CAR_Public/190627.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, June 27, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 128

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Zayas-Bazan Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
ADMIRAL THEATRE: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class
AIR CANADA: Lawyers Propose Class Action Over 737 Max Groundings
ANGLIN'S BEACH CAFE: Vertilus Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
BRIGADOON FITNESS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Fax Class Action

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Presser Sues over Fraudulent Business Practice
CARE ABOVE ALL CARE: Walker Seeks OT Pay
CASAL INSTITUTE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Guy FLSA Suit
CENTO FINE: Faces Class Action Over San Marzano Tomatoes
CENTRA TECH: Bid to Certify Securities Suit Filed

CGCG REAL ESTATE: Williams Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
CHICAGO, IL: Appellate Court Revives Tainted Water Class Action
CHICAGO, IL: Ill. App. Flips Dismissal of Berry Suit With Prejudice
CHRISTIAN FAITH: O'Brien Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
CLAUDIO & JOHNSON: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought

CLEARVIEW CENTERS: Purnell FLSA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
COOPER COMPANIES: Deal in Contact Lens Suit Awaits Final OK
CREDIT CONTROL: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
DALLAS INDEPENDENT: Normore Job Discrimination Suit Claims Narrowed
DIRECT ENERGY: Accused by Perrong of Making Illegal Calls

DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Employee Suit vs. Dollar Tree Ongoing
DOLLAR TREE: Illinois Class Suit vs. Family Dollar Ongoing
DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Former Calif. Employee's Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Store Manager Suit vs. Family Dollar in Cal. Ongoing
DR REDDY'S: Class Suits over Meprobamate & Zoledronic Acid Pending

DR REDDY'S: Kroger Co. et al. Class Action Ongoing
DR REDDY'S: Pravastatin Antitrust Class Suits Ongoing
DR. REDDY'S: Court Lifts Stay on Discovery in Namenda Litigation
DR. REDDY'S: Divalproex Antitrust Class Action Ongoing
DR. REDDY'S: Price-Fixing Class Suits in Pennsylvania Underway

DUANE MORRIS: Faces Klein Suit Over FDCPA and FCCPA Violations
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Levinson Files Class Action Under FCRA
FAIRLIFE: Schwartz et al Sue over False Marketing of Milk Products
FERRELLGAS INC: Claims/Dismissals Scope in Price Suit OK'd
FIRST AMERICAN: Woodard Sues over Data Breach

FIRST FLEET: Carnegie Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
FLINT, MI: High Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Water Class Suit
FMR LLC: Accused by Lawson of Operating a Fraudulent Enterprise
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Trucks Fuel Economy Data
FRONTIER UTILITIES: Frey Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

GARMIN USA: Faces Class Action Over Promises of "Lifetime" Maps
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Young Seeks OT Pay for Straight Time Workers
HEWLETT PACKARD: Hearing in Ross & Rogus Suit Set for June 28
HEWLETT PACKARD: Sept. 27 Hearing on Settlement Distributions Set
IMPAX LAB: Pension Fund OK'd to File Statement of Recent Decision

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Must Face "Black Liquor" Class Action
ISRAT INC: Worthy Sues over Regular & Overtime Compensation
JOINT CORP: Hindi Sues Over Illegal Marketing Texts Under TCPA
KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Woolgar Sues over Misleading Statements
KNOX COUNTY, TN: Inmates File Amended Class Certification Bid

KURTELL GROWTH: Bid for Class Certification Denied
LITTLE JOHN: Class in Warner FLSA/AMWA Suit Conditionally Certified
LOUISIANA FARM: Franks Seeks to Recoup Wages for Insurance Agents
LOWE'S HOME: Danford et al. Seek to Certify Collective FLSA Class
MALTA PARK: Denial of Class Certification Bid in Sullivan Affirmed

MDL 2741: Brizendine v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Cashdollar v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Luo v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Martin v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Treadway v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2744: Bid to Exclude Hastings & Rosenberg Testimony Denied
MDL 2887: Lavalle Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
MDL 2887: McIlvaine Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
MDL 2887: Reed Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
MDL 2887: Sahli Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated

