged practice
of placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to the
cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior
express written consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Coca-Cola Company is a corporation organized under the laws of
Delaware, with a principal place of business at One Coca-Cola
Plaza, in Atlanta, Georgia.

Coca-Cola is a beverage company that manufactures and distributes
various nonalcoholic beverages worldwide.  The Company provides
sparkling soft drinks; water, enhanced water, and sports drinks;
juice, dairy, and plant–based beverages; teas and coffees; and
energy drinks. It also offers concentrates, syrups, beverage bases,
source waters, and powders/minerals, as well as fountain syrups to
fountain retailers, such as restaurants and convenience
stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          2665 S. Bayshore Dr., Suite 220
          Miami, FL 33133-5402
          Telephone: (305) 330-5512
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on May 30, 2019, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against Community Health Systems, Inc.
(CYH). 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 February 20, 2017 through February 27, 2018.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/yym5d3b2

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Community
Health Systems, Inc. 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:

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


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Community Health Systems, Inc. (NYSE: CYH) from
February 20, 2017 through February 27, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Community Health
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Community Health class action, go
https://tinyurl.com/y2x9dpmz or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at
866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Community Health had understated its contractual
allowances; (2) Community Health had understated its provision for
bad debts; (3) Community Health had overstated its net operating
revenue; (4) Community Health had understated its net loss; and (5)
as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about
Community Health's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 29,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1588.html

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


CORECIVIC OF TN: Bid for Richards Deal Approval Filing Due July 15
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01094-LJO-JL, Consolidated Case
No. 1:16-cv-01891 DAD JLT (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L.
Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California continued the deadline for the Plaintiff to file his
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement to July 15, 2019.

On Nov. 30, 2018, the parties to the matter and the matter entitled
Jose Gonzalez vs. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, Case No
1:16-cv-01891-DAD-JLT, agreed to a settlement of both cases on
terms different from those that the Court previously refused to
accept.  On May 8, 2019, the parties to the Gonzalez matter filed a
document entitled "Stipulation to Continue the Filing Date of
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement from May 13, 2019 to June 14, 2019 and Proposed
Order."

On May 10, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting the request by
the parties to the Gonzalez matter to continue the deadline for the
Plaintiff to file his unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement and extended the deadline to July 15,
2019.

For the identical reasons set forth in the May 8, 2019 Stipulation
in the Gonzalez matter, the parties to the instant matter agreed,
and Magistrate Judge Thurston granted, that it is in each of their
best interest to continue the deadline for the Plaintiff to file
his motion for preliminary approval to July 15, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/vPMky6 from Leagle.com.

Thomas Richards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.,
Adrian R. Bacon, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. & Thomas
Edward Wheeler, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman.

CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, formerly known as CCA OF TENNESSEE,
LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul M. Gleason --
pgleason@gleasonfavarote.com -- Gleason and Favarote LLP.


CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Slinger Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonia Slinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Credit Control, LLC d/b/a Credit Control & Collections,
LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-03233 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2019), seeks to
recover damages from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Credit Control, LLC, doing business as Credit Control &
Collections, LLC, is a Missouri Limited Liability Company with a
principal place of business in Saint Louis County, Missouri.

Credit Control regularly collects or attempts to collect debts
asserted to be owed to others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com


DIAMOND NAILS: Arneaud Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Brandon Arneaud, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Diamond Nails LV, LLC, Case No. 19cv60909 (S.D. Fla.,
April 7, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant violated the TCPA by sending marketing text messages
providing different types of offers and savings for future
purchases without first obtaining express written consent, say the
complaint. This caused the invasion of privacy, aggravation,
annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion to the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff was a resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant owns and operates nail salons in Las Vegas, Nevada.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC.
      110 SE 6th Street
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 907-1136
      Fax: (855) 529-9540
      E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


EGALET CORP: Appeal in Pennsylvania Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Egalet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the appeal from a
district court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania remains pending.

On January 27, 2017 and February 10, 2017, respectively, two
putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that named as
defendants Egalet Corporation and its current officer Robert S.
Radie and former officers Stanley J. Musial and Jeffrey M. Dayno
(the "Officer Defendants" and together with Egalet Corporation, the
"Defendants").

These two complaints, captioned Mineff v. Egalet Corp. et al., No.
2:17-cv-00390-MMB and Klein v. Egalet Corp. et al., No.
2:17-cv-00617-MMB, assert securities fraud claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Egalet Corporation securities
between December 15, 2015 and January 9, 2017 and seek damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and other expenses.  

On May 1, 2017, the Court entered an order consolidating the two
cases (the "Securities Class Action Litigation") before it,
appointing the Egalet Investor Group (consisting of Joseph
Spizzirri, Abdul Rahiman and Kyle Kobold) as lead plaintiff and
approving their selection of lead and liaison counsel.  

On July 3, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
complaint, which named the same Defendants and also asserted claims
for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  

Plaintiffs brought their claims individually and on behalf of a
putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Egalet between November 4, 2015 and January 9, 2017
inclusive.  

The consolidated amended complaint based its claims on allegedly
false and/or misleading statements and/or failures to disclose
information about the likelihood that ARYMO ER would be approved
for intranasal abuse-deterrent labeling.  

The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on September 1, 2017 (the "Motion to Dismiss"), the plaintiffs
filed their opposition on October 31, 2017, and the Defendants
filed their reply on December 8, 2017.  

The Court heard oral arguments on the Motion to Dismiss on February
20, 2018 and entered an order pursuant to which the plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on
March 6, 2018. The Defendants responded on March 20, 2018 and the
plaintiffs filed their reply on March 27, 2018. The Court heard
oral arguments on the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint on July 12, 2018.

On August 2, 2018, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the Securities Class Action Litigation with
prejudice.  

On August 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal with
the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit.  

On November 7, 2018, the Defendants filed a notice of suggestion of
bankruptcy and unopposed motion to stay the appeal as to the
Officer Defendants (the appeal was automatically stayed as to the
Company upon the Chapter 11 filing).  

On February 6, 2019, the Officer Defendants filed a Notice of
Lifting of Automatic Stay of Proceedings and Discharge of
Subordinated Claims, as plaintiffs' claim against the company was
extinguished as part of the bankruptcy, which restarted the
appellate process.  

On April 22, 2019, plaintiffs filed their brief with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.  

The Company disputes the allegations in the lawsuit and intend to
defend these actions vigorously.  

Egalet said, "The Company cannot determine the likelihood of, nor
can it reasonably estimate the range of, any potential loss, if
any, from these lawsuits."

Egalet Corporation, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and commercializes treatments for patients with pain
and other conditions. Egalet Corporation was founded in 2010 and is
headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Davis Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the class
action suit initiated by Michael Davis..

On July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, alleging that
certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of certain
retired NFL players without their permission.

The parties reached a settlement in this matter in March 2019 that
was not material to the Company's financial results and on May 7,
2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed the case.

Electronic Arts Inc. develops, markets, publishes, and distributes
games, content, and services for game consoles, PCs, mobile phones,
and tablets worldwide. Electronic Arts Inc. was founded in 1982 and
is headquartered in Redwood City, California.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Valerio Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company LLC. The case is styled as Maria Valerio individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Enhanced
Recovery Company LLC doing business as: ERC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03544 (E.D. N.Y, June 17, 2019).

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

Enhanced Recovery Company LLC provides business process outsourcing
services that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily for Fortune 500 companies in the United States and
internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Barshay, Esq.
     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
            dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


EQUITY BANCSHARES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Equity Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ:
EQBK) from May 11, 2018 through April 22, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period") of the important July 12, 2019 lead plaintiff
deadline in the case. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Equity Bancshares investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Equity Bancshares class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1572.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July
12, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1572

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


EXXIZZ FOODS: Denial of Treadway Conditional Certification Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SOPHY TREADWAY, Plaintiff, v. SOPHEAK OTERO, et al,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-259 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Nelva
Gonzales Ramos of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas affirmed Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby's Order Denying
Conditional Certification of Collective Action issued on April 9,
2019.

On April 19, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her objections, seeking the
Court's review of the Order and the Defendant has responded.  The
Plaintiff raises two objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order:
(1) it strays into inapplicable merits-based decisions; and (2) it
improperly considers the counsel's conduct.

Judge Libby disagrees.  First, the Plaintiff objects that the Order
makes improper merits-based determinations when it considers her
family ties and the accusation of theft against her.  She argues
that these issues should not be considered when determining whether
she is similarly situated to other putative class members, citing
Jaso v. Bulldog Connection Specialists LLC, No. 2:15-cv-269 (S.D.
Tex. October 15, 2015).  The Judge finds that no such merits-based
decision has been made and the legal principles set forth in Jaso
and other authorities cited for the same purpose are not violated
by the Magistrate Judge's decision.  

Second, the Plaintiff complains that her counsel's neglectful
conduct has been, and should be, addressed in proceedings separate
and apart from the certification of a collective action and that it
bears no influence on the certification issue.  The Judge finds
that the Plaintiff offers no briefing to support this objection but
rather suggests that it should be addressed in another appropriate
forum.  Whether or not this issue is considered, the bottom line
remains that the Plaintiff failed to meet her lenient burden on the
initial notice stage of the Lusardi test for conditional
certification.  For that reason, the Order is not clearly erroneous
or contrary to law.

For the reasons set out, Judge Libby affirmed the Order Denying
Conditional Certification of Collective Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/v0JkGb from Leagle.com.

Sophy Treadway, And all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b), Plaintiff, represented by Gordon Russell Wittick, Siegel
Yuen Honore PLLC, pro hac vice, Xenos Man-Wah Yuen --
litxy@yuenlawoffice.com -- Seigel Yuen Honore PLLC & Byron A.
Hamilton, Jr. -- litbh@yuenlawoffice.com -- Siegel Yuen Honore
PLLC.

Sopheak Otero & MATTHEW OTERO, Defendants, represented by Andrea
Marie Johnson -- ajohnson@krcl.com -- Kane Russell Coleman & Logan
PC.

Exxizz Foods, Inc., doing business as Rockport Donuts, Defendant,
represented by Andrea Marie Johnson, Kane Russell Coleman & Logan
PC & Demetri Economou -- deconomou@krcl.com -- Kane Russell Coleman
Logan PC.


FCA US: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Tomassini Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New Yor denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case, ROBERT TOMASSINI, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:14-cv-1226 (MAD/DEP) (N.D. N.Y.).

On Sept. 8, 2014, Plaintiff Tomassini commenced the putative class
action in state court, and the Defendant removed to the Northern
District of New York on Oct. 8, 2014.  On Aug. 6, 2018, the Court
denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and denied
its evidentiary motion as moot.  The Court denied the Defendant's
motion for reconsideration on Dec. 12, 2018, and in that
Memorandum-Decision and Order granted Plaintiff Hromowyk's motion
to intervene.  The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on Jan.
9, 2019, and the Defendant moved to dismiss on Feb. 13, 2019,
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff Hromowyk is an original purchaser and current owner of a
2010 Dodge Caravan.  He experienced failure of the valve stems at
issue in th litigation in August 2015 and February 2017.  Plaintiff
Hromowyk filed his claims in the related (and now member to the
case) Spratley matter in March 2017.  He argues that he could not
have learned of the defect at the time of purchase because of the
Defendant's lack of disclosure.

As the sole grounds for dismissal, the Defendant argues that
Hromowyk's claims are time barred.  Plaintiff Hromowyk argues that
the statute of limitations should be tolled with respect to his
claims and that his claims relate back to the original filing of
the action by Plaintiff Tomassini.

Hromowyk's claims relate back to Plaintiff Tomassini's original
complaint filed in 2014.  In particular, Plaintiff Hromowyk argues
that his claims relate back to the initial complaint because they
arise out of the same nucleus of operative facts and are based upon
identical transactions and occurrences as Tomassini's, namely, a
purchase of a class vehicle during the time period and the
subsequent costs of TPMS valve stem replacement arising from the
same vehicle defects.  As a result, Plaintiff Hromowyk asserts, his
interest to recover for the Defendant's fraudulent business
practices are similar, if not identical, with the claims of
Plaintiff Tomassini and the class he proposed to represent, and
that the Defendant was on notice of claims for defective TPMS valve
stems and nuts.

Judge D'Agostino finds that Hromowyk's claims relate back to the
original complaint and are not time barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.  She is likewise convinced that the same
allegations support tolling of the statute of limitations.  Unlike
the cases the Defendant cites, there are indeed further allegations
of continued concealment after the alleged injury -- the purchase
at an inflated price -- occurred.  This later affirmative
concealment operates to toll the statute of limitations.

The Defendant suggests that Hromowyk impermissibly asserts a claim
of post-sale conduct based on the same, prior, at time-of-sale
omission about valve stem corrosion.  The Judge holds that the
Court already addressed this causation issue in a previous
Memorandum-Decision and Order and will not unnecessarily revisit
the issue.  The Court's previous Memorandum-Decision and Orders
stand for exactly what they say: the Plaintiff has alleged two
theories of causation for the injuries asserted based on pre- and
post-sale conduct -- not two distinct claims as the Plaintiffs
suggest in their papers on the motion.

Upon careful review of the entire record in the matter, the
parties' submissions and the applicable law, and for the reasons
stated herein, Judge D'Agostino denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss.  The Clerk of the Court will serve a copy of the
Memorandum-Decision and Order in accordance with the Local Rules.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2TAZVB from Leagle.com.

Robert Tomassini, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Calvert --
dcalvert@yourlawyer.com -- Parker Waichman LLP, pro hac vice, Elmer
R. Keach, III, Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, P.C., Jason
S. Rathod -- jrathod@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, pro
hac vice, Jennifer S. Goldstein -- jgoldstein@wbmllp.com --
Whitfield Bryson & Mason, LLP, pro hac vice, Jordan L. Chaikin,
Parker, Waichman Law Firm, pro hac vice, Gary S. Graifman --
ggraifman@kgglaw.com -- Goldhammer & Graifman, P.C., Gary E. Mason
-- gmason@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson Law Firm, Jay I. Brody --
jbrody@kgglaw.com -- Kantrowitz, Goldhammer & Graifman, P.C. &
Nicholas A. Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com -- Migliaccio
& Rathod LLP.

Thomas Hromowyk, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C.
Calvert, Parker Waichman LLP, pro hac vice, Elmer R. Keach, III,
Law Offices of Elmer Robert Keach, III, P.C., Gary S. Graifman,
Kantrowitz, Goldhammer & Graifman, P.C., Gary E. Mason, Whitfield,
Bryson Law Firm, Jason S. Rathod, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP, pro hac
vice, Jay I. Brody, Kantrowitz, Goldhammer & Graifman, P.C. &
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Migliaccio & Rathod LLP.

David R Homer, Mediator, pro se.

FCA US LLC, formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC, Defendant,
represented by Alan J. Pope, Pope, Schrader & Pope, LLP, Kathy A.
Wisniewski -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson, Coburn
Law Firm, pro hac vice, Sharon B. Rosenberg, Thompson, Coburn LLP,
pro hac vice & Stephen A. D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com --
Thompson, Coburn Law Firm, pro hac vice.


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Perdomo Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Doraliza Perdomo individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03546 (E.D.
N.Y., June 17, 2019).

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

Firstsource Advantage, LLC offers collections and recovery
solutions. It provides debt recovery services for credit card
issuers, retail banking and mortgage.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Barshay, Esq.
     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
            dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


FLEX LTD: Case Management Conference Set for July 17
----------------------------------------------------
Flex Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended  March 31, 2019, that a California court has set a case
management conference in a class action lawsuit for July 17, 2019.


On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder,
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
financial results, press releases and SEC filings made during the
putative class period of January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018.

On October 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the case. On November 28, 2018, lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging misstatements and/or
omissions in certain of the Company's SEC filings, press releases,
earnings calls, and analyst and investor conferences and expanding
the putative class period through October 25, 2018.

On April 3, 2019, the Court vacated its prior order appointing lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel and reopened the lead
plaintiff appointment process. Motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff are due June 4, 2019.

Defendants' deadline to move to dismiss is vacated until after the
lead plaintiff appointment process is complete and an operative
complaint is designated. In addition, the Court has set a case
management conference for July 17, 2019.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend this case.

Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply
chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers
worldwide. It operates through High Reliability Solutions,
Industrial and Emerging Industries, Communications & Enterprise
Compute, and Consumer Technologies Group segments. The company was
formerly known as Flextronics International Ltd. and changed its
name to Flex Ltd. in September 2016. Flex Ltd. was founded in 1990
and is based in Singapore.


FLOOR & DECOR: RM LAW Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Floor & Decor
Holdings, Inc. ("Floor & Decor" or the "Company") (FND) between May
23, 2018 and August 1, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Floor & Decor shareholders may, no later than July 19, 2019, move
the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Floor & Decor and would like to learn more
about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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, prior to the May 24, 2018 Secondary Offering,
the Company had begun to experience declining sales trends; (2)
that, as a result, the Company was likely to reduce its fiscal 2018
sales and adjusted EPS guidance, which had been increased as
recently as May 2018; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On August 2, 2018, the Company reported lower-than-expected revenue
for second quarter 2018 and reduced its sales and earnings per
share guidance for fiscal year 2018, citing sales shift to lower
margin products such as laminate flooring.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.18, nearly 17%, to
close at $39.53 per share on August 2, 2018, thereby injuring
investors.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than July 19,
2019, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that
the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this please contact:

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         RM LAW, P.C.
         1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
         Berwyn, PA 19312
         Phone: 484-324-6800
                    844-291-9299
         Email: rm@maniskas.com
                info@rmlawpc.com [GN]


FORSTER & GARBUS: Green Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Harold Green individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03550 (E.D. N.Y., June 17, 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:

     David M. Barshay, Esq.
     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
            dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


FUTURE ENERGY: Smith Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Future Energy
Corporation. The case is styled as Carl Smith on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Future Energy Corporation, Adkins,
Jeffrey, Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00258565-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., June 14, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment".

Future Energy Corporation is an energy company, developing advanced
energy solutions and renewable energy infrastructure.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Zachary Crosner, Esq.


GOHEALTH LLC: Blackbourn Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
April Blackbourn, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GoHealth, LLC, Brandon Cruz, Medical
Guardian, LLC, and Geoff Gross, Case No. 8:19-cv-00144 (D. Nebr.,
April 04, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants placed unauthorized calls that
play prerecorded voice messages to the cellular telephones of
consumers nationwide without obtaining any consent.

The Plaintiff is a natural person and is a citizen of the District
of Nebraska and one of the many recipients of the Defendant's
prerecorded voice messages.

The Defendant Go Health sells medical braces and the Defendant
Guardian sells health insurance. As a primary part of their
marketing efforts, Defendants and their agents placed automated
calls employing a prerecorded voice message to consumers' cell
phones nationwide. Geoff Gross is the CEO of Guardian and Brandon
Cruz is the CEO of Go Health. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
      MARK L. JAVITCH, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      210 S Ellsworth Ave #486
      San Mateo, CA 94401
      Tel: (402) 301-5544
      Fax: (402) 396-7131


GOOGLE LLC: Cabrera Appeals Ruling in Woods Suit to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rene Cabrera filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Woods, et al. v. Google LLC, Case No.
5:11-cv-01263-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Edward
J. Davila granted Google's motion to dismiss as to Rene Cabrera's
claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint, and denied in all other
respects.