MDL 2887: Sun-Dampier Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
MICROCHIP TECH: Bid to Dismiss Jackson Class Action Underway
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bourgeoises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Colemans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lamkay et al. Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MOWI ASA: Wilkey Alleges Price-Fixing of Salmon
MYLAN: Bid for Class Certification in Epipen Suit Shelved
NATIONWIDE BANK: Court Denies Bid to Amend/Correct Hughes Suit
NBTY INC: Court Denies Bid for Summary Judgment in Alvarez Suit
NBTY INC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Alvarez Suit

NELNET: Court Allows Class Action Over Student Loan Can Proceed
NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Weaver Alleges Bait-and-Switch Scheme
OASIS LEGAL: McClain et al. Suit Moved to W.D. Kentucky
PACIFIC RAIL: Wilmsen Suit Moved to Southern District of Illinois
PATIENT INNOVATION: Tomala Agrees to Drop FLSA Lawsuit

PHILADELPHIA: Sanders Seeks to Certify Class of Detainees
PLURALSIGHT: Bid to Amend Initial Sched Order in Johnson Granted
PORSCHE CARS: Florida Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Padilla
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Homeowners File Pollution Class Action
QING JIN RESTAURANT: Lin Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages

RCI HOSPITALITY: July 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
REWALK ROBOTICS: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Court Ruling
RUSSELL CELLULAR: Bid to Certify Store Managers Class Sought
SAFEWAY INC: Violates FACTA, Martin Suit Asserts
SANDALS RESORTS: Sued Over Deceptive Tax Collection Practices

SANDERSON FARMS: Class Suit in North Carolina Remains Stayed
SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in Broiler Chicken Litigation
SANDERSON FARMS: Plaintiffs' Appeal in NY Securities Suit Pending
SANTANA CONTRACTING: Faces Saguaray Suit over Overtime Pay
SCOTTS CO: Court Removes Depalma & Leszczynski from FLSA Class Suit

SECOND ROUND: Illegally Collects Time-Barred Debt, Gileno Claims
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Fails to Provide Seats for Sales Associates
TESLA INC: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in Vaughn
THOMAS DART: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Hornbeck, et al. Seek to Certify Class

TTEC HEALTHCARE: Can Compel Beattie, Houston to Arbitration
US BANK: Court Denies Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Snyder TCPA Suit
US HEALTHWORKS: Summary Judgment Bid in Rodriguez FCRA Suit Granted
VERMONT: Sued for Refusing to Treat Inmates with Hepatitis C
VOLKSWAGEN: Court Certifies "Manlove" as Collective Action

WASATCH ADVANTAGE: Goldstein Borgen Named Counsel for Tenant Class
WELLS FARGO: $1.7MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Nakamura Suit
[*] Court Refuses to Approve Florida Class Action Rule Amendment
[*] Quinn Emanuel Attorney Loses Bid to Lead Fannie Rigging Case

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Zayas-Bazan Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHRISTOPHER ZAYAS-BAZAN, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY,
AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01680-MCR-GRJ
(D. Conn., May 23, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss
or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously in
the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

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

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Robert I. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
          THE REARDON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          160 Hempstead St.
          P.O. Drawer 1430
          New London, CT 06320
          Telephone: 860 442 0444
          Facsimile: 860 444 6445
          E-mail: rreardon@reardonlaw.com

ADMIRAL THEATRE: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Paulina Wisniewska, the Plaintiff, v.
Admiral Theatre Inc, et al., the Defendant, Case No.:
1:18−cv−04749 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman
entered an order terminating Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on June 12, 2019,
the Court granted Defendant's oral motion to dismiss for failure to
prosecute. The case is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's
motion to certify class is terminated.[CC]

AIR CANADA: Lawyers Propose Class Action Over 737 Max Groundings
----------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that on Friday, May 17, lawyers filed a motion
proposing a class action lawsuit against Air Canada on behalf of
customers who purchased tickets for flights on a Boeing 737 MAX
aircraft between May 1 and July 30, 2019.

Following the deadly Ethiopian Airlines crash in March, Transport
Canada grounded all Boeing 737 MAX aircraft until further notice.

As a result, airlines have had to cut back and reschedule flights
over the coming months.