Co-plaintiff Rick Woods filed his initial complaint in March 2011
alleging that Google bilked him and other advertisers into
overpaying for advertising services through Google's AdWords
program and pricing scheme.  After several rounds of pleadings,
Woods' allegations were pared down to the following.  First, Woods
states a plausible claim for breach of contract based upon Google's
alleged failure to Smart Price clicks on the Display Network.  The
court found that the "measurements clause" of the AdWords Agreement
could be reasonably interpreted as requiring Google to base its
charges for Display Network clicks at least in part on the Smart
Pricing formula.  Second, Woods states a plausible claim for
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") to the
extent his claim is based upon location targeting.

The appellate case is captioned as Rene Cabrera, et al. v. Google
LLC, Case No. 19-16120, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 1, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on July 29, 2019;

   -- Appellant Rene Cabrera's opening brief is due on
      September 9, 2019;

   -- Appellee Google LLC's answering brief is due on October 9,
      2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant RENE CABRERA is represented by:

          Jeffrey John Angelovich, Esq.
          NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
          3600 N Capital of Texas Hwy., Bldg. B, Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          E-mail: jangelovich@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory P.N. Joseph, Esq.
          Courtney Solomon, Esq.
          JOSEPH HAGE AARONSON LLC
          485 Lexington Avenue, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 407-1210
          Facsimile: (212) 407-1280
          E-mail: gjoseph@jha.com
                  csolomon@jha.com

               - and -

          Stacey Kaplan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          E-mail: skaplan@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com

Defendant-Appellee GOOGLE LLC is represented by:

          Eric Butler Evans, Esq.
          Donald Manwell Falk, Esq.
          Edward D. Johnson, Esq.
          Zaneta J. Kim, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          3000 El Camino Real
          Two Palo Alto Square
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 331-2063
          E-mail: tevans@mayerbrown.com
                  dfalk@mayerbrown.com
                  wjohnson@mayerbrown.com
                  zkim@mayerbrown.com


GOTHAM HALL LLC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gotham Hall, LLC. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Gotham Hall, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05644 (S.D. N.Y., June 17, 2019).

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

Gotham Hall is an iconic Midtown event space located in a landmark
building that once housed Greenwich Savings Bank. Gotham Hall
features a 9,000 square-foot Ballroom with 70-foot ceiling and an
ornate stained-glass skylight.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Reid Questions Sale of Herbal Cigarettes
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE REID, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GREENLANE HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 9:19-cv-80711-RLR (S.D. Fla., May 30, 2019), alleges that
Greenlane breached the warranty implied in the contract for the
sale of Ecstacy herbal cigarettes because it could not pass without
objection in the trade under the contract description.

Greenlane is a very fast growing company that recently brought in
$102MM in an initial public offering and is now trading on the
NASDAQ.  With a current valuation of over $2B, the company operates
primarily in the marijuana industry selling various paraphernalia
products (including vaporizers, grinders, rolling papers, etc.)
through a multitude of brands and registered Web sites with names
like Puffco, Dr. Dabber, Kandy Pens, Marley Natural, Puffingtons,
Raw, Cloudicious 9, Magical Butter, and other catchy names.  In
addition to the paraphernalia products, Greenlane owns a
company/brand called Ecstacy Cigarettes ("Ecstacy") which is one of
a handful of herbal cigarette lines being sold in the United
States.

Greenlane is a for profit corporation, organized and existing under
the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of
business located in Boca Raton, Florida.

Ms. Reid contends that the goods were not of fair average quality
within the description, and the goods were unfit for their intended
and ordinary purpose because they were toxic and known to cause
serious injuries and death.  She asserts that Greenlane, as
marketer, distributor, and/or seller of the Offending Products,
impliedly warranted that the Offending Products were reasonably
safe for their intended purpose.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James P. Gitkin, Esq.
          SALPETER GITKIN, LLP
          One East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 467-8622
          Facsimile: (954) 467-8623
          E-mail: jim@salpetergitkin.com


GTX INC: Continues to Defend Oncternal-Merger Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GTx, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filed on May 24, 2019, that the company
continues to defend the Oncternal-merger related class action
suits.

On May 8, 2019, GTx, Inc. ("GTx") filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a proxy
statement/prospectus/information statement (the "Joint Proxy
Statement") relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger and
Reorganization, dated March 6, 2019, as amended by Amendment No. 1
to Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization dated April 30,
2019 (together, the "Merger Agreement"), by and among GTx, Grizzly
Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of GTx, and Oncternal
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Oncternal") pursuant to which a wholly-owned
subsidiary of GTx will merge with and into Oncternal, with
Oncternal surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of GTx (the
"Merger").

Between April 10, 2019 and May 7, 2019, six purported stockholder
class action lawsuits (the "Lawsuits") were filed, naming as
defendants GTx and GTx's board of directors.

Collectively, these lawsuits allege, among other things, violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder, in connection with GTx's filing of the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 of which the Joint Proxy Statement is a part
with the SEC.

As relief, the Lawsuits each separately seek an order, among other
things, enjoining the defendants from closing the proposed
transaction or taking any steps to consummate the Merger and/or
awarding rescissory damages.

The defendants specifically deny all allegations in the Lawsuits,
including that any additional disclosure was or is required and
intend to defend the Lawsuits vigorously.

However, GTx wishes to make the following supplemental disclosures
relating to the Merger.

Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an
admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable
laws of any of the Supplemental Disclosures set forth herein.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://urlzs.com/4YnTt

GTx, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, engages in the discovery,
development, and commercialization of medicines for the treatment
of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and prostate cancer. GTx, Inc.
was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee.


GUARANTEED RATE: Malec Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MALEC, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. GUARANTEED RATE, INC. and JOSEPH PHELAN,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03966 (N.D. Ill., June
13, 2019) is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law to recover unpaid earned overtime
compensation and for other relief.

The complaint relates that the Defendants did not pay Named
Plaintiff and other Loan Officers time-and-a-half their regular
rates of pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours each week. The
Defendants' failure to pay earned overtime wages was not in good
faith, was willful, and done with reckless disregard for the rights
of Named Plaintiff and other Loan Officers. As a result, Named
Plaintiff and other Loan Officers have suffered damages, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Malec was employed by Defendants as a Loan Officer at
Defendants' office located at Naperville, Illinois from on or about
November 1, 2013 to July 30, 2016.

Guaranteed is an Illinois corporation with branch locations in
various regions throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
     Stephan Zouras, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312-233-1550
     Fax: 312-233-1560
     Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            www.stephanzouras.com

          - and -

     Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
     The Law Offices of Erik H. Langeland, PC
     733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 354-6270
     Fax: (212) 898-9086
     Email: elangeland@langelandlaw.com


HENKEL CORP: Class Action Settlement OK'd Over DOJ's Opposition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the plaintiffs
lawyer who obtained the $7.4 million class action settlement wrote
in response to the DOJ's opposition, which was joined by 12 other
state attorneys general: "We cannot ignore that politics have
entered our courtrooms."

A federal judge shot down concerns raised by the U.S. Department of
Justice over a $7.4 million class action settlement involving Dial
soap after concluding that "plaintiffs' counsel have served the
class well."

The DOJ filed a statement of interest in the case earlier this
month, insisting that the settlement provided "virtually worthless"
injunctive relief and an excessive $3.8 million in fees to the
plaintiffs' attorneys. The filing was among several that the DOJ
has made in the past year in class action settlements an effort to
challenge what it considers abuses under the Class Action Fairness
Act.

In the Dial case, attorneys general from a dozen states, including
Arizona, Florida and Texas, filed a brief supporting the DOJ's
opposition to the settlement.

After a hearing on May 29, which featured lawyers from both the DOJ
and the Arizona attorney general's office, U.S. District Judge
Steven McAuliffe, in New Hampshire, approved the settlement.

"All in all, plaintiffs' counsel have served the class well," the
judge wrote.  Among other things, he wrote, they "recovered the
full price premium loss for all timely class claimants, policed the
marketplace with respect to the challenged claim, and price premium
charged, and have done so in a case that suffered from (in the
court's view) not only obvious merits weaknesses and burden of
proof difficulties, but potentially fatal legal weaknesses as well,
had it gone to trial."

Lead plaintiffs' counsel Lucy Karl, Esq. -- lkarl@shaheengordon.com
-- of Shaheen & Gordon in New Hampshire, said in a statement:
"After many years of hard-fought litigation, we're pleased with the
settlement that we were able to obtain for the class."

In court filings, however, she expressed more pointed accusations
that ideological agendas, not legal theories, drove the objections
of the DOJ and attorneys general.

"We cannot ignore that politics have entered our courtrooms and our
judicial selection process," she wrote in a May 23 response.
"Political agendas become litigation agendas. To some agenda-driven
interlopers, plaintiffs' class action attorneys are seen, at best,
as anti-business scoundrels seeking to profit at the expense of the
putative class and providing little to no social value."

Dial attorney Robert Miller, Esq. -- rmiller@sheehan.com -- of
Sheehan Phinney in New Hampshire, did not respond to requests for
comment.

Spokespeople with the DOJ and the Arizona attorney general's
office, which filed the brief, also did not respond.

The DOJ has stepped into several other class action settlements. In
a case against Lenny & Larry's, for instance, government lawyers
criticized a $3.5 million settlement for giving $1.1 million in
attorney fees to plaintiffs' attorneys. This month, a federal judge
in Illinois granted final approval to the deal, after the lawyers
made several changes.

The latest settlement resolves a class action alleging that Dial
overstated the ability of its "Dial Complete" hand soap to kill
germs. The settlement provided $2.32 million in cash to compensate
consumers and injunctive relief that required Dial to change the
ingredients and labeling of its product. The DOJ, in its statement
of interest, raised concerns that the injunctive relief was
"virtually worthless" because Dial had already changed its
ingredients and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned
triclosan in 2016. Government lawyers also questioned the attorney
fees, particularly the $1.9 million based on that injunctive
relief.

Attorneys general, in their May 14 brief, mirrored those concerns,
calling the settlement "fatally imbalanced."

"It is important for the court to step in here, exercise its
independent duty on behalf of consumer class members (who face
substantial disadvantages in the class action settlement approval
process), and reject the proposed settlement," they wrote.

But lawyers on both sides of the case fired back at the
governments' opposition.

"The regulators' position is that plaintiffs' attorneys should not
be paid for their work because Dial changed some of its business
and marketing practices during the course of the litigation," Karl
wrote in her response. "But Dial's changes did not happen in a
vacuum. The decision to bring about these changes was due in
significant part to the force of this litigation."

Karl noted that the FDA had not banned triclosan at the time of the
case's filing in 2011 and that no government regulators had brought
an enforcement action against Dial.

"In the absence of executive enforcement, who polices consumer
deceptive practices business claims, where individual damages may
be pennies but the aggregate in the millions?" she wrote. "With the
forces of deregulation becoming stronger in the executive and
legislative branches, it is plaintiffs' attorneys who are
incentivized to take the financial risks of prosecuting class
actions that protect the public from deceptive corporate conduct."

She then considered an alternative motive behind the opposition:
"One must consider whether that ideological opposition is what is
really driving the regulators' tardy opposition to the settlement,
especially when one considers that not one consumer objected to the
settlement," she wrote in a footnote.

Dial's lawyers, which also include Kirkland & Ellis partner, Eugene
Assaf, Esq. -- eugene.assaf@kirkland.com -- in New York and
partners Edwin U and Patrick Haney in Washington, D.C., also
challenged the concerns of the DOJ and attorneys general, stating
that the fees were up to the judge's discretion.  Dial defended the
injunctive relief and added that "neither the DOJ nor the state AGs
apparently recognize that the settlement allows purchasers to
receive cash in hand amounting to all or virtually all of their
best case recovery at trial."

In his final order, McAuliffe called the case "somewhat unusual"
because it compensated class members for the premium prices they
paid, for up to $8.10 each, even though some did not have receipts.
(In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused
to take up Dial's interlocutory appeal of class certification in
the case, based in part on the inability to ascertain class members
without receipts, but Circuit Judge William Kayatta, in a dissent,
warned his colleagues that doing so would result in "further
mischief" that could challenge the constitutional rights of
defendants.)

McAuliffe agreed that the injunctive relief "is probably illusory"
given the FDA's ban, but forcing Dial to drop the claim that its
product "Kills 99% of Germs" is of "significant value to the
class," he wrote. Moreover, although the actual value estimate of
the injunctive relief was "not well grounded," he wrote, he was
"not inclined to disrupt the negotiated settlement in this aged
litigation" to come up with a better one. That's particularly true
since class members also would receive cash under the deal.

"Quibbling about the fee properly awarded for the injunctive relief
obtained will not, in this case, result in more being paid to
already fully compensated class members," he wrote.[GN]



HILL'S PET: Jacoby-Hale Files Fraud Class Suit in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hill's Pet Nutrition,
Inc. The case is styled as Susanne Jacoby-Hale individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hill's Pet
Nutrition, Inc., Colgate-Palmolive Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02325-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan., June 17, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc., marketed simply as "Hills", is an
American pet food company that produces dog and cat food. The
company is a subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Howard Theodore Longman, Esq.
     Stull Stull & Brody
     6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 687-7230
     Fax: (212) 490-2022


HOME AWAY: Fails to Warn of Scammers, Spacil Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Linda Spacil, and all similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Home Away, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00983-GMN-GWF (D. Nev., June 10, 2019), alleges that Home
Away failed notify Plaintiff, Class, and Subclass members of the
risk of fraudulent activity in its website, claiming that Home
Away's website is routinely used by scammers to conduct fraudulent
transactions.

Home Away conducts its rental-broker business online, where it
"connects" prospective renters like Plaintiff with property owners
willing to rent properties. It derives income in the form of
commissions from the rental transactions booked through its
website.

Because prospective renters like Plaintiff and Class members are
business invitees when using Home Away's website to find rental
properties, Home Away is under an obligation to conduct a
reasonable investigation into potential hazards of using their
website to conduct rental transactions. This includes the
possibility that rental listings are in fact posted by "scammers,"
i.e., individuals who post false listings on the site in the hope
of luring unsuspecting consumers to book rental properties which
will not be provided to the consumer in question. Home Away is
under an additional obligation to inform users like the Plaintiff
and Class members of these potential hazards.

Home Away knows or has reason to know that its website has been
used by scammers in the past. For example, in or about February of
2016, Home Away was sued by another user of its website for
permitting another scammer to abscond with at least $74,000 from
various consumers.  However, Home Away's website does not warn its
business invitees about its past history with such scammers, nor
that the risk of fraud by such individuals continues to this day.

Home Away has developed processes to detect the presence of
fraudulent postings, and remove prospectively fraudulent rental
postings from its website. However, Home Away has no processes in
place to notify those invitees who have viewed or booked
prospectively fraudulent rentals of the high likelihood that the
"rental" opportunity in question was fraudulent, so that they could
cancel the transactions or avoid contact with the criminals in
question.

On or about April 3, 2019, Plaintiff booked a vacation rental in
Switzerland through Home Away ("Fraudulent Rental"). To book the
rental, Plaintiff provided Home Away with her name, address, phone
number, credit card number, email address, and likely her date of
birth. Home Away subsequently provided, at minimum, Plaintiff's
name and email address to the alleged property owner ("PII").
Thereafter, the purported property "owner" used some of the
information Home Away provided to it to contact Plaintiff and
request that she (1) cancel her Home Away reservation so that a
"discount" to the rental rate could be applied, and (2) wire finds
to the scammer directly from her bank.  As instructed by the
scammer, Plaintiff cancelled her Home Away reservation and,
provided the requested funds to the alleged property owner via
direct bank transfer. The scammer then absconded with Plaintiff's
funds.

Although not known to Plaintiff, Home Away had apparently deleted
the Fraudulent Rental just after Plaintiff booked her reservation.
However, Home Away did not notify Plaintiff of the likely
fraudulent nature of the transaction, even though Home Away knew
that Plaintiff had booked a reservation for the property on Home
Away's website.  Had Home Away properly notified Plaintiff that its
website was frequently used by scammers, she would not have used
the site at all, or taken additional efforts to verify the
legitimacy of the scammer's requests for funds prior to sending
them. Had Home Away promptly notified Plaintiff that the rental she
had booked was fraudulent, she would have ceased all communication
with the scammer and would not have transferred any funds to the
scammer.

When Plaintiff contacted Home Away to inform them of the situation,
a customer service representative told her that it was unsurprising
that the rental application was fraudulent, but was unable to
resolve Plaintiff's requests for reimbursement of her payment.  On
or about April 5, 2019, Plaintiff filed a customer complaint with
Home Away. However, Home Away's investigation into Plaintiff's
complaint did not result in the return of her funds, or otherwise
resolve to Plaintiff's satisfaction.

As a result of Home Away's failure to notify her of the fraudulent
nature of the transaction, Plaintiff has lost time in dealing with
issues related to the fraudulent rental, including numerous phone
conversations with Home Away and financial institutions in an
attempt to determine the scope of the fraud, as well as in an
attempt to have the transaction rescinded and the funds returned to
her. On information and belief, these actual damages are shared
with members of Plaintiff's Class and Subclasses.

Plaintiff has also lost the money she deposited to secure the
fraudulent rental, which has not been returned to her. These actual
damages are shared with members of Plaintiff's Class and
Subclasses. The Plaintiff has also suffered stress and frustration
as a result of Home Away's failure to notify her of the known
danger of scammers.

Additionally, incorporated into the price of the rental was Home
Away's commission, which was premised in part on the implied
understanding that Home Away would operate its website in a manner
which ensured that the website was free of fraudulent activity. By
failing to enact appropriate safeguards, Plaintiff, Class, and
Subclass members overpaid for the services Home Away provided,
resulting in more money ultimately being transferred to scammers.

Plaintiff, Class, and Subclass members also relinquished private
information, including names and email addresses, to Home Away, who
permitted a scammer to access it. Given the illicit nature of the
scammer's business, it is likely that Plaintiff and the Class and
Subclass member's personal data has also been compromised,
diminishing their interest in privacy. Therefore, Plaintiff, Class,
and Subclass members have also suffered imminent and impending
injury arising from the substantially increased risk of future
fraud, identity theft and misuse posed by their personal and
financial information being placed in the hands of criminals who
may have already misused such information stolen via sale of
personal and financial information on the Internet black market.
Moreover, there is a high likelihood that significant identity
theft and fraud has not yet been discovered or reported, and that
Plaintiff, Class, and Subclass members' PII will be offered for
sale or actually sold in "dark web" marketplaces. This will result
in ongoing harm to Plaintiff and members of the Class and
Subclasses as data thieves invariably seek to utilize the PII, or
seek to re-sell it. Thus, Home Away's wrongful disclosure of PII
placed Plaintiff, Class, and Subclass members in an imminent,
immediate, and continuing risk of harm for identity theft and
identity fraud, which is ongoing.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are:

          David H. Krieger, Esq.
          George Haines, Esq.
          HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC
          8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite 350
          Henderson, NV 89123
          Telephone: (702) 880-5554
          Facsimile: (702) 385-5518
          E-mail: dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com

               - and -

          Matthew I. Knepper, Esq.
          Miles N. Clark, Esq.
          KNEPPER & CLARK LLC
          10040 W. Cheyenne Ave., Suite 170-109
          Las Vegas, NV 89129
          Telephone: (702) 856-7430
          Facsimile: (702) 447-8048
          E-mail: matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com
                  miles.clark@knepperclark.com

HOUSTON, TX: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Ruling in Hernandez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant City of Houston filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled Juan Hernandez, et al. v City of Houston, Case
No. 4:16-CV-3577, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges that Houston unconstitutionally detains people it arrests
longer than 48 hours without giving them a probable cause hearing.

Lead plaintiff Juan Hernandez says Houston police arrested him
without a warrant in January after he pushed his family member. He
was charged with misdemeanor assault and booked into a city jail.