The proposal for the class action lawsuit was filed by Perrier
Avocats, a law firm based in Montreal. [GN]


ANGLIN'S BEACH CAFE: Vertilus Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Anglin's Beach
Cafe, LLC and Spiro Marchelos for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned SHUBERT VERTILUS, and
all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, vs. ANGLIN'S BEACH CAFE,
LLC, an active Florida limited liability company; and SPIRO
MARCHELOS, individually; Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61462-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., June 12, 2019). Plaintiff Shubert Vertilus allege that
the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime
compensation for all hours worked on excess of 40 in a given
workweek. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover minimum wage and
overtime compensation owed to him and similarly situated
employees.

Anglin's Beach Cafe LLC operates a restaurant located in Broward
County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Elkins, Esq.
     MLE LAW
     633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (954) 401-2608
     E-mail: melkins@mlelawfirm.com

             - and –

     Joshua M. Entin, Esq.
     ENTIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
     633 S. Andrews Ave., Suite 500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Telephone: (954) 761-7201
     E-mail: josh@entinlaw.com

BRIGADOON FITNESS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Fax Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas P. Zalany, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that one TCPA
plaintiff's national tour of district courts has certainly not been
going well.

Back in April, Squire Patton Boggs reported on how the District of
Connecticut rejected plaintiff Gorss Motels' third bid for
certification of a class of fax recipients where the faxes in
question allegedly did not contain specific opt-out language.
Following the withdrawal of the FCC's solicited fax rule and the
decision in Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, et al. v. FCC, 852 F.3d
1078, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2017), only unsolicited faxes had to maintain
the opt-language.  In the Connecticut cases, whether or not a fax
was solicited became the critical issue, and as it is one requiring
individualized proof, no certification could be granted.

In that post, we predicted that "bids to certify TCPA classes
relying on a missing opt-out language theory are now likely to meet
with repeated (failure)."  How prescient of us.

Just recently, the Northern District of Indiana in Gorss Motels v.
Brigadoon Fitness, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84058 (N.D. Ind., May 20,
2019) denied certification of a proposed class of recipients of an
April 17, 2013 fax which allegedly did not contain an "opt-out
notice." The Fax List maintained by defendant included numbers
obtained through its status as a Wyndham-approved supplier. (Gorss
Motels is a former Wyndham franchisee that operated a Super 8
Motel).  However, the Fax List also contained recipients who were
past or present customers with contact information housed in
defendant's accounting systems, or who attended trade conventions
as hotel representatives and permitted defendant to scan their
identification badges with their contact information. Determining
which of the hundreds of customers in defendant's accounting system
provided permission for defendant  to send facsimiles, and the
status of any permission, would require an individualized inquiry.
Thus, the proposed class was not "sufficiently cohesive" and could
result in "unlimited mini-trials."

Based on the opinion, it does not appear that Gorss Motels pushed
the same meritless argument it did in the Connecticut
cases—namely, that court should not follow Bais Yakkov and should
continue to apply the withdrawn FCC rule.  Now that the FCC rule
has been withdrawn and yet another court denied class
certification, it is becoming all the more unlikely that these
types of classes will ever be certified. [GN]


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Presser Sues over Fraudulent Business Practice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Cablevision Systems
Corporation and Neptune Holdings US Corp. n/k/a Altice USA, Inc.
for violations of the New York General Business Law, the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The case is captioned LEE PRESSER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS
CORPORATION and NEPTUNE HOLDINGS US CORP. n/k/a ALTICE USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-05484 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2019).
Plaintiff Lee Presser alleges that the Defendants have engaged in
unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful business practices with respect to
their change in billing practices for consumers who canceled their
services. He also claims that the Defendants have failed to comply
with common law and statutory duties pertaining to the manner of
providing notice of such changes to customers.

Cablevision is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business at One Court Square, Long Island City, New York. The
company provides telecommunication services, including television,
internet and phone services. It serves customers in the New York
metropolitan area under its Optimum brand name. It currently
operates at least seventeen Optimum stores in the state of New York
and permits customers to pay their monthly bills in person at each
of these locations. Cablevision is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Altice. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Telephone: (646) 837-7150
     Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
     E-mail: scott@bursor.com
             pfraietta@bursor.com


CARE ABOVE ALL CARE: Walker Seeks OT Pay
----------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Care Above All
Care, Inc. and Leanna Godley for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act
(AMWA). The case is captioned MARGO WALKER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF, vs. CARE ABOVE
ALL CARE, INC. AND LEANNA GODLEY, DEFENDANTS, Case No.
4:19-cv-00413-BRW (E.D. Ark., June 12, 2019). Plaintiff Margo
Walker alleges that the Defendants have commonly applied policy and
practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated a lawful overtime wage as required by the FLSA and AMWA.