Mr. Hernandez claims that the city doesn't provide probable cause
hearings for its arrestees right away, instead only offering them
the option of immediately getting out of jail by paying bail based
on a set fee schedule.

"The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Texas
state law require that anyone arrested without a warrant be
released promptly--after 48 hours at the longest--unless a neutral
magistrate has concluded that there was probable cause  or her
arrest and continued detention," the complaint states.  "Houston
has a policy and practice of disregarding this simple obligation."

The appellate case is captioned as In re: City of Houston v. Juan
Hernandez, et al., Case No. 19-20377, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent JUAN HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated, is represented by:

          Rebecca Bernhardt, Esq.
          TEXAS FAIR DEFENSE PROJECT
          314 E. Highland Mall Boulevard
          Austin, TX 78752
          Tel: (512) 637-5220
          E-mail: rbernhardt@fairdefense.org

               - and -

          Leonora Cohen, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P.
          333 S. Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-0000
          Telephone: (213) 680-8157
          E-mail: lara.cohen@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Ryan C. Downer, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (617) 216-2423

Plaintiffs-Respondents DEQUAN KIRKWOOD, MANUEL TREVINO, KENT
WHEATFALL and ERIC AGUIRRE are represented by:

          Charles Gerstein, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 670-4809
          E-mail: charlie@civilrightscorp.org

               - and -

          Patrick King, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P.
          609 Main Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 835-6362
          E-mail: patrick.king@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Susanne Ashley Pringle, Esq.
          TEXAS FAIR DEFENSE PROJECT
          314 E. Highland Mall Boulevard
          Austin, TX 78752
          Telephone: (512) 637-5220
          E-mail: springle@fairdefense.org

Defendant-Petitioner CITY OF HOUSTON is represented by:

          Warren W. Harris, Esq.
          BRACEWELL, L.L.P.
          711 Louisiana Street
          S. Pennzoil Plaza
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 221-1490
          E-mail: warren.harris@bracewell.com


HP INC: Appeal in Jackson Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2019, that the appeal from a court ruling in the case,
Jackson, et al. v. HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, is still
ongoing.

This putative nationwide class action was filed on July 24, 2017 in
federal district court in San Jose, California.

The plaintiffs purport to bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated African-Americans and individuals over
the age of forty. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged
in a pattern and practice of racial and age discrimination in
lay-offs and promotions. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on September 29, 2017.

On January 12, 2018, the defendants moved to transfer the matter to
the federal district court in the Northern District of Georgia. The
defendants also moved to dismiss the claims on various grounds and
to strike certain aspects of the proposed class definition. The
Court dismissed the action on the basis of improper venue.  

On July 23, 2018, the plaintiffs refiled the case in the Northern
District of Georgia. On August 9, 2018, the plaintiffs also filed a
notice of appeal of the dismissal order with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October 1, 2018, the
Georgia court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay and
administratively close the Georgia action until the Ninth Circuit
appeal is decided.

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.


HP INC: Forsyth Class Action Remains Shelved
--------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2019, that the case, Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and
Hewlett Packard Enterprise, remains stayed.

This is a purported class and collective action filed on August 18,
2016 in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, against HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise alleging the
defendants violated the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment
Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act,
California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code by terminating older workers and replacing them
with younger workers.

Plaintiffs originally sought to certify a nationwide collective
class action under the ADEA comprised of all U.S. residents
employed by defendants who had their employment terminated pursuant
to a workforce reduction ("WFR") plan on or after May 23, 2012 and
who were 40 years of age or older. Plaintiffs also originally
sought to represent a Rule 23 class under California law comprised
of all persons 40 years or older employed by defendants in the
state of California and terminated pursuant to a WFR plan on or
after May 23, 2012.

Following a partial motion to dismiss, a motion to strike and a
motion to compel arbitration that the defendants filed in November
2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint.  

New plaintiffs were added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the class
period for the putative nationwide ADEA collective action should be
shortened and now starts, at the earliest, on December 9, 2014. The
plaintiffs also agreed that the class period for the putative
California state law class action should be shortened and now
starts on August 18, 2012.

On January 30, 2017, the defendants filed another partial motion to
dismiss and motions to compel arbitration as to several of the
plaintiffs. On March 20, 2017, the defendants filed additional
motions to compel arbitration as to a number of the opt-in
plaintiffs.

On September 20, 2017, the Court granted the motions to compel
arbitration as to the plaintiffs and opt-ins who signed WFR release
agreements, denied the pending motion to dismiss without prejudice,
stayed the action and administratively closed the case pending the
completion of the compelled arbitrations.

On November 30, 2017, three named plaintiffs and twelve opt-in
plaintiffs filed a single arbitration demand. An additional
arbitration claimant was added later by stipulation.

On December 22, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to: (1) stay
the claims of individuals not subject to arbitration and (2) enjoin
the demanded arbitration and require each plaintiff to file a
separate arbitration demand.  On February 6, 2018, the Court
granted the motion to stay and denied the motion to enjoin.

Pre-arbitration mediation proceedings took place on October 4 and
5, 2018, and the claims of all 16 arbitration claimants were
resolved.

Between November 2018 and April 2019, an additional 154 individuals
filed consents to opt‐in to the action as party‐plaintiffs.

Of the new opt-ins, 143 signed separation agreements that include
class waivers and mandatory arbitration provisions. The addition of
these opt-ins brings the total number of named and opt-in
plaintiffs to 193.

The stay of the litigation remains in place.

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.


HP INC: Settlement in Printer Firmware Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended
April 30, 2019, that the court has granted final approval to the
settlement of the class action suit entitled, In re HP Printer
Firmware Update Litigation.

Five purported consumer class actions were filed against HP,
arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in certain
OfficeJet printers.  

This authentication protocol rejects some third-party ink
cartridges that use non-HP security chips. Two of the cases were
dismissed, and the remaining cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
captioned In re HP Printer Firmware Update Litigation.

The remaining plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint was filed
on February 15, 2018, alleging eleven causes of action: (1) unfair
and unlawful business practices in violation of the Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (2)
fraudulent business practices in violation of the Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (3)
violations of the False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17500, et seq.; (4) violations of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; (5) violations
of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices ‒ Consumer Protection Act,
Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. Section 17.01, et seq.; (6) violations
of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
Section 19.86.010, et seq.; (7) violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, New Jersey Statutes Ann. 56:8-1, et seq.; (8)
violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
1030, et seq.; (9) violations of the California Computer Data
Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code Section 502; (10) Trespass to
Chattels; and (11) Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations
and/or Prospective Economic Advantage.

On February 7, 2018, the plaintiffs moved to certify an injunctive
relief class of "all persons in California who own a Class Printer"
under the "unfair" prong of the California unfair competition
statute and a class of "all persons in the United States who
purchased a Class Printer and experienced a print failure while
using a non-HP aftermarket cartridge during the period between
March 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017" under the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act and common law trespass to chattels.

On March 29, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
HP's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim
under the "unfair" prong of the California unfair competition
statute, claims under the non-California consumer protection
statutes, and claim for tortious interference with contractual
relations and/or prospective economic advantage.

The court also dismissed in part the plaintiffs' fraud-based claims
under the California consumer protection statutes and computer
hacking claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and
California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.

The court denied HP's motion to dismiss with respect to the
plaintiffs' claim for trespass to chattels and claim under the
"unlawful" prong of the California unfair competition statute.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend on all of the
dismissed claims, except the California Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act claim to the extent it was based on two specific
subsections of that statute.

On September 18, 2018, the parties entered into a Settlement
Agreement and Release pursuant to which the plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss all claims against HP in exchange for a $1.5 million
payment to the class and an agreement that HP would not reinstall
the authentication protocol on the printers at issue.   

The plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, which was granted by the court on November 19, 2018.  

Notice of the settlement was given to the class beginning on
January 7, 2019, and the period for individuals to opt out of or
object to the settlement ended in March 2019.  The court granted
final approval of the class settlement on April 25, 2019.  

The court did not rule on plaintiffs' motion for attorney' fees and
expenses at that time but instead ordered plaintiffs to submit
additional evidence in support of their motion.

HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices,
imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions,
and services in the United States and internationally. The company
operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and
Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as
Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October
2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo
Alto, California.


I3 GROUP: Campbell Suit Alleges TCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------
Lancelot L. Campbell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. I3 Group LLC, Case No. 0:19-cv-60907 (S.D. Fla., April
5, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that within the last four years, Defendant
left repetitive pre-recorded messages on Plaintiff's voice mail on
his cellular telephone seeking to assist a person who is a friend
of Plaintiff, Sanjay R. Williams. The messages were placed without
the prior express consent and has encroached Plaintiff's privacy
and seclusion, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, and citizen of the State of
Florida, residing in Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a limited liability company formed under the laws
of the State of Maryland and citizen of the State of Maryland with
its principal place of business at Suite 201, 2405 York Road,
Lutherville Timonium, Maryland 21093. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald A. Yarbrough, Esq.
      Post Office Box 11842
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33339
      Tel: (954) 537-2000
      Fax: (954) 566-2235
      E-mail: don@donyarbrough.com


INTEGRATED TECH: Monplaisir Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit, PAUL MONPLAISIR, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INTEGRATED
TECH GROUP, LLC and ITG COMMUNICATIONS LLC, the Defendants, Case
3:19-cv-01484-WHA (N.D. Cal. Filed: March 21, 2019), the Plaintiff
will move the Court, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, on July 25, 2019, for conditional
certification to proceed as a collective action and facilitate
notice to the following proposed collective:

   "all current and former non-exempt hourly employees of
   Defendants Integrated Tech Group, LLC and ITG Communications LLC

   working as technicians throughout the United States during the
   time period three years prior to the filing of the complaint
   until resolution of this action."

The suit is a minimum wage and overtime case brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, the Collective, and putative Class
are:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Michelle S. Lim, Esq
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY
             WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  mlim@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Krysten Connon, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604

INTUIT INC: Consolidated Class Action Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------
Intuit Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 23, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2019, that the settlement in a consolidated class
action suit has been granted final approval and the matter was
dismissed with prejudice by the court.

In fiscal 2015, Intuit was contacted by certain state and federal
regulatory authorities in connection with inquiries regarding an
increase during the 2015 tax season in attempts by criminals using
stolen identity information to file fraudulent tax returns and
claim refunds.

Intuit provided information in response to those inquiries and now
believes those inquiries are resolved.

A consolidated putative class action lawsuit was filed by
individuals who claim to have suffered damages in connection with
the 2015 events.

On May 23, 2018, the parties reached a settlement in principle of
this matter.

The settlement was granted final approval and the matter was
dismissed with prejudice by the court on May 15, 2019.

The terms of the settlement are not material to our consolidated
financial statements.

Intuit Inc. provides financial management and compliance products
and services for small businesses, consumers, self-employed, and
accounting professionals in the United States, Canada, and
internationally. Intuit Inc. was founded in 1983 and is
headquartered in Mountain View, California.


J&K DRYWALL: Does not Pay Workers for All Hours Worked, Scott Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP SCOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. J&K DRYWALL, INC. d/b/a K&J CONSTRUCTION,
FRAMING, AND HANGING; JAMES MALLOY; FRANCES MALLOY; COLLINS &
WRIGHT, INC.; and BALFOUR BEATTY CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 7:19-cv-00108-BR (E.D. N.C. June 13, 2019) is an action
arising from Defendants' systemic failure to compensate Plaintiffs
for all hours worked and for overtime hours worked at time and a
half for all hours worked over 40 per week in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs routinely worked 40 hours or
more per week, without accounting for pre- and/or post-shift work.
However, Defendants maintained a corporate policy of failing to
compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked. Plaintiffs were also
not allowed to record all of their hours worked. Accordingly, the
Defendants violated the FLSA by not compensating Plaintiff and all
those similarly situated for all hours worked or any hours worked
in excess of 40 per week as required by law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff worked for all Defendants, either separately or jointly,
on the McLeod Hospital project from January 2016 to October 2018.

J&K Drywall, Inc. provides drywall services such as: framing,
hanging, and installing drywall and sheetrock.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
     Charlotte Smith, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
     1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
     Cary, NC 27513
     Phone: (919) 741-8693
     Fax: (919) 869-1853
     Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
            csmith@gildahernandezlaw.com


JAGUAR HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plant Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Jaguar Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in the class action suit initiated by
Tony Plant is pending.

On July 20, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Civil Action No. 3:17‑cv‑04102, by Tony Plant (the "Plaintiff")
on behalf of shareholders of the Company who held shares on April
12, 2017 and were entitled to vote at the 2017 Special Shareholders
Meeting, against the Company and certain individuals who were
directors as of the date of the vote (collectively, the
"Defendants"), in a matter captioned Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal
Health, Inc., et al., making claims arising under Section 14(a) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a‑9, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.14a‑9, promulgated thereunder by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).

The claims alleged false and misleading information provided to
investors in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on Form S‑4
(File No. 333‑217364) declared effective by the Commission on
July 6, 2017 related to the solicitation of votes from shareholders
to approve the merger and certain transactions related thereto.

The Company accepted service of the complaint and summons on behalf
of itself and the United States-based director Defendants on
November 1, 2017. The Company has not accepted service on behalf
of, and Plaintiff has not yet served, the non-U.S.-based director
Defendants.

On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff and appointment of Monteverde & Associates PC as
lead counsel. That motion was granted.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company and the
United States-based director Defendants on January 10, 2018. The
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 12, 2018, for which
oral arguments were held on June 14, 2018. The court dismissed the
amended complaint on September 20, 2018. Plaintiff was entitled to
amend that complaint within 20 days from the date of dismissal.  

On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff amended the amended complaint to
focus on the Company's commercial strategy in support of Equilevia
and the related disclosure statements in the Form S-4 described
above.  

On November 6, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. The Defendants argue in their motion that the
second amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted because the omissions and misrepresentations alleged
in the complaint are immaterial as a matter of law. The motion has
been fully briefed and is pending decision by the court.  

Jaguar Health said, "If the Plaintiff were able to prove his
allegations in this matter and to establish the damages he asserts,
then an adverse ruling could have a material impact on the Company.
The Company believes that it is not probable that an asset has been
impaired or a liability has been incurred as of the date of the
financial statements and the amount of any potential loss is not
reasonably estimable."

Jaguar Health, Inc., a commercial stage natural-products
pharmaceuticals company, focuses on developing gastrointestinal
products for human prescription use and animals worldwide. Jaguar
Health, Inc. is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


JANSSEN BIOTECH: Pipe Trades Fund Sues Over Abiraterone Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------------
PIPE TRADES SERVICES MN WELFARE FUND, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC.,
JANSSEN ONCOLOGY, INC., JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and
BTG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00770 (E.D.
Va. June 13, 2019) seeks to recover damages, including treble
damages, under state antitrust and consumer protection laws or in
the alternative, damages under of the Sherman Act and the Clayton
Act.

Janssen got a patent on the compound abiraterone acetate in 1997.
That patent--U.S. Patent No. 5,604,213 (the '213 patent)--lasted
nearly twenty years and expired in December 2016. During the life
of the '213 patent, only Janssen could sell an abiraterone acetate
product; no other company could. On April 28, 2011, Janssen got
approval from the FDA for Zytiga, abiraterone acetate tablets, for
the treatment of prostate cancer in combination with prednisone.
For the next five and a half years, because of the '213 patent,
Janssen had a legitimate monopoly on sales of Zytiga. The company
made billions of dollars: U.S. sales of Zytiga went from $191
million in 2011 to $463 million in 2012, its first full year on the
market. In 2015, U.S. Zytiga sales exceeded $1 billion. But the
'213 patent would not last forever, and Janssen (and its partner
BTG) wanted to extend that monopoly. So beginning in 2007 and
continuing through 2014, Janssen sought a second patent: on a
method of using abiraterone acetate in combination with prednisone
to treat prostate cancer. Not surprisingly, the United States
Patent & Trademark Office (the PTO) repeatedly rejected this second
patent application, correctly finding that it was obvious to
combine abiraterone acetate and prednisone together to treat
prostate cancer, and the claimed invention was therefore not
patentable. On five separate occasions, the PTO rejected Janssen's
application. (Years later the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
and district court, under broad and narrow claim constructions
respectively, would both reach the same conclusion.)

Realizing the futility of trying to persuade the PTO that its
claimed invention was not obvious, Janssen pivoted, moving away
from trying to prove non-obviousness and instead pursuing a
"commercial success" argument.
Janssen's ruse worked. The PTO examiner found that "the unexpected
commercial success" of Zytiga was sufficient to overcome the
finding of obviousness. And on that basis, United States Patent No.
8,822,438 (the '438 patent) issued. To protect Janssen's monopoly,
Janssen and BTG then asserted the '438 patent in infringement
litigation that they both knew they could never ultimately win in
the courts. Their goal was not to win a litigation victory, though;
it was simply to delay generic competition. In that sense, Janssen
and BTG did win. Their wrongful conduct delayed generic competition
by more than one year--and during that time, Zytiga was among the
most profitable drugs sold by Janssen's parent company, Johnson &
Johnson. United States sales of Zytiga for the twelve months ending
December 31, 2017 were $1.228 billion. In 2018, United States sales
of Zytiga climbed to $1.771 billon.

Absent the Defendants' unlawful conduct, generic competition for
Zytiga would have entered as early as December 2016 and no later
than October 2017. Instead, the Defendants' unlawful conduct
prevented generic manufacturers from entering the market with
competing abiraterone acetate products for more than a year,
delayed the entry of additional generic competitors, and has cost
purchasers hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharge damages,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Pipe Trades Fund is a Taft-Hartley fund authorized under
the National Labor Relations Act, with its principal place of
business in White Bear Lake, Minnesota.

Janssen Biotech is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq.
     Christine A. Williams, Esq.
     Kevin J. Funk, Esq.
     DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL PC
     1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
     Richmond, VA 23219
     Phone: (804) 775-6900
     Fax: (804) 775-6911
     Email: wdurrette@dagglaw.com
            cwilliam@dagglaw.com
            kfunk@dagglaw.com

          - and -

     Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
     Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
     Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
     100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com
            khriebel@locklaw.com
            jnservais@locklaw.com

          - and -

     Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
     Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 333-8844
     Fax: (612) 339-6622
     Email: dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
            mlooby@gustafsongluek.com


JOARDER PROPERTIES: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Kessler FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL KESSLER, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOARDER PROPERTIES LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 18-11867 (RMB/KMW)
(D. N.J.), Judge Renee Marie Bumb of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, (a) denied as moot (i)
the Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion for a Protective Order, (ii) the
Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion to Amend/Correct the Complaint, (iii)
the Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Daniel
Kessler, and (iv) the Defendants' Cross-Motion for a Protective
Order; and (b) denied without prejudice (i) the Plaintiff's
Voluntary Motion to Dismiss, (ii) the Defendants' Cross-Motion to
Dismiss, and (iii) the Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion for Attorneys'
Fees.

On July 20, 2018, Plaintiff Kessler commenced the putative
collective action, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, against Defendants Joarder Properties and Salim
Joarder, alleging failure to pay minimum wage and overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey
Minimum Wage Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

Plaintiff Kessler was formerly employed as a pizza delivery driver
for the Defendants, who operate Domino's Pizza franchises in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  Within days after commencing the
action, at least five putative class members submitted notices of
their intent to "opt-in" to the litigation.  However, on Sept. 14,
2018, only a few months later, the Defendants represented to the
Court that dismissal was warranted because the Plaintiff has stated
his intention not to proceed with the case.