Care Above All Care, Inc. (CAAC) is a domestic, for-profit
corporation created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of
the state of Arkansas, providing in-home, non-medical services to
individuals needing assistance with activities of daily living and
personal services. CAAC maintains an office at 400 West Capitol
Avenue, Suite 1700, Little Rock, Arkansas. Leanna Godley is an
owner and officer of CAAC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASAL INSTITUTE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in Guy FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARNI M. GUY, Individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CASAL INSTITUTE OF NEVADA, LLC
dba AVEDA INSTITUTE LAS VEGAS, ARTHUR J. PETRIE, JOHN GRONVALL, and
THOMAS CIARNELLO, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-02263-RFB-GWF (D.
Nev.), Judge Richard F. Boulware, II of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.

The case arises from Defendant Aveda's failure to pay the
Plaintiffs, Aveda students and alleged employees, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Nevada law.  The Ninth
Circuit's decision in Benjamin v. B & H Education, Inc.,
dispositively affects the case.  The Court retains discretion to
reconsider its prior orders sua sponte at any time before the entry
of judgment.  It therefore reconsiders its Aug. 23, 2016 order.

The Plaintiff filed her Complaint on Dec. 11, 2013.  On April 4,
2014, she moved to circulate notice to potential collective action
members under the FLSA.  On May 12, 2014, the Court issued its
Order granting the Plaintiff's motion.  In it, the Court granted
the Plaintiff 90 days to send notice to the potential class action
members to participate in the action.

The Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment on Jan. 13,
2016.  The Plaintiff filed her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
on the same day.  The Court held a hearing on July 28, 2016 to
discuss outstanding motions.  On Aug. 23, 2016, it issued an order
granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and
denying the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.  On Sept. 16,
2016, the Defendants filed a Motion for Certification of the
Court's Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment for Immediate
Appeal.

On Nov. 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class
Certification and for Injunctive Relief.  On Dec. 6, 2016, the
Defendants filed a Motion to File Supplement to their Motion for
Certification.  On Dec. 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Entry of Discovery Order.  On Feb. 10, 2017, the Court held a
motion hearing and reopened discovery for 90 days.

On March 2, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to File a Supplement
to Their Motion for Class Certification and for Injunctive Relief.
On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike, for Entry
of a Discovery Plan, or Alternatively for a Stay of Discovery.

The Court held a hearing on Sept. 11, 2017 regarding pending
motions.  It determined that it would await the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Benjamin before proceeding in the case, as the outcome
in Benjamin may trigger a reconsideration of the Court's previous
summary judgment determination.  The Court therefore stayed
discovery, denied all pending motions without prejudice to sua
sponte reconsideration, and extended discovery until after the
Court reviewed the decision in Benjamin.

On Dec. 19, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in
Benjamin.  The ordered supplemental briefing regarding the
application of Benjamin on Feb.  13, 2018.  On Feb. 27, 2018, the
parties each submitted a supplemental brief.  On Oct. 1, 2018, the
Plaintiff filed a Motion to File a Second Supplement Pursuant to
This Court's Minute Order of Feb. 13, 2018.

In its Aug. 23, 2016 order, the Court determined that the
Plaintiffs were employees under the FLSA as a matter of law.  It
based its conclusion on two main factors.  First, Aveda treated its
students as employees, who were supervised on a limited basis.
Second, Aveda subordinated the interests of its students' education
to its monetary interests; for example, Aveda required its students
to complete janitorial tasks, refused to allow students to solicit
unpaid volunteers instead of paying customers, and declined to
assign students to customers seeking procedures that students
desired to practice.

Judge Boulware now revisits its determination in light of Benjamin.
He finds that all of the facts considered by the Ninth Circuit in
its analysis are also present and undisputed in the instant case.
Aveda students (i) enrolled in the program without an expectation
of compensation; (ii) received training and academic credit in
exchange for their time in the clinical salon; (iii) received hours
necessary for licensing exams for their participation in the
clinical salon and only participated for the 1,800 hours required
for state exams; and (iv) did not displace paid employees, nor did
they expect employment at Aveda after graduation.  The Judge
incorporates by reference its more extensive analysis under each of
these seventh factors in a factually similar case, Guzman v.
Lincoln Tech. Inst.