In response, the Plaintiff's Counsel alleged that the Defendants
had convinced the Plaintiff and the Putative Opt-In Plaintiffs to
drop their cases, using coercive tactics to secure private and
confidential settlement agreements without the presence of the
counsel.  In turn, on Oct. 8, 2018, the Plaintiff's Counsel filed a
Motion for a Protective Order, seeking to prevent the Defendants
from communicating with the putative class members about the case
without counsel.

Based on their client's stated desires to withdraw from the case,
the Plaintiff's Counsel moved to dismiss Plaintiff Kessler as the
named Plaintiff.  However, the Plaintiff's counsel alleged that
additional putative class members were prepared to step into the
case and, therefore, moved to amend/correct the complaint to
substitute a new named Plaintiff.  In response, on Oct. 23, 2018,
the Defendants filed cross-motions to dismiss the complaint and for
a protective order to prevent the Plaintiff's Counsel from
communicating with the putative class members about the case.

Shortly thereafter, on Oct. 29, 2018, the Plaintiff's Counsel
argued that the cross-motions for protective orders had become moot
because the Defendants had successfully identified the remaining
putative class members and negotiated private settlements with
them.  At this point, the Plaintiff's Counsel conceded that they
could no longer pursue the case because the Defendants' private
settlements had convinced every putative class member to withdraw
from the case.  As a result, the Plaintiff Counsel argued that they
had no choice but to file a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of the
case in its entirety.  However, the Plaintiff's Counsel filed a
Motion for Attorneys' Fees, arguing that it should be entitled to
attorneys' fees because Mr. Kessler had "prevailed" in the matter
by obtaining a settlement from the Defendants.

There are currently three pending motions to dismiss in the matter.
The Plaintiff's first motion to dismis, was a procedural effort by
his Counsel to continue pursuing the case by dismissing Mr. Kessler
and substituting a different named Plaintiff.  However, this effort
was mooted by the Plaintiff's second, broader, voluntary motion to
dismiss the case in its entirety, which noted that there are no
longer any putative class members willing to pursue the case.

In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants argue that the Court
must dismiss the case because there is no longer an active case or
controversy.  Judge Bumb disagrees.  She finds that without the
ability to review the settlement agreement between the Defendants
and Mr. Kessler, the Court is unable to determine whether it is a
"fair and reasonable resolution" of the Plaintiff's FLSA claims.
Until the agreement is submitted for the Court's review, there
continues to be an active case and controversy, and the Judge will
not grant either parties' requests to dismiss the case.

As to the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, the Judge agrees, in theory,
that the intent of the FLSA would be frustrated if the Plaintiff's
Counsel were deprived of their ability to recover attorneys' fees
because the Defendants chose to secure a private settlement
agreement from the Plaintiff without the presence of the counsel.
However, any attorneys' fees awarded would only be deemed
reasonable to the extent they were incurred in the course of Smith
Eibeler's attorney-client relationship with Mr. Kessler (or
otherwise relate to actions taken at Mr. Kessler's direction).
Regardless, at this time, the parties have not asked the Court to
approve any settlement agreement or enter a stipulated judgment.
Therefore, Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees is
premature and must be denied.

The remaining motions pending in the case will be denied as moot.
As she previously discussed, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's
Counsel's motions to amend the complaint and for a protective order
are moot because there are no longer any putative class members
willing to serve as a named Plaintiff.  Similarly, the Defendants'
cross-motion for a protective order is also moot, because, by Smith
Eibeler's own admission, there are no further putative class
members left to discuss the case with.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bum denied as moot (i) the
Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion for a Protective Order, (ii) the
Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion to Amend/Correct the Complaint, (iii)
the Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Daniel
Kessler, and (iv) the Defendants' Cross-Motion for a Protective
Order.  Additionally, she denied without prejudice (i) the
Plaintiff's Voluntary Motion to Dismiss, (ii) the Defendants'
Cross-Motion to Dismiss, and (iii) the Plaintiff's Counsel's Motion
for Attorneys' Fees.  Furthermore, the Judge ordered the Defendants
to submit their settlement agreement with Mr. Kessler for the
Court's review and approval, or attest that no such agreement
exists.  An appropriate Order will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/CqzSrF from Leagle.com.

DANIEL KESSLER, On behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT W. SMITH --
rsmith@smitheibeler.com -- SMITH EIBELER, LLC.

JOARDER PROPERTIES, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, SALIM JOARDER, JOHN
DOE CORP. 1-25 & JOHN DOE 1-25, Defendants, represented by KATHLEEN
McLEOD CAMINITI -- kcaminiti@fisherphillips.com -- FISHER &
PHILLIPS, LLP.c


JONES SEPTIC: Rumph Seeks Overtime Compensation for Laborers
------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH RUMPH, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. JONES SEPTIC TANK, INC., RODERICK B. JONES and
RODERICK H. JONES, the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00085-HL (M.D.
Ga., June 10, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to properly
compensate employees for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

On or about January 21, 2013, the Defendants hired Plaintiff to
work as a non-exempt Laborer. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants
draining and cleaning septic tanks. From at least January 21, 2013
and continuing through March 2019, Defendants failed to compensate
Plaintiff at rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular
rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work
week.

The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee for Defendants, and was
paid straight time for all hours worked. Throughout his employment,
Defendant deprived Plaintiff of proper overtime compensation for
his hours worked in excess for 40 hours each week.

The Plaintiff should be compensated at the rate of one and one-half
times his regular rate for those hours that Plaintiff worked in
excess of 40 hours per week as required by the FLSA, the lawsuit
says.

The FLSA is designed to eliminate "labor conditions detrimental to
the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for
health, efficiency and general well-being of workers."[BN]

Trial Counsel for Plaintiff are:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 3273013
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com

JRX CAPITAL: Pascal Sues Over Illegal Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE PASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. JRX CAPITAL LLC., a Colorado limited
liability company, d/b/a REAL ESTATE FROM ANYWHERE, Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-03382-KAW (N.D. Cal. June 13, 2019) is a Class Action
Complaint against Defendant to stop its illegal practice of sending
text messages to consumers' cell phones without consent, and to
obtain redress for all persons injured its their conduct.

To increase marketing efforts, Defendant texted hundreds or
possibly thousands of phones at once. Unfortunately, Defendant did
not obtain consent prior to sending these texts and, therefore, is
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. By sending
the texts at issue, Defendant has violated the privacy and
statutory rights of Plaintiff and the Class, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, therefore, seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to
stop its unconsented texting, as well as an award of actual and
statutory fines to the Class members, together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

Plaintiff LAWRENCE PASCAL is a natural person and is a citizen of
the Northern District of California.

Defendant JRX sells real estate properties under the name REAL
ESTATE FROM ANYWHERE.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
     Javitch Law Office
     480 S. Ellsworth Ave
     San Mateo, CA 94401
     Phone: 650-781-8000
     Facsimile: 650-648-0705
     Email: mark@javitchlawoffice.com


JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Zhi Suit Over Misleading IPO Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
LUO ZHI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES AG, JEREMY HODARA, SACHA POIGNONNEC,
and ANTOINE MAILLET-MEZERAY, Case No. 1:19-cv-04952 (S.D.N.Y., May
28, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 alleging that a Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering was
materially false and misleading.

On March 12, 2019, Jumia filed a Form F-1 Registration Statement
with the SEC for the Company's initial public offering ("IPO").  On
April 15, 2019, Jumia filed a prospectus with the SEC for the IPO,
which forms part of the Registration Statement, offering to sell to
the public 15.525 million American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
(including the underwriters' option to purchase an additional 2.025
million ADSs) at a price of $14.50 per ADS.  Thereafter, Jumia sold
15.525 million ADSs in the IPO and raised approximately $280.2
million therefrom, net of underwriting discounts and commissions
and other offering expenses.

The lawsuit is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who
purchased or otherwise acquired Jumia securities between April 12,
2019 and May 9, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Exchange Act.  The Plaintiff purchased
Jumia securities during the Class Period and has been damaged
thereby.

Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the Defendants failed to
disclose these adverse facts, which were known to the Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them as follows: (i) that Jumia had
materially overstated its active customers and active merchants;
(ii) that Jumia's representations about its orders, order
cancellations, undelivered orders, and returned orders lacked a
sufficient factual basis and materially overstated the Company's
sales; (iii) that Jumia failed to sufficiently disclose related
party transactions; and (iv) that Jumia's financial statements were
presented in violation of applicable accounting standards.

Jumia operates a pan-African e-commerce platform.  The Company
maintains its principal executive offices in Berlin, Germany.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Jumia characterizes itself as the leading pan-African e-commerce
platform, which, according to Jumia, consists of a marketplace that
connects sellers with consumers, a package shipment and delivery
service, and a payment service.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, 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
                  jlindenfeld@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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


LA VILLE DELIVERY: Ponce Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO PONCE, JAMES RUSSELL, LUIS AGUIRRE, ROBERTO ENRIQUE GOMEZ
MARROQUIN, and JUAN CARLOS QUINTANILLA, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. LA VILLE DELIVERY, INC.; LA VILLE
IMPORTS, INC.; IVAN MARKOVIC (individually and in his official
capacity); NADEZDA N. MARKOVIC (individually and in her official
capacity), and any other related persons or entities, Case No.
2:19-cv-03234 (E.D.N.Y., May 30, 2019), accuses the Defendants of
numerous violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of situated persons, who were
employed by the Defendants as drivers or other similar positions,
who were not paid overtime at a rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek for the period of three years prior to the date
of the filing of this complaint to the date of the final
disposition of this action.

La Ville Delivery, Inc., is a New York corporation with a principal
place of business in Garden City Park, New York.  La Ville Imports,
Inc., is a New York corporation with a principal place of business
in New Hyde Park, New York.  The Individual Defendants are owners,
principals and/or managers of La Ville.

La Ville is a wine importer and distributor.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laura R. Reznick, Esq.
          BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 280-3008
          Facsimile: (212) 656-1845
          E-mail: lr@belllg.com


LAND O'FROST: Oldham Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
-----------------------------------------------------
TINA OLDHAM, on Behalf of herself and All Others
Similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. LAND O'FROST, INC. Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00062-JHM-HBB (W.D. Ky., June 13, 2019) is both a
collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and a
class action under Kentucky state law against Defendant.

The Defendant employs non-exempt employees at the Madisonville
facility and other production facilities in the United States
(including facilities at Searcy, Arkansas and Lansing, Illinois).
Plaintiff brings this complaint for Defendant's violations of its
statutory obligations to pay employees for work performed,
including overtime work. Specifically, Defendant has willfully
engaged in the practice of not paying its employees for compensable
work, including time donning protective clothing and cleaning
workstations for Defendant's benefit in Defendant's meat-processing
facilities, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is an employee of Defendant and has worked for Defendant
as a "Tray Loader/Packer" at the Madisonville facility from
approximately June 22, 2015 to the date of filing this action.

Defendant is engaged in the business of producing and selling
pre-sliced lunch meats for retail sales and operates production,
slicing and packing facilities, including one in Madisonville,
Kentucky.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark N. Foster, Esq.
     Law Office of Mark N. Foster, PLLC
     P.O. Box 869
     Madisonville, KY 42431
     Phone: (270) 213-1303
     Email: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com


LUXURY NAILS: Murerwa Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
MUDIWA MURERWA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LUXURY NAILS, Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61478-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 13, 2019) is a putative class
action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The complaint asserts that Defendant would often send marketing
text messages providing different types of offers and savings for
future purchases without first obtaining express written consent to
send such marketing text messages as required to do so under the
TCPA.  These messages were sent using mass-automated technology
through a third-party company hired by Defendant to send marketing
text messages on Defendant's behalf en masse. The Defendant
knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA, causing injuries to
Plaintiff and members of the putative class, including invasion of
their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass, and conversion, says the complaint.

Through this putative class action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct. Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
the illegal actions of Defendant.

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

Defendant owns and operates a consumer service business, namely, a
nail salon in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     THOMAS J. PATTI, ESQ.
     JIBRAEL S. HINDI, ESQ.
     The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi
     110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-907-1136
     Fax: 855-529-9540
     Email: tom@jibraellaw.com
            jibrael@jibraellaw.com


LYFT INC: Bernstein Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Brandon Bernstein, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-02620 (C.D.
Calif., April 5, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant violated the TCPA by sending spam advertisements and
or promotional offers via text messages using automatic telephone
dialing system without the Plaintiff's prior express consent,
asserts the complaint. Additionally, the Defendant texted the
Plaintiff's cellular telephone that incurs charges for incoming
texts.

The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the State of California.


The Defendant is a transportation network company and are
individuals who reside and do business within the State of
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Tel: (323) 306-4234
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
              abacon@toddflaw.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Rivera Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
--------------------------------------------------------------
LORENZO RIVERA, the Plaintiff, vs. MARRIOTT TNTERNATJONAL, INC.;
and DOES I through 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-05050 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 10, 2019), seeks relief
against Defendants for failure to provide meal and rest periods or
compensation in lieu; failure to pay all wages due including
minimum, regular, and overtime wages; failure to pay wages due
during employment failure to pay wages due at separation of
employment; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements
upon payment of wages; and failure to indemnify for expenditures or
losses in discharge of duties pursuant to California Labor Code.

The case is a class action brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated, and the class he seeks to represent. The
Plaintiff Class consists of all non-exempt employees, including,
but not limited to, dishwashers, cooks, runners, bartenders,
servers, cashiers, other food and beverage staff, housekeeping
staff, front desk staff, maintenance staff, and guest service
representatives currently and/or formerly employed by Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have consistently
maintained and enforced against Plaintiff Class the unlawful
practices and policies.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, as an individual and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees, are:

          Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
          Alexander Perez, Esq
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590-5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
          E-mail: kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
                  apcrcz@mahoney-law.net

MATCO TOOLS: Appeals Order in Fleming Suit to 9th Circ.
-------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Fortive Corporation, Matco Tools Corporation and NMTC,
Inc. filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled
JOHN FLEMING, Plaintiff, v. MATCO TOOLS CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00463-WHO, U.S. District Court for
Northern California, San Francisco.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 14, 2019, Judge
William H. Orrick denied Matco's motion to dismiss or transfer the
case.

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Matco Tools Corporation, et al.
v. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco, Case No. 19-71352, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners MATCO TOOLS CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; NMTC, INC., a Delaware corporation, DBA Matco Tools;
and FORTIVE CORPORATION are represented by:

          Eric M. Lloyd, Esq.
          Christian Joseph Rowley, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 544-1060
          E-mail: elloyd@seyfarth.com
                  crowley@seyfarth.com

Real Party in Interest JOHN FLEMING, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Valerie Brender, Esq.
          Peter Rukin, Esq.
          RUKIN HYLAND LLP
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 290
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 421-1800
          E-mail: vbrender@rukinhyland.com
                  prukin@rukinhyland.com

               - and -

          Jessica Riggin, Esq.
          RUKIN HYLAND DORIA & TINDALL LLP
          100 Pine Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421-1800
          E-mail: jriggin@rukinhyland.com


MAXWELL TECH: Duffy Claims Tesla Merger Documents Misleading
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Maxwell
Technologies, Inc. and its former members of the board of directors
for their violations of Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the tender offer by Tesla,
Inc., through its subsidiary Cambria Acquisition Corp., to acquire
all of the issued and outstanding shares of Maxwell. The case is
captioned JAMES DUFFY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STEVE
BILODEAU, FRANZ J. FINK, RICHARD BERGMAN, JORG BUCHHEIM, BURKHARD
GOESCHEL, ILYA GOLUBOVICH, and JOHN MUTCH, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01094-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal., June 11, 2019).

On Feb. 20, 2019, in order to convince Maxwell shareholders to
tender their shares, the Board allegedly authorized the filing of a
materially misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Therein, the
Defendants also touted the fairness of the merger consideration to
the company's shareholders, but misled investors with respect to:
(i) the company's financial projections and the value of the
company; (ii) the factors considered by the board in approving and
recommending the merger to Maxwell shareholders; and (iii) the
purported fairness of the merger consideration, which would have
fallen outside the range of fairness had management's original
projections been used by the company's financial advisor.

Maxwell is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive office at 3888 Calle Fortunada, San Diego, California.
Maxwell develops, manufactures, and markets energy storage and
power delivery products for transportation, industrial, and other
applications. Prior to the consummation of the Merger, the
company's common stock traded on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol
MXWL. Maxwell survived the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Tesla. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David E. Bower, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
     Culver City, CA 90230
     Telephone: (213) 446-6652
     Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
     E-mail: dbower@monteverdelaw.com
               
             - and –

     Juan E. Monteverde
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405
     New York, NY 10118
     Telephone: (212) 971-1341
     Facsimile: (212) 202-7880
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


MDL 2804: Roofers Sues over Opioid Prescription Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma, et
al., seeks to prevent future harm and to redress past wrongs,
against Defendants. The case is consolidated in MDL 2804 RE:
NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION OPIATE LITIGATION.

The Plaintiff asserts two categories of claims: claims against the
pharmaceutical manufacturers of prescription opioid drugs that
engaged in a massive false marketing campaign to drastically expand
the market for such drugs and their own market share, and claims
against entities in the supply chain that reaped enormous financial
rewards by refusing to monitor and restrict the improper
distribution of those drugs.

The case arises from the worst man-made epidemic in modern medical
history --  the misuse, abuse, and over-prescription of opioids.
By now, most Americans have been affected, either directly or
indirectly, by the opioid disaster. But few realize that this
crisis arose from the opioid manufacturers' deliberately deceptive
marketing strategy to expand opioid use, together with the
distributors' equally deliberate efforts to evade restrictions on
opioid distribution. Manufacturers and distributors alike acted
without regard for the lives that would be trammeled in pursuit of
profit.

According to the complaint, since the push to expand prescription
opioid use began in the late 1990s, the death toll has steadily
climbed, with no sign of slowing. The number of opioid overdoses in
the United States rose from 8,000 in 1999 to over 20,000 in 2009,
and over 33,000 in 2015. In the twelve months that ended in
September 2017, opioid overdoses claimed 45,000 lives. From 1999
through 2016, overdoses killed more than 350,000 Americans. Over
200,000 of them, more than were killed in the Vietnam War, died
from opioids prescribed by doctors to treat pain. These opioids
include brand-name prescription medications such as OxyContin,
Opana ER, Vicodin, Subsys, and Duragesic, as well as generics like
oxycodone, hydrocodone, and fentanyl. OxyContin, Opana ER, Vicodin,
Subsys, and Duragesic, as well as generics like oxycodone,
hydrocodone, and fentanyl, the lawsuit says.

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned
principally by descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler. In 2007
it paid out one of the largest fines ever levied against a
pharmaceutical firm for mislabeling its product OxyContin, and
three executives were found guilty of criminal charges.[BN]

The case is captioned as ROOFERS LOCAL 149 SECURITY BENEFIT TRUST
FUND, On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. PURDUE PHARMA L.P., PURDUE PHARMA INC., THE PURDUE
FREDERICK COMPANY, INC., ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC., ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., NORAMCO,
INC., ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., CEPHALON, INC.,
ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC, ALLERGAN FINANCE LLC, f/k/a
ACTAVIS, INC., f/k/a WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC., ACTAVIS LLC, ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON
PHARMA, INC., INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC., MALLINCKRODT PLC,
MALLINCKRODT LLC, CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., McKESSON CORPORATION,
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, HEALTH MART SYSTEMS, INC., H. D.
SMITH, LLC d/b/a HD SMITH, f/k/a H.D. SMITH WHOLESALE DRUG CO., H.
D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC, H. D. SMITH HOLDING COMPANY, CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION, WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC. a/k/a WALGREEN CO., and
WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WAL-MART STORES, INC., RITEAID CORP., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45429-DAP (N.D. Ohio., June 10,
2019).

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
          Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
          Shayna E. Sacks, Esq.
          Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
          Joseph L. Ciaccio, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          360 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com
                  pnapoli@napolilaw.com
                  ssacks@napolilaw.com
                  sbadala@napolilaw.com
                  jciaccio@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Frank Gallucci, Esq.
          PLEVIN & GALLUCCI COMPANY, L.P.
          55 Public Square, Suite 2222
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 861-0804
          E-mail: fgallucci@pglawyer.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Asher, Esq.
          John D. McClune, Esq.
          SULLIVAN, WARD, ASHER & PATTON, P.C.
          25800 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 1000
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 746-2728
          E-mail: masher@swappc.com
                  jmcclune@swappc.com

METRO BANK: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Metro Bank PLC (Other OTC: MBNKF) securities
between March 6, 2018 and May 1, 2019 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until July 29, 2019 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Metro Bank misclassified the risk terms of many of its
loans; (2) accordingly, Metro Bank failed to maintain sufficient
capital; (3) this conduct would lead to investigations by the
Prudential Regulation Authority and Financial Conduct Authority;
(4) this conduct would also lead to the reduction of deposits at
Metro Bank from larger commercial and partnership clients; and (5)
as a result, defendants public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Metro Bank securities during the Class Period,
have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters please contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Phone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com [GN]


METRO BANK: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Metro Bank
PLC  (OTC: MBNKF ) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between March 6, 2018
and May 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the firm before July 29, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at  www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at  brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Metro Bank failed to properly classify
the risk of its loan portfolio. Subsequently, the Company failed to
maintain appropriate levels of capital. These actions led to
investigations by the Prudential Regulation Authority and Financial
Conduct Authority. It also led to the Company losing deposits from
major commercial clients. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about Metro
Bank, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone:
            Office: 310-301-3335
            Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


MICHAEL D BLUHM: Muse Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL D. BLUHM & ASSOCIATES, LLC, ATTORNEYS AT LAW. The case is
styled as JUANITA MUSE individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. THE LAW OFFICES OF
MICHAEL D. BLUHM & ASSOCIATES, LLC, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02617-CMR (E.D. Pa., June 14, 2019).

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

THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL D. BLUHM & ASSOCIATES, LLC is a debt
collection law office in Sherman, Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     NICHOLAS J. LINKER, ESQ.
     ZEMEL LAW LLC
     1373 Broad St., SUITE 203-C
     Clifton, NJ 07013
     Phone: (862) 227-3106
     Email: nl@zemellawllc.com


MII AMO NAIL: Murerwa Sues Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------
MUDIWA MURERWA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MII AMO NAIL SPA CORP. d/b/a LAVISH MANORS
NAIL SPA, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61476-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June
13, 2019) is a putative class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant would often send marketing
text messages providing different types of offers and savings for
future purchases without first obtaining express written consent to
send such marketing text messages as required to do so under the
TCPA.  These messages were sent using mass-automated technology
through a third-party company hired by Defendant to send marketing
text messages on Defendant's behalf en masse. In sum, Defendant
knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA, causing injuries to
Plaintiff and members of the putative class, including invasion of
their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,
trespass, and conversion, says the complaint.

Through this putative class action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct. Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
the illegal actions of Defendant.

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

Defendant owns and operates a consumer service business, namely, a
nail salon in Wilton Manors, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     THOMAS J. PATTI, ESQ.
     JIBRAEL S. HINDI, ESQ.
     The Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi
     110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954-907-1136
     Fax: 855-529-9540
     Email: tom@jibraellaw.com
            jibrael@jibraellaw.com


MOMO INC: July 15 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Momo Inc. (Nasdaq:  MOMO) ("Momo") on behalf of those who purchased
or otherwise acquired Momo securities between April 21, 2015 and
April 29, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Important Deadline:  Investors who purchased Momo securities during
the Class Period may, no later than July 15, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For
additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation please visit
www.ktmc.com/momo-inc-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, Momo operates a mobile-based social and
entertainment platform in the People's Republic of China ("PRC" or
"China").  The company operates the Momo platform that includes its
Momo mobile application (or "app") and various related features,
functionalities, tools, and services to users, customers, and
platform partners.  On February 23, 2018, Momo announced that it
had reached a definitive agreement with Tantan Limited ("Tantan"),
a social and dating app in China, and all of its shareholders,
under which Momo agreed to acquire a 100% fully diluted equity
stake in Tantan for approximately 5.3 million newly issued Class A
ordinary shares of Momo and US$600.9 million in cash.  Momo
announced the successful closing of its acquisition of Tantan on
May 11, 2018.

The Class Period commences on April 21, 2015. On April 20, 2015,
after market hours, Momo filed its annual report on a Form 20-F
with the SEC, reporting Momo's financial and operating results for
the 2014 fiscal year.

The complaint alleges that, on June 27, 2018, Spruce Point Capital
Management LLC ("Spruce Point") issued a short seller report on
Momo, recommending a "strong sell" opinion on Momo's shares. The
Spruce Point report cited, inter alia, possible compliance issues
with the content of Momo's services under relevant PRC regulations,
Momo's failure to disclose corrective action taken by Chinese
authorities against one of its variable interest entities ("VIE"),
and that Momo was engaged in related party transactions and illicit
business dealings.  According to several agencies cited throughout
the Spruce Point report, Momo had a reputation for being a "sex
cam" service -- i.e., Momo users were using its services for
illicit sexual content.  The Spruce Point report also alleged that
Momo had failed to disclose that China had charged Beijing Momo,
one of Momo's VIEs, with illicit financial reporting activity,
which coincided with three Momo directors citing "personal reasons"
for their resignation.  Additionally, the Spruce Point report
alleged that Momo held a minority interest "in a very popular and
highly rated illegal (in China) gambling operation," the mobile
gambling app Pokermaster, via another undisclosed VIE since July
2015.  Following the release of the Spruce Point report, Momo's
American Depositary Receipt ("ADR") price fell $2.48 per share, or
5.47%, to close at $42.86 per share on June 27, 2018.

Then, on April 29, 2019, three days after Momo filed the 2018 20-F,
Momo issued a press release disclosing that the Tantan social and
dating mobile app had been removed from certain mobile app stores
at the direction of Chinese authorities.  Following this news,
Momo's ADR price fell $2.51 per share, or 6.81%, to close at $34.36
per share on April 29, 2019.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Momo's compliance procedures and controls were
inadequate to prevent, inter alia, illicit financial reporting
activity; (ii) Momo's social and dating app, Tantan, was materially
noncompliant with PRC law and/or regulations; (iii) Tantan was
consequently at an increased risk of being removed from Chinese app
stores at the direction of Chinese governmental authorities; and
(iv) as a result, Momo's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 (toll free) or (610) 667-7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Momo investors may, no later than July 15, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Phone: (888) 299-7706
                    (610) 667-7706
         Website: www.ktmc.com
         Email: info@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


MOMO INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Momo Inc.
("Momo" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: MOMO) for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between April 21, 2015
and April 29, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 15, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com or by email at brian@schallfirm.com

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Momo failed to maintain adequate controls
and compliance procedures to prevent inappropriate financial
reporting activity. The Company's Tantan dating app was not
compliant with Chinese laws. This put the app at risk of being
removed from Chinese app stores at the direction of government
officials. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the
truth about Momo, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East
         Suite 404, Los Angeles
         CA 90067
         Phone:
            Office: 310-301-3335
            Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


MRS BPO LLC: Domke Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Chad Domke individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC, Jefferson
Capital Systems, LLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-01442-CEH-AEP (M.D. Fla., June 14, 2019).

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

MRS BPO, LLC, a debt collection agency, provides accounts
receivables solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Zeig, Esq.
     Zeig Law Firm, LLC
     3475 Sheridan Street, Suite 310
     Hollywood, FL 33024
     Phone: (754) 217-3084
     Fax: (754) 217-3084
     Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com


NATIONAL CREDIT: Accused by Rusk Class Suit of Violating FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Malinda Rusk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Credit Adjusters, LLC, a Kansas limited
liability company, Case No. 5:19-cv-00825-HNJ (N.D. Ala., May 30,
2019), alleges that the Defendant's form debt collection letter
violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

National Credit Adjusters, LLC, is a Kansas limited liability
company that acts as a debt collector.  NCA operates a defaulted
debt collection business and attempts to collect defaulted debts
from consumers in many states, including the state of Alabama.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com

               - and -

          Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq.
          BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS, TANNER & EZZELL, P.C.
          225 Pratt Avenue
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 539-9899
          Facsimile: (256) 713-0237
          E-mail: Rsykstus@bondnbotes.com


NATORI RETIAL: Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Natori Retail
Company Incorporated. The case is styled as Lynette Tatum-Rios
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
ADR Provider v. The Natori Retail Company Incorporated, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05613 (S.D. N.Y., June 15, 2019).

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

The Natori Company designs high-end women's fashion, including
Intimates, Sleepwear, Lingerie, Ready-to-Wear, Home, Perfume,
Towels, Eyewear, and more.[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


NAVISTAR INT'L: $135 Million Settlement Reached in MaxxForce Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on May 29, 2019,
that a settlement agreement has been entered in In re Navistar
MaxxForce Engines Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 1:14-cv-10318.

On May 28, 2019, Navistar International Corporation (the "Company")
and one of its principal subsidiaries, Navistar, Inc. ("NI" and,
together with the Company, "Navistar"), entered into a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") with
certain named plaintiffs to settle the putative class action
lawsuits pending in the United States that were previously
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (the "Court") as In re Navistar MaxxForce
Engines Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 1:14-cv-10318 (the "U.S. Class Actions").

On May 28, 2019, plaintiffs submitted the Settlement Agreement to
the Court for preliminary approval.

The U.S. Class Actions allege that certain MaxxForce Advanced EGR
engines are defective and that Navistar failed to disclose or
correct the alleged defect.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (1) the
parties will establish a non-reversionary common fund consisting of
cash (the "Cash Fund") and rebates (the "Rebate Fund") with a total
value of $135 million (the "Settlement Fund"); (2) Navistar will
contribute $85 million to the Cash Fund, which will be used to pay
all settlement fees and expenses, service awards, attorneys' fees
and costs, and cash payments to members of the settlement class;
(3) Navistar will commit to make available rebates with a face
value in the aggregate of $50 million to the Rebate Fund; and (4)
the settlement class will release Navistar and its affiliates from
all claims and potential claims arising from or related to the
allegations in the U.S. Class Actions, except for claims for
personal injury or damage to third-party property.

The Settlement Agreement further provides that dollars or value
remaining in either the Cash Fund or the Rebate Fund after claims
are processed will be used to pay approved claims from the other
fund if the other fund is oversubscribed (the "waterfall").

Any waterfall from the Rebate Fund to the Cash Fund is capped at
$35 million. Finally, the Settlement Agreement states that Navistar
denies all claims in the U.S. Class Actions, denies wrongdoing,
liability or damage of any kind, and denies that it acted
improperly or wrongfully in any way.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the Court. If
the Court preliminarily approves the settlement, members of the
class will be provided notice of the Settlement Agreement and an
opportunity to object or opt out.

Any members of the class who opt out will not receive any benefit
from the Settlement Agreement or be bound by it.

Depending on opt out and certain claim numbers, both Navistar and
lead counsel for the class will have the option to withdraw from
the Settlement Agreement.

Following the notice and opportunity for objections and opt outs,
the Court will schedule a fairness hearing at which the Court will
determine whether the Settlement Agreement should be finally
approved and whether the proposed Final Order and Judgment should
be entered.

If the Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and
after all appellate rights have expired or have been exhausted in a
manner that affirms the Final Order and Judgment, the release will
be effective to all class members who do not validly opt out.

The foregoing description of the Settlement Agreement does not
purport to be complete and is subject to, and is qualified in its
entirety by, reference to the complete text of the Settlement
Agreement, which the Company intends to file as an exhibit to the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ending July 31, 2019.

Navistar International Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, diesel
engines, school and commercial buses, and service parts for trucks
and diesel engines worldwide.  Navistar International Corporation
was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois.


NEW ENGLAND FAT LOSS: Charged With Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Johnson, writing for MassLive.com, reports that two
Massachusetts men -- David Gaffin and Christian Lopez -- have filed
a class action complaint in U.S. District Court that charges the
Longmeadow branch of New England Fat Loss has violated the National
Do Not Call Registry by repeatedly calling and texting them with
offers for discounts and promotions on weight-loss programs.

The complaint names New England Fat Loss 2 Inc., a corporation
doing business at 10 Brookside Drive, Longmeadow, as the defendant.
The business, according to the Massachusetts Secretary of the
Commonwealth, lists Dirk Johns as the president and director.

The business is affiliated with New England Fat Loss, a
Westborough-based company that has six locations across the state,
including Longmeadow.

According to the complaint, Gaffin and Lopez "never consented to
receive the calls, which were placed to them for telemarketing
purposes."

Because there were calls made to "hundreds of thousands or even
millions of potential customers en masse," the complaint states,
Gaffin and Lopez decided to file as a class-action complaint. This
would allow it to open to others who have received "illegal
telemarketing calls from or on behalf of the client."

The Do Not Call Registry, part of the Federal Trade Commission,
allows consumers to register home phone or cell phone numbers
indefinitely to prevent telemarketers from calling. Those that
violate the registry are subject to penalties and fines.

The regulations behind the Do Not Call Registry do allow companies
to reach out to customers who have done business with the company
in the previous 18 months.

According to the complaint, Gaffin has had his cellphone listed on
the registry for 10 years, and has not done business with New
England Fat Loss in more than two years. In April, he received
multiple calls and texts from the company. The complaint does not
specify a number.

The complaint charges that Lopez had received similar calls.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief that would prohibit New
England Fat Loss from calling any number listed on the Do Not Call
Registry.

It also seeks damages of between $500 and $1,500 for each call
received. [GN]


NIXON ENGINEERING: Conditional Class Certification Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit JAYME PEERY, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NIXON
ENGINEERING, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-00358-ADA-JCM
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying action for purposes of notice and
      discovery, on behalf of a class of:

      "all Current and Former Hourly Employees Who Worked for
Nixon
      Engineering, LLC At Any Time In The Past Three Years Through

      The Final Disposition of This Matter."

   2. judicially approving notice be sent to all Putative Class
      Members by mail, e-mail, and text-message and that
      Plaintiff's counsel be allowed to post the approved notice
      and consent form on their website;

   3. approving form and content of Plaintiff's proposed judicial
      notice and reminder notice;

   4. directing Nixon Engineering, LLC to produce to Plaintiff's
      counsel the name, last known address, phone number, e-mail
      address and dates of employment for each of the Putative
      Class Members in a usable electronic format; and

   5. authorizing 60 day notice period for the Putative Class
      Members to join this case.

Nixon Engineering is a full-service traffic control company that
serves the Texas Department of Transportation, local
municipalities, and private organizations all over Texas. Nixon
manages and controls traffic during roadway projects. To provide
these services, Nixon employs hundreds of Hourly employees --
including Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members -- who assist in
traffic management by setting up traffic cones, flagging and
directing traffic, setting up rumble strips and setting up traffic
signs.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and Putative Class Members are:

          Clif Alexander, 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
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com


ONE STOP: L. Cherry Suit Remanded to Maryland State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland remanded the case, LATARSHA CHERRY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ONE STOP AUTO PARTS, INC., et al., Defendant, Civil
No. RDB-18-3054 (D. Md.), to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland.

The Plaintiffs filed the purported class action lawsuit in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City gainst One Stop, One Stop owner,
Ferdinand F. Greeff, and One Stop counsel, Schrier, Tolin & Wagman,
LLC ("STW"), for damages and injunctive relief related to
unlicensed lending and other actions in violation of consumer
protection laws.

One Stop extended loans to its customers to facilitate financing
the repairs it performed.  The Plaintiffs allege that the loans had
hidden and onerous financing terms with usurious interest rates.
They also allege that One Stop never held the required licensing
for acting as a lender.  One Stop, through its counsel STW, takes
aggressive collection efforts to collect on the loans that One Stop
issued and has filed hundreds of collection lawsuits against its
former customers.

The Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all Maryland
consumers who, since Aug. 3, 2012, entered into a Retail
Installment Contract with One Stop.  They also purport to represent
a subclass of class members who had judgments entered against them
and in favor of One Stop based on the Retail Installment Contract
with One Stop that was entered into since Aug. 3, 2012.  

The Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on July 17, 2018, alleging six
causes of action:

      i. Count One - Declaratory Judgment to Subclass, under the
Maryland Declaratory Judgment Act;

      ii. Count Two- Usury - Defendants One Stop and Greeff;

      iii. Count Three - CLEC1 (as to Defendants One Stop and
Greeff only).  In the alternative.  CLEC requires applicable
disclosures under the federal Truth in Lending Act and its
regulations.

      iv. Count Four - Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act;

      v. Count Five - Maryland Consumer Protection Act (as to
Defendants One Stop and Greeff only); and

      vi. Count Six - Unjust Enrichment.

The Defendants timely removed the case to the Court on Oct. 4,
2018, asserting that the Plaintiffs' legal theory related to
excessive "interest" is premised on a federal statute, the Truth in
Lending Act.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the
Case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.  The parties'
submissions have been reviewed, and no hearing is necessary.  The
Plaintiffs also seek sanctions for improper removal, including
costs and attorneys' fees under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).

Judge Bennett finds that the issue of excessive interest does not
raise a necessary or substantial federal question.  The Defendants
may anticipate a defense related to the Truth in Lending Act, but
that is an insufficient basis for invoking federal jurisdiction.  

In addition, in the case, each of the Plaintiffs' six causes of
action are based on Maryland law.  Five of the six counts are based
on a Maryland statutory scheme designed to protect Maryland's
citizens from the type of activities in which One Stop, a Maryland
business, is alleged to have engaged. Maryland has a significant
interest in enforcing its own lending regulations.  Because the
government has a federal interest in only one element of the
proceeding, federal interests do not predominate over state
interests.  Accordingly, the Court will grant the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand the case back to the Circuit Court of Baltimore
City, Maryland.

Although he concludes that remand is warranted, there is no basis
to find that Defendants were objectively unreasonable in seeking
removal.  The Plaintiffs' references to the federal Truth in
Lending Act provided a weak, but objectively reasonable basis for
seeking removal.  As he has explained, a plaintiff has every right
to do all that is possible, within the bounds of ethical
constraints, to ensure that his case remains in state court; a
defendant has an equally defensible privilege to do all it can,
under like constraints, to push or pull the action into federal
court.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion will be denied with
respect to the request for attorneys' fees.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bennett granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the Case to the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City.  He granted the request to remand the
case to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, bu denied
the request for sanctions, including costs and attorneys' fees.  He
denied as moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Briefing on their
Motion to Remand.  The pending motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 5, 7)
are not reached insofar as the Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.
A separate order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/pc1C0d from Leagle.com.

Latarsha Cherry, For themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & Albert Brown, For themselves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexa
Elena Bertinelli -- ABERTINELLI@CIVILJUSTICENETWORK.ORG -- Civil
Justice, Inc. & Thomas Joseph Minton -- tminton@charmcitylegal.com
-- Goldman and Minton PC.

One Stop Auto Parts, Inc. & Ferdinand Greeff, Defendants,
represented by Elizabeth Catherine Rinehart --
lcrinehart@venable.com -- Venable LLP & Michael B. MacWilliams --
mbmacwilliams@Venable.com -- Venable LLP.

Schrier, Tolin, & Wagman, LLC, Defendant, represented by David
Mitchell Ross, Jr. -- david.ross@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser
Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP.