Additionally, the facts which the Court weighed in its Aug. 23,
2016 order are equally true in Benjamin.  These factors, which the
Court previously found persuasive in its consideration of whether
the Plaintiffs were employees under FLSA, have since been
considered by the Ninth Circuit and not found to outweigh the
factors in favor of considering the Plaintiffs students rather than
employees.

In the Plaintiff's Supplement, the Plaintiff argues that the test
applied in Benjamin is essentially a "totality of the
circumstances" test, not dissimilar to that applied by the Court
previously, and that Benjamin therefore need not alter the Court's
previous conclusion.  But, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff does
not identify any concrete, relevant factual difference supported by
the record between the case presented to the Ninth Circuit in
Benjamin and the case Plaintiff presents to the Court.  Given the
nearly identical facts shared by these two cases, the Judge can
identify no basis upon which to distinguish the instant case from
Benjamin.  He is compelled to reconsider the Court's order given
the clearly applicable and binding analysis of the higher court.

Therefore, Judge Boulware will grant summary judgment in favor of
the Defendants.  The motions that the Court dismissed without
prejudice on Sept. 11, 2017 will now be dismissed with prejudice as
moot.  The Judge will grant the Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second
Supplement, but finds that the authority cited is non-binding and
does not impact the Court's decision.

Accordingly, the Judge, upon reconsideration of the Court's Aug.
23, 2016 Order, granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.  He dismissed with prejudice as moot all the motions
dismissed without prejudice on Sept. 11, 2017.  The Judge granted
the Plaintiff's Motion to File a Second Supplement.  The Clerk of
Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendants and
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/BC0RLG from Leagle.com.

Marni M. Guy, Brandon Johnson, Stacey Spinks, Alysha Mack, Lisa
Causey, Nicole Jackson, Demi Neely, LaNeshia Threadgill-Paris, Lyla
Ashby, Stephanie Hodges, Ashley Ferguson, Breanne Palmer, Gisele
Rodrigues, Charles Sloane, Taragon Peressini, Free Fargo, Tonya
Stoneroad, Stephanie Pugh, Amanda Pritchard, Kylie Mulachy, Eloisa
Garcia, Annie Toti, Wyatt McKenzie, Ashley Nichols, Candace
Kalantari, Autumn Milne, Chantal Corona, Carri Cole, Jessica
Harbor, Tia Calbert, Alexis Borghi, Jocelyn Thompson, Le'Rhonda
Wilson, Erica Garcia, Mary Ryan, Kara Wand, Kahaowaiolu Fujimori,
Stephanie Sproed, Thomasina Diederich-Farrell, Paula Dicianno,
Sarah Davis, Shannon Sterba, Rachel Petullo, Ashley Keihl, Alicia
Savage, Camille Owney, Jennifer Brun, Ashley Johnson, Krista
Kautsky, Stephanie Vanhorenbeeck, Christopher Manchise, Kimberly
Sands, Chloe Ozawa, sarah conde, Steve Pitchford, Leah Kehoe &
Richard Ramirez, Plaintiffs, represented by Dana Sniegocki --
dana@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg, Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Kaine M. Messer , Gabroy Law Offices & Leon
Marc Greenberg -- leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com -- Leon Greenberg
Professional Corporation.

Kimberly Roy, Peter Alan Alderson & Rosalya Riley, Plaintiffs,
represented by Christian James Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices & Kaine
M. Messer, Gabroy Law Offices.

Casal Institute of Nevada, LLC, doing business as Aveda Institute
Las Vegas, Defendant, represented by Kathryn B. Blakey --
kblakey@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Montgomery Y. Paek --
mpaek@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Rick D. Roskelley --
rroskelley@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Timothy Roehrs.


CENTO FINE: Faces Class Action Over San Marzano Tomatoes
--------------------------------------------------------
James Walsh, writing for Cherry Hill Courier-Post, reports that a
tomato fight is looming for a local firm that markets Italian
foods.

A federal lawsuit challenges the authenticity of San Marzano
tomatoes sold by Cento Fine Foods, contending the company's
customers are paying an inflated price for a lesser-pedigreed
pomodoro.