PENNSYLVANIA: Weyandt Files Civil Rights Suit v. Officials
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsylvania State
Corrections Officers Associations and its affiliates. The case is
styled as William Weyandt, Mark Mills, Chris Taylor, Brandon
Westover, Cory Yedlosky on behalf of themselves and a class of
similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs v. Pennsylvania State
Corrections Officers Associations and its affiliates, Thomas W.
Wolf in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Michael Newsome in his official capacity as Secretary
of the Pennsylvania Office of Administration, Brian T. Lyman in his
official capacity as Chief Accounting Officer for the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01018-JEJ (M.D. Pa.,
June 14, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David R. Osborne, Esq.
     Nathan J. McGrath, Esq.
     The Fairness Center
     500 North Third Street, Floor 2
     Harrisburg, PA 17101
     Phone: (717) 421-8155
     Email: drosborne@fairnesscenter.org
            njmcgrath@fairnesscenter.org


PETMED EXPRESS: Faces Fischler Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
PetMed Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been named
as a defendant in a class action suit entitled, Brian Fischler,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. PetMed Express, Inc.; Case No. 19-cv-02391.

In January 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed by a
different individual in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that company's website,
www.1800petmeds.com, does not comply with the ADA, NYSHRL, and
NYCHRL, and discriminates against visually impaired individuals.

The Plaintiff named a New York corporation named Pet Meds Inc.,
which is not related or affiliated with the Company, as the
defendant. However, the Plaintiff has sought to remedy that error
by requesting leave to file an amended complaint naming the
Company, which request the Court granted on April 9, 2019.

On April 18, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiff's request to
transfer the case to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, where it is currently pending. The
matter is styled Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. PetMed Express, Inc.; Case No.
19-cv-02391.

The Company denies any wrongdoing and it intends to vigorously
defend itself against such allegations.

PetMed said, "At this early juncture, the Company can neither
accurately predict the likelihood of an unfavorable or adverse
outcome nor provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential
loss, if any."

PetMed Express, Inc. and its subsidiaries, doing business as
1-800-PetMeds, operates as a pet pharmacy in the United States. The
company markets prescription and non-prescription pet medications,
and other health products for dogs and cats directly to the
consumers. PetMed Express, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida.


PETMED EXPRESS: Reid ADA Class Action Filed in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
PetMed Express, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been named
as a defendant in a class action suit entitled, Valentin Reid, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PetMed
Express, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-4169.  

The Company is a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit,
filed in May 2019, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York seeking injunctive and monetary
relief styled Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. PetMed Express, Inc., Case No. 19-cv-4169,
alleging that the Company's website, www.1800petmeds.com, does not
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), New York
State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), and New York City Human Rights
Law ("NYCHRL"), and discriminates against visually impaired
individuals.

The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend
itself against such allegations.

PetMed said, "At this stage, the company can neither accurately
predict the likelihood of an unfavorable or adverse outcome nor
provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss, if
any."

PetMed Express, Inc. and its subsidiaries, doing business as
1-800-PetMeds, operates as a pet pharmacy in the United States. The
company markets prescription and non-prescription pet medications,
and other health products for dogs and cats directly to the
consumers. PetMed Express, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is
headquartered in Delray Beach, Florida.


PLANTRONICS INC: Shin Class Action Concluded
--------------------------------------------
Plantronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K 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
by Phil Shin, has now been resolved.

On September 13, 2018, Mr. Phil Shin filed on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, a purported Class Action Complaint in
the United States District Court of the Northern District of
California alleging violations of various federal and state
consumer protection laws in addition to unfair competition and
fraud claims in connection with the Company's BackBeat FIT
headphones.  

The Company disputes the allegations and filed a motion to dismiss
the Complaint in November 2018.  

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on December 14, 2018.  

The matter has now been resolved.

Plantronics, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets various
integrated communications and collaborations solutions for
corporate customers, small businesses, and individuals worldwide.
Plantronics, Inc. was founded in 1961 and is headquartered in Santa
Cruz, California.


PROGRESSIVE RESTAURANT: Capel Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Tips
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIO CAPEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE RESTAURANT, LLC and SIMON KIM,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 513089/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Kings Cty., June 13, 2019) seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime
compensation, misappropriated tips, spread-of-hours pay, call-in
pay, uniform maintenance violations, and other damages for
Plaintiff and his similarly situated co-workers--servers,
bartenders, server assistants, bussers, barbacks, food runners, and
other similarly situated ffont-of-house tipped employees.

During Plaintiff's employment, Defendants applied a tip credit to
Tipped Workers' wages and paid Tipped Workers a reduced minimum
wage rate. Defendants, however, did not satisfy the requirements
under the New York Labor Law  or the Fair Labor Standards Act by
which it could take a tip credit towards the hourly rates paid to
Tipped Workers. Additionally, Defendants require Plaintiff and
other Tipped Workers to engage in a tip distribution scheme wherein
they must share a daily portion of their total tips with head
bartenders, head sommeliers, and maitre d's ("Managers"), who are
tip ineligible employees under the NYLL and the FLSA.

Throughout Plaintiffs employment, Defendants also maintained a
policy and practice whereby Tipped Workers were not paid the
appropriate premium overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40
per workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay Tipped Workers
uniform maintenance pay related the aprons they were required to
dry clean or clean and iron, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Capel was employed by Defendants as a server assistant--a
Tipped Worker--at Cote from November 16, 2017 until May 8, 2018.

Defendants have employed and/or jointly employed Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees at all times relevant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
     Dana M. Cimera, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 300-0375

The Defendants are represented by:

     Carolyn D. Richmond, Esq.
     Alexander W. Bodgan, Esq.
     FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
     101 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10178
     Phone: (212) 878-7941
     Email: crichmond@foxrothschild.com
            abogdan@foxrothschild.com


PROSPECT CHARTERCARE: Settlement in Del Sesto Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN DEL SESTO, AS RECEIVER AND ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ST. JOSEPH HEALTH SERVICES OF RHODE ISLAND RETIREMENT PLAN, ET
AL., Plaintiffs, v. PROSPECT CHARTERCARE, LLC, ET AL., Defendants,
C.A. No. 18-328 WES (D. R.I.), Judge William E. Smith of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted the Joint
Motion for Settlement Class Certification, Appointment of Class
Counsel, and Preliminary Settlement Approval by Plaintiffs and
Defendants CharterCARE Foundation, St. Joseph Health Services of
Rhode Island, Roger Williams Hospital, and CharterCARE Community
Board.

Before the Court is the Joint Motion pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking preliminary certification
of a settlement class, appointment of class counsel, and
preliminary approval of a proposed settlement in the action.  The
motion is brought by the Settling Parties.  Two other groups of
parties -- the Diocesan Defendants and the Prospect Entities --
have objected to preliminary approval.

The gravamen of the proposal is that Plaintiff Del Sesto, as the
Receiver and Administrator of the St. Joseph Health Services of
Rhode Island Retirement Plan, will be transferred $4.5 million for
deposit into the Plan assets.  These proceeds will be transferred
by CCF and its insurer. In exchange, the Plaintiffs and Defendants
SJHSRI, CCCB, and RWH will release CCF and the Rhode Island
Foundation from liability.  In addition, the Receiver will transfer
to CCF any rights he holds in CCF.  

Judge Smith has carefully considered the parties' arguments.  He
concludes that the proposed settlement falls within the range of
possible final approval, and it therefore qualifies for preliminary
approval.  He further concludes that the proposed representatives
will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.  He
recognizes that the proposed class counsel are highly qualified and
able to carry out their corresponding duties.

For these reasons, Judge Smith granted the Joint Motion.  He
preliminarily certified -- for the purposes of the settlement only
-- the following class: All participants of the St. Joseph Health
Services of Rhode Island Retirement Plan, including (1) all
surviving former employees of St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode
Island Inc. who are entitled to benefits under the Plan; and all
representatives and beneficiaries of deceased former employees of
St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode Island Inc. who are entitled to
benefits under the Plan.  

He also preliminarily appointed (i) Plaintiffs Gail J. Major, Nancy
Zompa, Ralph Bryden, Dorothy Willner, Caroll Short, Donna Boutelle,
and Eugenia Levesque as the settlement class representatives, and
(ii) Wistow, Sheehan & Loveley, P.C. as the class counsel.

In accordance with the foregoing, the Judge ordered that on Aug. 29
2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3 of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Rhode Island, One Exchange Terrace, Providence,
Rhode Island, or at such other date and time later set by Court
order, the Court will the final approval hearing.  

No later than Aug. 15, 2019, which is 14 days prior to the final
approval hearing, the Plaintiffs must file papers in support of
final class action approval of the Settlement Agreement and respond
to any written objections.

The Settling Parties other than the Plaintiffs may (but are not
required to) file papers in support of final class action approval
of the Settlement Agreement, so long as they do so no later than
Aug. 15, 2019.  The Non-Settling Parties may (but are not required
to) file papers in opposition or in support of final class action
approval of the Settlement Agreement, so long as they do so no
later than Aug. 15, 2019.

The Judge approved the proposed notice plan set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and its exhibits for giving notice to the
settlement class (i) directly; and (ii) by publishing the Joint
Motion with all exhibits thereto, including but not limited to the
Settlement Agreement, on the website maintained by the Receiver as
more fully described in the Settlement Agreement.  He directed the
Settling Parties, and specifically the Receiver, to complete all
aspects of the notice plan no later than May 31, 2019, in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Settling Defendants will file with the Court by no later than
Aug. 15, 2019, which is 14 days prior to the final fairness
hearing, proof that the Class Notice was provided by any Settling
Parties to the appropriate state and federal officials pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act, if required.

The members of the preliminarily-approved settlement class do not
have the right to exclude themselves or "opt-out" of the
settlement.  Consequently, all settlement class members will be
bound by all determinations and judgments concerning the Settlement
Agreement.

The settlement class members who wish to object to Settlement
Agreement or to the Plaintiffs' Counsel's Motion for Award of
Attorneys' Fees, must do so by the July 30, 2019, which is 60
calendar days after the deadline for notice to be sent pursuant to
the Order.

To object to the Settlement Agreement, or to the Plaintiffs'
Counsel's Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees, the settlement class
members must follow the directions in the Class Notice and file a
written objection with the Court by the Objection Deadline.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/28h2uG from Leagle.com.

Stephen Del Sesto, as Receiver and Administrator of the St. Joseph
Health Services of Rhode Island Retirement Plan, Gail J. Major,
Nancy Zompa, Ralph Bryden, Dorothy Willner, Caroll Short, Donna
Boutelle & Eugenia Levesque, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin G.
Ledsham -- bledsham@wistbar.com -- Wistow, Sheehan & Loveley, PC,
Stephen P. Sheehan -- spsheehan@wistbar.com -- Wistow, Sheehan &
Loveley, PC & Max Wistow -- mwistow@wistbar.com -- Wistow Sheehan &
Loveley.

Prospect CharterCARE, LLC, Prospect CharterCare SJHSRI, LLC &
Prospect Chartercare RWMC, LLC, Defendants, represented by Joseph
V. Cavanagh, III -- jvc3@blishcavlaw.com -- Blish & Cavanagh LLP,
Joseph V. Cavanagh, Jr., Blish & Cavanagh, LLP, William Mark Russo
-- mrusso@frlawri.com -- Ferrucci Russo P.C., Christopher Joseph
Fragomeni -- cfragomeni@shslawfirm.com -- SHECHTMAN HALPERIN
SAVAGE, LLP & Dean J. Wagner -- dwagner@shslawfirm.com -- Shechtman
Halperin Savage LLP.

CharterCARE Community Board, St. Joseph Health Services of Rhode
Island & Roger Williams Hospital, Defendants, represented by Robert
D. Fine, Chace, Ruttenberg & Freedman, LLP & Richard J. Land, Chace
Ruttenberg & Freedman, LLP.

Prospect East Holdings, Inc. & Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Preston W. Halperin, Shechtman Halperin
Savage LLP, Christopher Joseph Fragomeni, SHECHTMAN HALPERIN
SAVAGE, LLP, Dean J. Wagner, Shechtman Halperin Savage LLP, Ekwan
E. Rhow, pro hac vice, John McGowan, Jr., Baker & Hostetler LLP,
pro hac vice & Thomas V. Reichert, Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert,
et al., pro hac vice.

CharterCARE Foundation, Defendant, represented by Andrew R.
Dennington, Conn Kavanaugh Rosenthal Peisch & Ford, lLP,
Christopher K. Sweeney, Conn Kavanaugh Rosenthal Peisch & Ford, LLP
& Russell F. Conn, Conn Kavanaugh, pro hac vice.

The Rhode Island Community Foundation, Defendant, represented by
David A. Wollin, Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP & Christine E.
Dieter, Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP.

Roman Catholic Bishop of Providence, Diocesan Administration
Corporation & Diocesan Service Corporation, Defendants, represented
by Howard A. Merten, Partridge, Snow & Hahn LLP, Christopher M.
Wildenhain, Partridge, Snow & Hahn LLP, Eugene G. Bernardo, II,
Partridge, Snow & Hahn LLP & Paul M. Kessimian, Partridge, Snow &
Hahn LLP.

The Angell Pension Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel F.
Sullivan, Robinson & Cole LLP, David R. Godofsky, Alston & Bird
LLP, pro hac vice, Emily S. Costin, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice
& Steven J. Boyajian, ROBINSON & COLE LLP.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: DeMarco Sues over Personal Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated, Optum360 Services, Inc., and American Medical
Collection Agency for negligence and for violations of privacy laws
including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
of 1996, the California's Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act, and the California's Customer Records Act, and the California
Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned SEAN DEMARCO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED d/b/a QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED OF NEVADA; OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC.; and
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY a/k/a RETRIEVAL-MASTERS
CREDITORS BUREAU, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05071 (C.D.
Cal., June 11, 2019).

Plaintiff Sean Demarco alleges that the Defendants unlawfully
invaded the privacy rights of Plaintiff and Class members by (a)
failing to adequately secure their personally identifiably
information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) from
disclosure to unauthorized parties for improper purposes; (b)
disclosing their PII/PHI to unauthorized parties in a manner that
is highly offensive to a reasonable person; and (c) disclosing
their PII/PHI to unauthorized parties without the informed and
clear consent of Plaintiff and Class members.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a Nevada corporation with its
principal place of business in Secaucus, New Jersey. The company is
a leading provider of diagnostic testing, information and services.
Its services range from routine blood testing to complex,
gene-based and molecular testing. Optum360 Services, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Eden
Prairie, Minnesota. Optum is a leading information and
technology-enabled health services business and a leader in revenue
management solutions for health care providers. In September 2016,
Quest Diagnostics and Optum partnered together. American Medical
Collection Agency, d/b/a Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.,
is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in
Elmsford, New York. The company describes itself as the leading
recovery agency for patient collections servicing laboratories,
hospitals, physician groups, billing services and medical providers
across the country. It provides billing collections services to
Optum360, which in turn is a Quest contractor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
     Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
     Jennifer L. Macpherson, Esq.
     BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
     501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 338-1100
     Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
     E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
             toreardon@bholaw.com
             jmacpherson@bholaw.com


RCI HOSPITALITY: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (RICK) between August
10, 2017 and May 10, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for RCI investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the RCI class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1570.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) RCI engaged in numerous transactions with Eric Langan,
RCI's CEO, including lending him large amounts of money; (2) these
practices were likely to lead to investigations of RCI by
regulators; (3) investigations into RCI's corporate governance
would harm RCI's prospects by, among other things, causing it to be
unable to timely file its financial statements; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' statements about RCI's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. 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. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to

Contact:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34thFloor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Website: www.rosenlegal.com
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]


REVLON INC: SAP Disruption Leads to Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Saran, writing for ComputerWeekly.com, reports that Zhang
Investor Law is the latest law firm to announce a class action
lawsuit on behalf of Revlon shareholders alleging that Revlon
failed to create measures to plan and monitor the implementation of
its enterprise resource planning (ERP) system.

The lawsuit claims Revlon failed to design, implement and
consistently operate effective process-level controls to ensure it
appropriately recorded and accounted for inventory, accounts
receivable, net sales and cost of goods sold.

On May 17, Bragar Eagel & Squire announced it had filed a class
action against Revlon for the disruption caused by the new SAP ERP
system.  On May 21, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
announced that it too had filed a federal securities class action
lawsuit against Revlon.  Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights
law firm, also announced it had filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Revlon.

The class action lawsuits draw on evidence from recent quarterly
results filings where Revlon admitted it was unable to fulfil
product shipments of approximately $64 million of net sales and the
company incurred $53.6 million of incremental charges to remediate
the decline in customer services levels

In its US Security Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 10-Q first
quarter filing of March 31, 2019, Revlon stated that its net sales
in the first quarter of 2018 were negatively impacted by service
level disruptions that occurred at the company's Oxford, North
Carolina manufacturing facility resulting from the launch of a new
SAP ERP system.

The saga began in February 2018, when the company attempted to
deploy the new SAP ERP system.

According to the transcript of its Q1 2018 earnings call of May
2018, posted on the Seeking Alpha financial blogging site, company
executives referenced SAP eight times. At the time, the company
said it had identified a material weakness in its internal
controls, primarily related to the "lack of design and makings of
effective controls" in connection with the implementation of a new
SAP ERP system at its North Carolina manufacturing facility.

SAP disrupts supply chain

Chief operating officer Christopher Peterson said: "In early
February, we rolled out SAP for a large part of our North American
business to integrate planning, sourcing, manufacturing,
distribution and finance.

"We expect this roll-out to provide greater visibility into
real-time transactional information that will enable better and
faster decision-making, improve customer service efficiency and
better working capital management. However, we experienced issues
during the SAP changeover that caused the plant to ramp up capacity
slower than anticipated."

Peterson said the SAP disruption impacted the company's ability to
manufacture certain quantities of finished goods and fulfil
shipments to several large retail customers in the US. Revlon
estimated the disruption led to approximately $20m of lower net
sales during the current quarter.

There was also $10m of incremental costs, which Revlon put down to
unabsorbed factory overhead costs due to lower than normal
production levels and non-recurring labour costs in the Oxford
facility in connection with actions it took to remediate the
decline in customer service levels.

When asked about the implementation, he said the company had
expected to execute flawlessly on the SAP implementation at its
Oxford manufacturing facility.

At the time, Peterson said the North America implementation was
meant to be the last major ERP implementation in Revlon's current
planning cycle.

Giving an update to financial analysts on the earnings call, he
said: "We now have SAP implemented in about 22 countries on the
Revlon legacy side of the business. And the Elizabeth Arden
business is a JD Edwards ERP system that is implemented in the vast
majority of the countries."

Peterson said the deployment of SAP has given Revlon a relatively
upgraded ERP system in most of the markets around the world. He
told the the financial analysts: "There is not a plan for future
implementations at this point."

Almost a year later, in March 2019, chief financial officer
Victoria Dolan said the company spent $32m more in 2018 on
operating activities compared to 2017, according to the Seeking
Alpha transcript of the Q4 2018 earnings call. She attributed $54m
of direct cost to remediating the SAP disruption.

When asked about whether the disruption would carry through during
2019, she said: "Our Oxford manufacturer facility is currently
operating under normal conditions, and SAP is not stopping us from
producing what we need to produce today. In fact, most of the
pipelines around the world have been filled, and I'd like to thank
our customer and partners for their patience throughout 2018."

However, while its ERP disruption problems may now be resolved, the
class action lawsuit, on behalf of shareholders, represents the
next chapter in the company's ongoing saga with the
implementation.

Following its March 2019 financial statement, financial papers
reported that shares in the company dipped. Zhang Law pointed to
the fact that the disruption caused by SAP in Q1 2018 at the Oxford
facility in North Carolina meant the company was unable to fulfil
product shipments of approximately $64m of net sales.

While Revlon has used the quarterly earnings calls to demonstrate
to the market its digital and e-commerce strategy, it only began
talking about the SAP system after it experienced production
disruption due to the new system.

According to the class action lawsuit, the company made false or
misleading statements and failed to disclose the extent of its
issues with the SAP implementation. [GN]


ROBINSON REAGAN: Griffin Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Robinson, Reagan, and
Young, PLLC. The case is styled as Ariel Griffin individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Robinson,
Reagan, and Young, PLLC, John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00506 (M.D. Tenn., June 14, 2019).

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

Robinson, Reagan, and Young, PLLC is a law firm in Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Susan S. Lafferty, Esq.
     Lafferty Law Firm, P.C.
     1321 Murfreesboro Pike, Suite 521
     Nashville, TN 37217
     Phone: (615) 492-1199
     Fax: (615) 472-7852
     Email: susanl@laffertylawonline.com


ROOF ON WILSHIRE: Landini Sues over Wrongful Termination
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Roof on Wilshire
Operating Company LLC and Adam Leemon for violations of the Fair
Employment & Housing Act, the California Labor Code, the California
Business and Professions Code, for wrongful termination, sexual
harassment, and for hostile work environment in violation of
government code. The case is captioned DAMIEN LANDINI, an
individual, Plaintiff, v. ROOF ON WILSHIRE OPERATING COMPANY LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; THE ROOF ON WILSHIRE, an
entity form unknown; ADAM LEEMON, an individual; DOES 1-10,
business entities, forms unknown; DOES 11-12, individuals; and DOES
21-30, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV20268 (Cal. Super.,
Los Angeles Cty., June 11, 2019).

Plaintiff Damien Landini brings this action against Defendants for
hostile work environment, retaliation, wrongful termination,
statutory damages and penalties, punitive damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and other appropriate relief for
Defendants' unlawful conduct.

The Roof on Wilshire is a restaurant located on top of The Hotel
Wilshire. The restaurant offers classic American dishes for
breakfast, lunch and dinner. It also offers 360 degree views from
its rooftop vantage point. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chantal McCoy Payton, Esq.
     PAYTON EMPLOYMENT LAW
     3807 W. Sierra Highway, Suite 206
     Acton, CA 93510
     Telephone: (661) 434-1144
     Facsimile: (661) 434-1144
     E-mail: CPayton@PaytonEmploymentLaw.com

             - and -

     Marissa L. Simmons, Esq.
     PAYTON EMPLOYMENT LAW
     11500 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 400
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Telephone: (424) 334-3194
     Facsimile: (424) 334-3194
     E-mail: MSimmons@PaytonEmploymentLaw.com


SCIPLAY CORPORATION: Fife Suit vs. Scientific Games Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that Scientific Games Corp.
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Sheryl Fife.

On April 17, 2018, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint, Fife v. Scientific Games Corp., against the company's
Parent, in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in
the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual
coins playing the company's Parent's online social casino games,
including but not limited to Jackpot Party Casino and Gold Fish
Casino.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington's
Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington's consumer
protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks
unspecified money damages (including treble damages as
appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
pre‑ and post‑judgment interest, and injunctive and/or
declaratory relief.

On July 2, 2018, the company's Parent filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, which the trial court denied
on December 18, 2018. The company's Parent filed its answer to the
putative class action complaint on January 18, 2019.

SciPlay said, "Due to the early nature of this litigation, we are
currently unable to determine the likelihood of an outcome or
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss. Although the case was
brought against Scientific Games Corporation, pursuant to the
Services Agreement, dated May 7, 2019, by and among Scientific
Games Corporation, Scientific Games, International, Inc., Bally
Gaming and SciPlay Holding Company, LLC (the "Intercompany Services
Agreement"), we would expect to cover or contribute to any damage
awards due to the matter arising as a result of our business."

SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.


SIG SAUER: Briefing & Amended Scheduling Order Issued in Gordon
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANTE GORDON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SIG SAUER, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. H-19-585 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas has issued an
order for supplemental briefing and amended scheduling order.

The case is a putative class action against Sig Sauer, a gun
manufacturer, for an alleged design defect in its P320 pistol.  The
alleged defect is that the P320 may drop fire -- fire without a
trigger pull if it falls, lands at a certain angle, and has a
bullet chambered.  Since August 2017, Sig Sauer has offered to fix
the drop-fire problem for free if purchasers send in their P320s.

The named Plaintiff, Gordon, purchased a P320 in 2014.  The
complaint does not allege that Gordon personally suffered an injury
from the alleged defect, or that Gordon has stopped using his P320
because of it.  Instead, the complaint alleges that Gordon would
not have purchased the P320 if he had known that it was not, in
fact, properly manufactured, free from defects, and had he known
that it was susceptible to drop fires.

The threshold question is whether Gordon has alleged an injury in
fact.  

Judge Rosenthal finds that Gordon does not allege that his P320
caused him "physical or emotional injury," that it "was
ineffective," or that he invoked the repair opportunity provided.
He alleges only that he would not have purchased a P320 if he knew
about the drop-fire problem.  While economic injury suffices as a
form of injury-in-fact, courts have disagreed as to whether such an
injury is shown by an allegation that the plaintiff would not have
purchased a product if he had known of a defect and no further
consequence of that defect is alleged.

The Judge holds that Gordon must address his basis for Article III
standing in his response to Sig Sauer's motion to dismiss.  Sig
Sauer must brief this issue in its reply brief.

He modified the schedule as follows: (i) Gordon must respond to the
motion to dismiss no later than May 24, 2019; (ii) Sig Sauer must
reply no later than May 31, 2019; and (iii) the Court will hold the
initial pretrial conference at July 15, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 17, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ytw0g5 from Leagle.com.

Dante Gordon, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Kenan Oldham --
oldham@reynoldsfrizzell.com -- Reynolds Frizzell LLP, Brandon T.
Allen, Attorney at Law, Joseph I. Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com
-- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Neal J. Deckant -- ndeckant@bursor.com
-- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Sig Sauer, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Brent Dwerlkotte
-- dbdwerlkotte@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Amy Crouch --
amcrouch@shb.com -- Shook Hardy et al, Robert Laurent Joyce --
robert.joyce@littletonpark.com -- Littleton Joyce Ughetta Park &
Kelly LLP & Ryan S. Killian -- rkillian@shb.com -- Shook Hardy
Bacon LLP.


SKYGROUP INVESTMENTS: Martinez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SkyGroup Investments,
LLC. The case is styled as Pedro Martinez individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. SkyGroup Investments, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-05628
(S.D. N.Y., June 17, 2019).

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

SkyGroup Investments, LLC, doing business as iFLY Indoor Skydiving
Ltd, provides indoor skydiving services. The company focuses on
operating indoor skydiving tunnels around the world. It also offers
indoor skydiving tunnels for various businesses; and services, such
as management, training, and consultancy services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


SMITH MEDICAL: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned 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 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

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
          Facsimile: 847/368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com

SNAP INC: Melgoza et al. Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: SNAP INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 2:17-cv-03679-SVW-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will
move the Court for an order on August 2, 2019:0111

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired
       Snap Class A common stock (Snap Common Stock) between March

       2, 2017 and August 10, 2017 (Class Period), inclusive, and
       were  damaged thereby";

   2. appointing Smilka Melgoza, as trustee of the Smilka Melgoza
      Trust U/A 21 DTD 04/08/2014, Rediet Tilahun, Tony Ray Nelson,

      Rickey E. Butler, Alan L. Dukes, 22 Donald R. Allen, and
      Shawn B. Dandridge as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Class
      Counsel and Rosman & German LLP as Liaison Counsel to the
      Class.[CC]

Attorneys for Lead Plaintiffs Smilka Melgoza, as trustee of the
Smilka Melgoza Rediet Tilahun, Tony Ray Nelson, Rickey E. Butler,
and Alan L. Dukes, additional named Plaintiffs Donald R. Allen and
Shawn B. Dandridge, and Lead Counsel for the Putative Class are:

          Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
          Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
          Jenny L. paquette, Esq.
          Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
          Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq.
          Nathan Hasiuk, Esq.
          Jonathan F. Neumann, Esq.
          Samuel c. Feldman, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
          E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com
                  skaplan@ktmc.com
                  jpaquette@ktmc.com
                  snirmul@ktmc.com
                  ebarlieb@ktmc.com
                  nhasiuk@ktmc.com
                  jneumann@ktmc.com
                  sfeldman@ktmc.com

Liaison Counsel for the Putative Class are:

          Daniel L. Germain, Esq.
          ROSMAN & GERMAIN LLP
          16311 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 788 0877
          Facsimile: (818) 788-0885
          E-mail: Germain@lalawyer.com

SPROUT IRA LLC: Getz Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Sprout IRA, LLC for
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
case is captioned DANIEL GETZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SPROUT IRA, LLC, a Utah
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22414-JLK
(S.D. Fla., June 11, 2019). Plaintiff Daniel Getz alleges that
Sprout IRA, LLC is engaged in unsolicited marketing practices that
harm thousands of consumers in the process. Getz asserts that the
company utilized automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) in
transmitting telemarketing text messages to his cellular telephone
number ending in 9495.  At no point in time did Getz provide Sprout
IRA, LLC with his express written consent to be contacted using an
ATDS. Accordingly, Getz seeks injunctive relief to halt Sprout IRA,
LLC's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of
privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life
of thousands of individuals.

Sprout IRA, LLC is a Utah limited liability company whose principal
office is located at 2912 Executive Pkwy Ste 120 Lehi, UT 84043.
The company provides services to individuals by helping them create
a customized retirement saving investment plan. 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


SUNCOKE ENERGY: Zolotarev Alleges Misleading Registration Statement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ZOLOTAREV, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS, L.P., MICHAEL
G. RIPPEY, P. MICHAEL HARDESTY, JOHN W. SOMERHALDER II, ALVIN
BLEDSOE, FAY WEST, KATHERINE T. GATES, MARTHA CARNES, SUNCOKE
ENERGY, INC., SUSAN R. LANDAHL, PETER B. HAMILTON, ROBERT A.
PEISER, JOHN W. ROWE, and JAMES E. SWEETNAM, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01055-UNA (D. Del., June 7, 2019), seeks to enjoin
SunCoke Energy, Inc. (NYSE: SXC) and SunCoke Energy Partners, L.P.
(NYSE: SXCP) from holding a unitholders vote on the defendants'
proposed merger and from taking any steps to consummate the
Proposed Merger unless, and until, the material information is
disclosed to SXCP unitholders sufficiently in advance of the vote
on the Proposed Merger or, in the event the Proposed Merger is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.

On Feb. 5, 2019, SunCoke Energy and SunCoke Energy Partners
announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement
whereby SXC will acquire all outstanding common units of SXCP not
already owned by SXC in a stock-for-unit merger transaction (the
"Simplification Transaction"). The Simplification Transaction is
expected to close late in the second quarter or early in the third
quarter of 2019, subject to customary closing conditions.  Pursuant
to the terms of the merger agreement, SXCP unaffiliated common
unitholders will receive 1.40 SXC common shares for each SXCP
common unit. The SXCP unit price implied by the exchange ratio
represents a 9.3% premium to SXCP's closing price on February 4,
2019 and a 12.7% premium, based on SXC's and SXCP's 30-day volume
weighted average prices ending Feb. 4, 2019.

Based on the exchange ratio and current trading price of SXC stock,
the estimated per unit value of the Merger Consideration is
approximately $13 per unit.

Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, the Proposed Merger must be
approved by a vote of a majority of the outstanding common units
excluding the units held by the General Partner and its affiliates.
The votes of the General Partner and its affiliates may be counted
if the General Partner Conflict Committee recommends the Proposed
Merger. Partnership Agreement, Section 14.3(a), (b); SunCoke Energy
Partners, L.P. Annual Report 27 (Form 10-K) (Feb. 15, 2018).

On March 8, 2019, in order to convince SXCP unitholders to vote in
favor of the Proposed Merger, a materially incomplete and
misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement 3 was filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The materially incomplete and
misleading S-4 violates both Regulation G (17 C.F.R. Sec. 244.100)
and SEC Rule 14a-9 (17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9), each of which constitutes
a violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The S-4
has been amended several times, including on April 11, 2019, May
16, 2019 and May 20, 2019, but none of the amendments addressed the
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
contained in the S-4. The S-4, including the amendments, is
referred to as the "S-4/A" or the "Registration Statement."

Simultaneously with the execution of the Merger Agreement on
February 4, 2019, SC&C entered into a Support Agreement with SXCP,
pursuant to which, among other things, SC&C agreed to support the
Merger by delivering a written consent covering all the 61.7% of
outstanding common units it owns approving the Merger, within two
business days after the effectiveness of the S-4/A. This means that
the independent Conflicts Committee would have been relying in part
on the legally defective and materially incomplete S-4/A that was
the subject of the lawsuit at the time the decision to tender the
votes was actually implemented without objection or further action
by the Conflicts Committee.

"In connection with the proposed Merger, management of SunCoke
prepared non-public projections relating to the future financial
and operating performance of SunCoke and SXCP with respect to the
fiscal years ending December 31, 2019 through 2023." This
information is indisputably material due to the astounding
conflicts of interest that SXC concedes in the S-4/A by disclosing
that the SXCP's internal projections used by the Conflicts
Committee and its financial advisor to weigh the fairness of the
Proposed Merger were created by employees of SXC.

The S-4/A is materially deficient and violates SEC Regulations G
and 14a-9. While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration
to the Company's unitholders in the S-4/A, Defendants have failed
to disclose certain material information that is necessary for
unitholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Merger,
thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain
statements in the S-4/A materially incomplete and misleading, the
lawsuit says.

SXCP is a limited partnership whose units are publicly traded on
the New York Stock Exchange. SXCP's general partner is a Delaware
limited liability company called SunCoke Energy Partners LLC GP.
The General Partner is wholly owned by an affiliate, Sun Coal &
Coke LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("SC&C"). SC&C is in
turn wholly owned by SunCoke. SXCP is governed by the First Amended
and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of SunCoke Energy
Partners, L.P. dated January 24, 2013. The General Partner and SC&C
are signatories to the Partnership Agreement.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com
                  nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com

SUPER MICRO: NY Trades Council & Hotel Association Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
SuperMicro Computer Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2019, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit led by New York Hotel
Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension
Fund.

On February 8, 2018, two putative class action complaints were
filed against the company, its CEO, and its former CFO in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Hessefort
v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-00838 and United
Union of Roofers v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., No.
18-cv-00850).

The complaints contain similar allegations, claiming that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
due to alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in public
statements regarding recognition of revenue.

The court subsequently appointed New York Hotel Trades Council &
Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund as lead
plaintiff and it filed an amended complaint naming the company's
Senior Vice President of Investor Relations, as an additional
defendant.

The court approved the parties' agreement to permit a further
amendment of the complaint, which was filed on January 22, 2019.

SuperMicro said, "We believe the allegations filed are without
merit, and intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit."

SuperMicro Computer Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
application-optimized server systems and components based on a
modular and open-standard architecture. Customers can order server
solutions with levels of processing power, input/output bandwidth,
and memory capacity tailored for their specific application needs.
Super Micro Computer was founded in 1993 and is headquartered in
San Jose, California.


SYMANTEC CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May 24, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action suit is pending.

Securities class action lawsuits, which have since been
consolidated, were filed in May 2018 against the company and
certain of its current and former officers, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The lead plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint alleges that,
during a purported class period of May 11, 2017 to August 2, 2018,
defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and that certain individuals violated
Section 20A, of the Securities Exchange Act. Defendants filed
motions to dismiss, which are currently pending.

Symantec Corporation provides cyber security products, services,
and solutions worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Enterprise Security and Consumer Cyber Safety. The company was
founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Mountain View, California.


TARGET CORP: Rigney Files Suit Over Health Plan Coverage Dispute
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN RIGNEY and KYLE ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01432-MSS-JSS (13th Judicial Circuit
Ct., Hillsborough Cty., Fla., June 13, 2019) is a Class Action
Complaint against Defendant alleging that Defendant failed to
provide legally sufficient required notices of Plaintiffs' right to
continued health care coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 ("COBRA").

Plaintiff Shawn Rigney is a former employee of Defendant, and Kyle
Adams is his partner. Both were covered under Shawn Rigney's health
plan through Defendant. Defendant is a foreign corporation with its
headquarters in Minneapolis, Minnesota but is registered to do
business in the State of Florida.

According to the complaint, the Defendant, the plan sponsor of the
Health Plan ("Plan"), has repeatedly violated Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by failing to provide
participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as
prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health
coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by
the statute. Simply put, the Defendant's COBRA notice process
violates the law. Rather than including all information required by
law in a single notice "written in a manner calculated to be
understood by the average plan participant," Defendant's COBRA
notification process instead offers only part of the legally
required information but does so in piece-meal fashion.

Additionally, Defendant's COBRA enrollment notice violates 29
C.F.R. Section 2590.606–4(b)(4)(xii) because the COBRA notice
itself fails to include an address indicating where COBRA payments
should be mailed. The Defendant sent out to Plaintiff and the
putative class members a separate letter containing information on
COBRA styled "Confirmation of Coverage - My Pay and Benefits", that
contains some--but not all--of the information missing from its
COBRA enrollment notice, says the complaint.

As a result of these violations, which threaten Class Members'
ability to maintain their health coverage, Plaintiffs seek
statutory penalties, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, and other appropriate relief as provided by law.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     CHAD A. JUSTICE, ESQ.
     Justice for Justice LLC
     1205 N Franklin St, Suite 326
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Direct Phone: 813-566-0550
     Facsimile: 813-566-0770
     Email: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com

          - and -

     BRANDON J. HILL, ESQ.
     LUIS A. CABASSA, ESQ.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Main Phone: 813-224-0431
     Facsimile: 813-229-8712
     Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
            bhill@wfclaw.com
            jcornell@wfclaw.com
            rcooke@wfclaw.com


TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders' Class Action in Initial Stages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Taronis Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a class action suit initiated by the
company's shareholders.

On April 15, 2019, the company received notice that a class action
lawsuit was filed on behalf of the company's shareholders who
purchased shares of the Company, f/k/a MagneGas Applied Technology
Solutions, Inc. from January 28, 2019 through February 12, 2019,
inclusive.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for the Company's investors
under the federal securities laws.

The litigation is in the early stages and it is unknown whether it
will have a financial impact on the Company.

Taronis Technologies, Inc., a technology-based company, focuses on
addressing the constraints on natural resources primarily in the
United States. The company offers MagneGas, a hydrogen-based
synthetic fuel that is used as an alternative to acetylene and
other natural gas derived fuels for metal cutting and other
commercial uses. The company was formerly known as MagneGas Applied
Technology Solutions, Inc. and changed its name to Taronis
Technologies, Inc. in January 2019. Taronis Technologies, Inc. was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Clearwater, Florida.


TCF FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
TCF Financial Corporationsaid in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on May 28, 2019, that the
plaintiffs challenging the company's merger agreement with Chemical
Financial have agreed to dismiss their respective complaints with
prejudice as to their individual claims and without prejudice to
the claims of the members of the putative class.

On January 27, 2019, TCF and Chemical Financial Corporation
("Chemical").issued a press release announcing that the two
entities had entered into a definitive agreement (the "Merger
Agreement"), by which Chemical will acquire all of the outstanding
shares of the Company in an all-stock transaction (the "Proposed
Transaction"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, each
outstanding share of TCF common stock will be converted into the
right to receive 0.5081 shares of Chemical common stock (the
"Merger Consideration").