Cento, founded in 1962 by the son of a South Philadelphia grocer,
denies the claim as "completely unfounded."

"We take pride in the fact that our labels accurately describe the
products inside," the firm said in a statement on May 22, asserting
it "exceeds industry standards in production and has always
operated with the highest integrity.

"We are confident that the truth will prevail," it said.

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco by three California consumers,
contends "authentic" San Marzano tomatoes can only come from an
area in southern Italy, Agro Sarnese Nocerino, with "rich volcanic
soil and (a) warm, sunny and coastal climate."

It also asserts the premium tomatoes must be certified by a
"consortium" -- the Cosorzio di Tutela del Pomodora San Marzano
DOP.

It alleges some of Cento's tomatoes come from the adjacent Campania
region, and that the firm's San Marzano products are certified by a
third-party organization other than the consortium.

The class-action suit seeks damages on behalf of two proposed
groups of Cento customers, in California and nationwide. It asserts
the "matter in controversy" has a value of more than $5 million.

According to the suit, shoppers will pay more for San Marzano
tomatoes "or purchase them instead of other tomatoes, because,
rightly or wrongly, consumers believe San Marzano tomatoes have a
superior look and taste."

The suit, which includes photographs of a Cento tomato can,
contends the firm "seeks to take advantage" of customers by
misrepresenting its products "as if they were San Marzano tomatoes
grown in the Agro Sarnese-Nocerino in Italy."

In contrast, Cento's statement says it is "the only brand to have
full traceability, sustainability and transparency of San Marzano
tomato products."

Cans for Cento's San Marzano products have a map of Italy on the
back label, with shaded areas showing Agro Sarnese Nocerino and
Campania. The labels say the San Marzano tomatoes "are grown in the
Sarnese Nocerino area of Italy."

Cento's website delivers a similar message and notes the company's
processing plant "sits in the shadow of Mount Vesuvius" in the San
Marzano region.

"It is not where the product is canned but rather where it is grown
that determines whether a tomato is a true San Marzano," asserts
the lawsuit.

The suit acknowledges "seeds used to grow San Marzano tomatoes have
been cultivated elsewhere" but says those crops "are not true 'San
Marzano' tomatoes."

It also allows that Cento "may sell some 'San Marzano' tomatoes
that are grown in the Agro Sarnese Nocerino." But it says the
company does not disclose that its products are not certified by
the consortium.

Both sides also point to the "Find My Field" program at Cento's
website, which allows customers to use lot numbers on cans to
identify where tomatoes were grown.

Cento says the "groundbreaking" program allows customers to use lot
numbers on cans to pinpoint the exact field in which the tomatoes .
. . are grown."

But the lawsuit asserts "Several of the fields linked to certified
San Marzano lot numbers are not located in the Agro Sarnese
Nocerino." [GN]


CENTRA TECH: Bid to Certify Securities Suit Filed
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit against Centra Tech, Inc., and other
defendants, the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying case as class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rules
      23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of:

      "investors who purchased CTR Tokens during July 23, 2017,
      through April 20, 2018 (class period)";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Levi & Korsinsky and Taylor-Copeland Law as
      Class Counsel.

The case is a securities class action against Defendant Centra
Tech, Inc. alleging that from July 23, 2017, through April 20,
2018, Centra Tech, Inc. offered and sold Plaintiffs and the Class
unregistered securities -- in the form of Centra Tokens -- in
violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
made material misrepresentations concerning the value and
functionality of CTR Tokens in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is captioned as JACOB ZOWIE THOMAS RENSEL, WANG YUN HE,
CHI HAO POON, KING FUNG POON, JAE J. LEE, MATEUSZ GANCZAREK, and
RODNEY WARREN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CENTRA TECH, INC., SOHRAB SHARMA,
ROBERT FARKAS, RAYMOND TRAPANI, STEVEN STANLEY, STEVEN SYKES, ALLAN
SHUTT, CHASE ZIMMERMAN, FLOYD MAYWEATHER JR., AND KHALED MOHAMED
KHALED A/K/A DJ KHALED, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-24500-RNS
(S.D. Fla.).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.
          Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
          4700 Sheridan St., Suite J
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 842-2021
          Facsimile: (954) 416-6223
          E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
          John A. Carriel, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 636-7171

               - and -

          James Taylor-Copeland, Esq.
          TAYLOR-COPELAND LAW
          501 W. Broadway Suite 800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-4944
          E-mail: james@taylorcopelandlaw.com

CGCG REAL ESTATE: Williams Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against CGCG Real Estate,
LLC d/b/a Keller Williams Coral Gables-Coconut Grove for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case is
captioned JOSIE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CGCG REAL ESTATE, LLC, d/b/a
KELLER WILLIAMS CORAL GABLESCOCONUT GROVE a Florida limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61467-WPD (S.D.
Fla., June 12, 2019).