In connection with the Merger, purported shareholders of TCF have
filed five putative class action lawsuits and individual lawsuits
against TCF and members of TCF's board of directors (collectively,
the "Actions").

Three of these lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware: Wang v. TCF Financial
Corporation et al., 1:19-cv-00661 (filed on April 9, 2019),
Parshall v. TCF Financial Corporation et al., 1:19-cv-00663 (filed
on April 10, 2019), and White v. TCF Financial Corporation et al.,
1:19-cv-00683 (filed on April 12, 2019).

One lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York: Harrelson v. TCF Financial
Corporation et al., 1:19-cv-03183 (filed on April 10, 2019). And
one lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery: Nelson v.
TCF Financial Corporation et al., 2019-0335-JTL (filed on May 6,
2019).

In general, the Actions assert claims against TCF and TCF's board
of directors, alleging, among other things, that the defendants
misstated or failed to disclose certain allegedly material
information in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus
relating to the Merger that Chemical and TCF filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2019 (the "Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus").

TCF believes that the allegations in the Actions are without merit
and denies that any further disclosure is required to supplement
the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable law; however,
to avoid the costs, risks, nuisance and uncertainties inherent in
litigation, TCF wishes to voluntarily provide the supplemental
disclosures related to the Merger as set forth below (the
"Additional Disclosures").  

The Additional Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the
Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

TCF Financial said, "In light of the Additional Disclosures,
plaintiffs in the Actions have agreed to dismiss their respective
complaints with prejudice as to their individual claims and without
prejudice to the claims of the members of the putative class. In
dismissing the Actions, plaintiffs have reserved the right to seek
an award of attorneys' fees from the court."

A copy of the additional information is available at
https://urlzs.com/WGyKb.

TCF Financial Corporation operates as the bank holding company for
TCF National Bank that provides various financial products and
services in the United States and Canada. It operates through
Consumer Banking, Wholesale Banking, and Enterprise Services
segments. TCF Financial Corporation was founded in 1923 and is
headquartered in Wayzata, Minnesota.


TETRAPHASE PHARMA: Garity Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, EDWARD GARITY, Individually, and on Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., GUY MACDONALD, JACQUES DUMAS, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., BMO
CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED,
SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY & CO., LLC, H.C. WAINWRIGHT & CO., LLC,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06797 (Filed July 27, 2018), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts
(Boston) on June 10, 2019. The District of Massachusetts Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-11282-IT to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Indira Talwani.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that:
a) acquired Tetraphase securities pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's false and/or misleading registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's July 2017
secondary public offering ; and/or, b) acquired Tetraphase
securities between March 8, 2017 and February 13, 2018, inclusive.
The Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants, under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.[BN]

Attorneys  for the Plaintiff are:

          Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD
             DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
             HALE AND DORR LLP
          7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 937-7220
          Facsimile: (212) 937-7300
          E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com

TRANS-INDIA: Turner Sues over Shikai Products' "Natural" Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Turner, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Trans-India Products, Inc.
d/b/a Shikai Products, the Defendant, Case 2:19-cv-03422 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 10, 2019), seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading
business practices of Trans-India Products, Inc. with respect to
the marketing and sales of these SHIKAI product lines throughout
the State of New York and throughout the country:

-- SHIKAI Borage Therapy Children's Lotion
-- SHIKAI Natural Everyday Shampoo
-- SHIKAI Natural Color Care Shampoo
-- SHIKAI Natural Moisturizing Shampoo
-- SHIKAI Natural Volumizing Shampoo
-- SHIKAI Natural Everyday Conditioner
-- SHIKAI Natural Tea Tree Shampoo
-- SHIKAI Natural Tea Tree Conditioner
-- SHIKAI Henna Gold Highlighting Shampoo
-- SHIKAI Henna Gold Highlighting Conditioner
-- SHIKAI Borage Therapy Moisturizing Shampoo
-- SHIKAI Borage Therapy Moisturizing Conditioner
-- SHIKAI Borage Therapy Dry Skin Lotion Original Unscented
-- SHIKAI Borage Therapy Advanced Formula
-- SHIKAI Borage Therapy Dry Skin Lotion Lightly Fragranced
-- SHIKAI Borage Therapy Hand Cream
-- SHIKAI Borage Therapy Foot Cream
-- SHIKAI Borage Therapy Borage Bar
-- SHIKAI Borage Therapy Eye Cream
-- SHIKAI Borage Therapy Facial Moisturizer
-- SHIKAI Borage Therapy Facial Scrub
-- SHIKAI Borage Therapy Facial Cleanser

The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products
using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims
that appeal to health conscious consumers, i.e., that its Products
are "Natural". However, Defendant's advertising and marketing
campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the Products
contain synthetic ingredients.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated ("Class Members") relied
on Defendant's misrepresentations that the Products are "Natural"
when purchasing the Products. Plaintiff and Class Members paid a
premium for the Products over and above comparable products that
did not purport to be "Natural". Given that Plaintiff and Class
Members paid a premium for the Products based on Defendant's
misrepresentations that they are "Natural", Plaintiff and Class
Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid.

Consumers have become increasingly concerned about the effects of
synthetic and chemical ingredients in food, cleaning products, bath
and beauty products and everyday household products. Companies such
as the Defendant have capitalized on consumers' desire for
purportedly "natural products." Indeed, consumers are willing to
pay, and have paid, a premium for products branded "natural" over
products that contain synthetic ingredients. Despite the Products
containing a number of synthetic ingredients, Defendant markets the
Products as being "Natural", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Brown, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550
          E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com

TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Ronquillo Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit entitled GENOVEVA RONQUILLO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA, LLC; BBDI LLC; and DOES 1 to 50,
inclusive, Case No. BCV-19-101121, was removed on May 30, 2019,
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Kern to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00412 to the
proceeding.

Genoveva Ronquillo filed this unverified Class Action Complaint on
April 24, 2019, for Damages against TravelCenters and BBDI LLC in
the Superior Court, which sets forth these seven causes of action:
(1) Rest Periods; (2) Meal Periods; (3) Itemized Wage Statement
(Check Stubs) Penalties; (4) Waiting Time Penalties; (5)
Restitution; (6) Minimum Wages and Liquidated Damages; and (7)
Penalties under California Labor Code Section 558.

The Complaint is brought as a class action pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 on behalf of all "individuals
who are currently or have been employed in California by Defendants
as non-exempt employees during the Class Period (which commences
four years prior to the filing of this action and continues until
judgment is rendered herein), and whose working conditions are not
controlled by a collective bargaining agreement."[BN]

Defendant TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA LLC is represented by:

          Mia Farber, Esq.
          Talya Z. Friedman, Esq.
          Eric J. Gitig, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Telephone: (213) 689-0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
          E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com
                  Talya.Friedman@jacksonlewis.com
                  Eric.Gitig@jacksonlewis.com


UNITED STATES: Moler Files Suit v. FBOP in Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against officers and staff at
the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The case is styled as Arthur
Flemming Moler on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
who are and or may in the future become incarcerated in the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, Plaintiff v. Autumn Lawson, Thomas Branscum, P.
Poston, Rhonda Jones, Tara Cimarossa, Pamela Kenney, D.K. Lennon,
A. Rowe, L. Howard, Jennifer West, James Holland, J. Ray Ormond,
Ian Connors, Doug Lemon, Aimee Phillips, Ms. J. Free, Stephanie
Sumner, Adam K. Morrow, N. Stephens, K. Miracle, T. Partin,
Christopher S. Stovall, Elizabeth Barnes, Mitchell Dyer, D.
Parteni, C. Kapusta, K. Baker, Dr. Vibeke Dankwa, William Hardy,
Maria Marrero, Carrie Cunnigan, Roanne CMC, Scott Finey, Jason
Sickler, B.K. Victor, B. Ricsz, Mathew M. Mellady, Mark Inch, S.
Partin, C. Gomez, Parsons-Gould, Rachel Johnson, Alysia Handel,
Sexton C.O. (1), Sexton C.O. (2), Carson C.O., Brake C.O., M.
Jackson, Christopher Mabe, Barron Associate Warden, Deborah Schult,
Gretchen Ryle, John F. Caraway, John Gilley,  Angela Dunbar, S.
Lynch, McCormick CMC , John O'Brien Chief , Jose A. Santana Chief,
Jordan R. Perry, John A. Cook, Jr., Emmanuel S. McVay, Bryan
Messer, Richard J. Woods, Benjamin S. Potter, Joshua M. Worley, LD
Vaughn, Wesley J. Dalton, Posey Officer, Jeffrey D. Allen, USA,
FBOP, John and Jane Does being sued as "Contract-Medicals", John
and Jane Does being sued as "MCR-ARCS", John and Jane Does being
sued as "SHU Guards", John and Jane Does being sued as
"PREA-Guards", John and Jane Does being sued as
"MCR-Property-Guards", John and Jane Does being sued as"SCRO-ARCS",
John and Jane Does being sued as "MARO-ARCS", John and Jane Does
being sued as "DSCC-Clerks", John and Jane Does being sued as
Unknown Named "Contract-Medicals" Companies, as a corporation that
contracts medical personnel to the FBOP and the USA, Defendants;
Case No. 6:19-cv-00149-GFVT (E.D. Ky., June 17, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Petitions.

Autumn Lawson is a citizen of Kentucky, USA.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Files Petition for Cert. in Peterson ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, United HealthCare
Services, Inc., UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company,
UnitedHealthcare Service LLC, and Optum, Inc., filed with the
Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari
in the matter styled UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., Petitioners
v. Louis J. Peterson, on Behalf of Patients E, I, K, L, N, P, Q,
and R, et al., Case No. 18-1498.

Response is due on July 1, 2019.

The Lower Court Case is titled LOUIS J. PETERSON, D.C., ON BEHALF
OF PATIENTS E, I, K, L, N, P, Q AND R, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL. v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC. ET AL., Case
No. 17-1744, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.

The questions presented are:

   1. whether the Eight Circuit erred in holding--consistent
      with decisions of the First Circuit but in conflict with
      those of the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits--that
      under the deferential Firestone standard of review, an
      administrator's determination that the plan authorizes
      certain remedial actions or measures is necessarily
      unreasonable merely because the plan is silent on the
      matter; and

   2. whether the Firestone deference standard allows courts to
      reject an otherwise reasonable plan construction that is
      lawful under Employee Retirement Income Security Act but,
      in the court's view, pushes ERISA's boundaries.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Eighth Circuit
Judge L. Steven affirmed the District Court's grant of partial
summary judgment to the Plaintiffs on the issue of liability.

The named Plaintiffs in these consolidated class action cases are
out-of-network medical providers who United intentionally failed to
fully pay for services rendered to United plan beneficiaries in
order to offset overpayments to the same providers from other
United administered plans.  The Plaintiffs, litigating under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") on behalf of
their patients, the plan beneficiaries, claim the relevant plan
documents do not authorize United to engage in cross-plan
offsetting.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners UnitedHealth Group Inc., et al., are
represented by:

          Anton Metlitsky, Esq.
          Jennifer B. Sokoler, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Times Square Tower
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          E-mail: ametlitsky@omm.com
                  jsokoler@omm.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Boyle, Esq.
          Gregory F. Jacob, Esq.
          Kendall Turner, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          E-mail: bboyle@omm.com
                  gjacob@omm.com
                  kendallturner@omm.com


US AVIATION: Court Rejects $880,000 Settlement
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, JAMES HARALSON, the Plaintiff, vs.
U.S. AVIATION SERVICES CORP., the Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-05207-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon S. Tigar entered
an order denying preliminary certification of a settlement class
without prejudice.

The proposed class consists of:

   "all current and former non-exempt airplane cabin cleaners who
    performed services for USAS in California during the Class
    Period."

Under the Settlement, USAS agrees to pay $880,000 to the settlement
administrator, which will ultimately be distributed to the Class.
The following amounts will be deducted from the Settlement Amount:


     (1) attorneys' fees and expenses;
     (2) a service award to Plaintiff;
     (3) settlement administration costs; and
     (4) taxes.

The Settlement permits Plaintiff's counsel to seek one-third of the
Settlement Amount, or $293,333.33 in attorneys' fees, $15,000 in
litigation costs, and a $7,500 service award.

The Settlement limits administrative costs to $20,000, and
estimates $25,000 in employer taxes.

The Settlement also allocates $25,000 to PAGA penalties, of which
$18,750 will paid to the California Labor Workforce Development
Agency, as required by statute, Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 2699(i).

The remaining Settlement Amount will be  allocated to each class
member according to the number of weeks he or she worked during the
Class Period.

Assuming none of the approximately 630 class members opts out of
the Settlement, each class member will receive a gross amount of
approximately $1,400 prior to deducting the above fees and costs.

The Court requires further explanation as to the propriety of
requiring class members to release claims against a non-party such
as United Airlines. In sum, the Settlement's allocated PAGA
recovery of 1% is on the border of percentages that raise
heightened concerns.

The Court defers resolution of its adequacy pending further
information from the parties regarding the maximum value and
reasons for discounted recovery of both the Rule 23 and PAGA
claims.

Finally, the Proposed Notice "should make clear that the court can
only approve or deny the settlement and cannot change the terms of
the settlement." The Court invites the parties to consider this
district's suggested language.[CC]

VITAL DATA: Turizo Suit Seeks Redress for TCPA Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
RYAN TURIZO v. VITAL DATA SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
0:19-cv-61318-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2019), is brought on behalf
of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated seeking redress
for the alleged illegal practices of the Defendant, which violate
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Turizo alleges that on May 7, 2019, he began receiving calls on
his Cellphone from the Defendant, wherein it sought to solicit
undesirable services and/or products to him.  He contends that all
calls the Defendant placed to his Cellphone (made without his
express consent) resulted in injury, the invasion of his privacy
and the intrusion of his right of seclusion.

Vital Data is a Florida corporation with a principal place of
business located in North Palm Beach, Florida, and is doing
business in the state of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas J. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 907-1136
          Facsimile: (855) 529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com


WAGEWORKS INC: Amended Complaint Filed in Virgin Islands Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
WageWorks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 30, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2018, that a consolidated amended complaint
has been filed in the class action suit initiated by the Government
Employees' Retirement System of the Virgin Islands.

On March 9, 2018, a putative class action' captioned Government
Employees' Retirement System of the Virgin Islands v. WageWorks,
Inc., et al., No. 4:18-cv-01523-JSW - was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California (the
"Securities Class Action") against the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer. The
complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of persons and entities
that acquired WageWorks securities between May 6, 2016 and March 1,
2018, and alleges, among other things, that the defendants issued
false and misleading financial statements.

On May 16, 2019, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the
lead plaintiffs asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against the
Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief
Financial Officer on behalf of purchasers of WageWorks common stock
between May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018.

The complaint also alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, arising from the company's June 19, 2017 common stock
offering against those same defendants, as well as the members of
the company's Board of Directors at the time of that offering and
the underwriters of the offering.

WageWorks, Inc. engages in administering consumer-directed benefits
(CDBs) that empower employees to save money on taxes, and provide
corporate tax advantages for employers in the United States.
WageWorks, Inc. was incorporated in 2000 and is headquartered in
San Mateo, California.


WAITR HOLDINGS: Provisional Certification of Driver Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, AUTUMN MONTGOMERY AND NATESHUS
JACKSON, the Plaintiff, vs. WAITR HOLDINGS, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02208-EEF-DMD (E.D. La.), Autumn Montgomery moves
the Court for an Order:

   1. provisionally certifying action as a collective action
      pursuant to 29 USCA section 216(b), on behalf of the Fair
      Labor Standards Act W2 DRIVER CLASS, consisting of:

      "all Delivery Drivers employed by WAITR INCORPORATED or WAITR

      HOLDINGS, INC. in any state at any time during the period
      March 6, 2016 to the present for whom the employer reported
      wages on IRS Form W2";

   2. appointing Autumn Montgomery Class Representative;

   3. directing the Defendant to provide the names, mailing
      addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and mobile
      phone numbers of all persons who are within the definition of

      the FLSA W2 DRIVER CLASS;

   4. authorizing the Plaintiff to communicate Notice of the
      pendency of this action and of potential Class Members' right

      to join the action to all such persons by mail, email, text
      message, web posting, and Company message board or intranet;

      and

   5. tolling the statute of limitations for claims by prospective

      Class Members.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Christopher L. Zaunbrecher, Esq.
          BRINEY FORET CORRY, LLP
          413 Travis Street, Suite 200
          Post Office Drawer 51367
          Lafayette, LA 70505-1367
          Telephone: (337) 456-9835
          Facsimile: (337) 233-8719
          E-mail: zaunbrecher@brineyforet.com

WELLS FARGO: Singer Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
PAUL SINGER and SHAMEIKA DIXON, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00679 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2019) is a
collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and a
class action pursuant to the laws of the State of North Carolina
and the State of Texas to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, and
other applicable penalties.

Although Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have routinely
worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek,
Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members have not been paid
overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, asserts the
complaint. Wells Fargo knowingly and deliberately failed to
compensate Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members for all hours
worked each workweek and the proper amount of overtime on a routine
and regular basis during the relevant statutes of limitation, says
the complaint.

Plaintiffs have been employed by Wells Fargo as customer service
representatives since approximately April of 2010 until April
2018.

Wells Fargo is a multinational financial services company with its
United States headquarters located in San Francisco, California and
with locations across the thirty-seven countries. Wells Fargo's
call centers operate throughout the United States to serve its
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


WITKES LAW FIRM: Stevens Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Witkes Law Firm, LLC.
The case is styled as Justina Stevens, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Witkes Law Firm,
LLC, and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02513-GCS-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio, June 17, 2019).

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

Witkes Law Firm is a debt collector and is one of the leading
Creditors Rights attorneys in Columbus Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Amichai Eitan Zukowsky, Esq.
     23811 Chagrin Blvd., Ste. 160
     Beachwood, OH 44122
     Phone: (216) 800-5529
     Fax: (216) 514-4987
     Email: ami@zukowskylaw.com


XING YUE INC: Wang Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZHENGJIAN WANG, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. XING YUE, INC. d/b/a Szechuan Gourmet; JIA XING 39TH,
INC. d/b/a Szechuan Gourmet; XING WONG GOURMET, INC. d/b/a Szechuan
Gourmet; and LI XING, INC. d/b/a Szechuan Gourmet; JING HUANG
ZHENG, JUNE ZENG, CHENG ZHONG HUANG, YUE YUAN WANG, XING HUANG, and
LILI LIAO, Case No. 1:19-cv-05072-RA (S.D.N.Y., May 31, 2019),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wage and unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Xing Yue Inc., doing business as Szechuan Gourmet, is a domestic
business corporation organized under the laws of the state of New
York with a principal address at 242 W 56th St., in New York City.
Jia Xing 39th Inc., doing business as Szechuan Gourmet, is a
domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the state
of New York with a principal address at 21 W 39th, in New York
City.

Xing Wong Gourmet Inc., doing business as Szechuan Gourmet, is a
domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the state
of New York with a principal address at 1395 2nd Avenue, in New
York City.  Li Xing Inc., doing business as Szechuan Gourmet, is a
domestic business corporation organized under the laws of the state
of New York with a principal address at 135-15 37th Avenue, in
Flushing, New York.  The Individual Defendants are officers,
directors, managers and/or majority shareholders or owners of the
Corporate Defendants.

The Defendants are doing business as "Szechuan Gourmet" restaurant
chain in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com



                            *********

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 ***