Plaintiff Josie Williams alleges that the Defendant is engaged in
aggressive unsolicited telephone marketing that has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff Williams asserts
that the Defendant has utilized an automatic dialing system in
sending unsolicited telemarketing text messages to the cellular
telephone numbers of the property owners who removed the listing of
their residential properties.

CGCG Real Estate is a Florida real estate company whose principal
office is located at 550 Biltmore Way, PH 2 A&B, Coral Gables,
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


CHICAGO, IL: Appellate Court Revives Tainted Water Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a 2-to-1 decision from the Illinois Appellate Court, a
class-action lawsuit against the city of Chicago, alleging that the
city knowingly engaged in construction projects that increased the
risk of toxic levels of lead in residents' tap water, has been
revived and is allowed to continue, according to Hagens Berman.

The decision to dismiss the case made by the Circuit Court of Cook
County has now been reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

"We can reasonably infer from these allegations that plaintiffs and
their families drank the contaminated water serviced to their
homes, thus exposing their bodies, and the organs, tissues, and
bones therein, to lead," the opinion reads. ". . . Even low levels
of lead exposure in children 'have been linked to damage to the
central and peripheral nervous system, learning disabilities,
shorter stature, impaired hearing, and impaired formation and
function of blood cells.'"

The lawsuit seeks a fund to pay for medical testing to detect
elevated blood-lead levels and to assure residents are made aware
of the hazards and effects of contamination. The suit says the city
also failed to warn residents of the risks or provide accurate
directions on how to reduce the risk of lead contamination. The
lawsuit also seeks compensation from the city to replace their lead
service lines under a theory of inverse condemnation, claiming that
the city's construction has irreversibly damaged their property.

The lawsuit, originally filed on Feb. 17, 2016 in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, states that the city's aging lead water
pipes are disturbed by construction or street work, meter
installation or replacement, or plumbing repairs. These projects
disrupt the polyphosphate coating that protects the service lines
and increases the risk of "alarming levels of lead" into nearby
residents' water supply, according to the lawsuit. Nearly 80
percent of the properties in Chicago receive drinking water via
outdated, brittle lead pipes that are cut and greatly disturbed by
the city's water and sewer main projects.

"When we filed this case in 2016, we did so under the belief that
the city of Chicago has ultimately failed to uphold its duties to
its residents by putting the health and safety of Chicagoans at
risk," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. "We
are incredibly pleased that the appellate court has seen our side
of this issue, and we look forward to continuing to pursue this
action concerning this public health issue with the utmost
urgency."

Berman, who was raised in Chicago, added that "The city has let its
residents down and turned a blind eye to its own. Hundreds of
thousands of residents are suffering in plain sight."

According to expert Marc Edwards, drinking Chicago tap water,
particularly where the city has conducted a water main replacement
project, is "like a game of Russian roulette."

If you are a resident of Chicago and believe you have been put at
risk of lead contamination due to the city's disruptive
construction projects and lack of information, you may be entitled
to medical monitoring and other compensation from the city. Contact
Hagens Berman's legal team about the class-action lawsuit on behalf
of Chicago residents.

Attorneys say the incidence of lead poisoning among Chicago
children living in older homes is several hundred percent higher
than children living in similar homes in other cities. The
complaint states that Chicago's public water system contains
millions of lead pipe service lines throughout the city and that
since 2008, the city of Chicago has been modernizing its water
system, replacing water mains and pipes that date to the 1800s. It
has conducted more than 1,600 water main and sewer replacement
projects since Jan. 1, 2009 that directly affect the water supply
to Chicago residents.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against the city of
Chicago regarding toxic lead water contamination.

                         About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with nine offices across the
country. The firm's tenacious drive for plaintiffs' rights has
earned it numerous national accolades, awards and titles of "Most
Feared Plaintiff's Firm," and MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action
law. [GN]


CHICAGO, IL: Ill. App. Flips Dismissal of Berry Suit With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GORDON BERRY and ILYA PEYSIN, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1-18-0871
(Ill. App.), Judge Sheldon A. Harris of the Appellate Court of
Illinois for the First District, Sixth Division, reversed the
judgment of the circuit court dismissing the Plaintiffs' class
action complaint.

The Plaintiffs allege negligence and inverse condemnation, which
they filed after the City replaced the water main and/or water
meter servicing their homes.  They appeal the order of the circuit
court dismissing their class action complaint.  The trial court
dismissed their complaint with prejudice on March 29, 2018.  

Between 2005 and 2011, the EPA tested the water of homes connected
to lead service lines in Chicago to determine whether the Lead and
Copper Rule, the existing federal regulation for sampling water,
sufficiently identified high lead levels in the water supply.  The
Rule seeks to manage lead levels in drinking water by setting a
'lead action level.'  Using the Rule, the EPA found that of the 13
sites where there had been a recently documented physical
disturbance virtually all of them produced samples that exceeded
the lead action level under the Lead and Copper Rule, which was "in
stark contrast" to samples taken from undisturbed sites.  In
October 2013, the commissioner of the Chicago Department of Water
Management wrote a letter to alderman about the concerns raised in
the study.  The City, however, found that the water is "absolutely
safe to drink."

The City began modernizing its water system in 2008 and since 2009
has conducted more than 1600 water main and sewer replacement
projects.  In January 2016, a routine check-up revealed that
Berry's two-year-old granddaughter, who resided with him, had high
lead levels in her blood.  Peysin's water was also tested on Oct.
28, 2016, and the results showed that after five minutes of
flushing, the lead level registered at 5.8 ppb, which was deemed
"Significant."

The initial class action complaint against the City was filed on
Feb. 18, 2016, alleging one count of negligence and one count of
inverse condemnation.  The City filed a motion to dismiss, which
the trial court granted without prejudice because plaintiffs had
not adequately pled exposure absent documentary evidence.  The
Plaintiffs thereafter tested their water and filed an amended
complaint on Jan. 9, 2017.

As to count I, the court determined that no Illinois authority has
permitted a claim for medical monitoring] absent an allegation of a
present injury.  Since the Plaintiffs readily concede that they
lack a present injury, the court found their claim for medical
monitoring to be based solely on a potential risk for future harm,
which is not recoverable under Jensen v. Bayer AG.  The trial court
dismissed count II, the Plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claim,
based on its finding that such a claim requires an allegation of
special damage to property in excess of that sustained by the
public generally.  The court found that the damages alleged by
plaintiffs resulting from the City's work on the water pipes and
meters was borne equally by all residents of the City of Chicago
attendant to *** the replacement of lead water mains.

The Plaintiffs filed their timely appeal.  They filed their notice
of appeal on April 20, 2018.  On appeal, they contend the court
erred in dismissing their complaint where (1) the complaint
sufficiently alleged a claim of negligence and the Plaintiffs
properly sought medical monitoring as relief, based on the City's
actions in replacing/repairing its lead pipe water service and
water meters, and (2) the Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a claim
of inverse condemnation where the City's actions caused the release
of high levels of lead in their water supply over time, resulting
in damage to the Plaintiffs' property.

Judge Harris finds that the Plaintiffs' complaint sufficiently
alleges they have incurred excess damages beyond that experienced
by the public generally.  The Plaintiffs allege that the City's
replacement of water mains and meters disrupted the protective
coating of their lead service lines, causing harmful levels of lead
to leach into their water.  They allege that the City further
damaged their property when it partially replaced lead service
lines when reconnecting water service to the newly replaced water
mains.  As a result, these lead service lines have become "more
dangerous" than lines that have not been partially replaced or are
not made of lead.  Since he finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently
pled their claims, he holds that the dismissal pursuant to section
2-615 of the Code was error.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Harris reversed the judgment of
the circuit court, and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 22, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/vzS6aV from Leagle.com.


CHRISTIAN FAITH: O'Brien Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, ELISSA O'BRIEN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
CHRISTIAN FAITH PUBLISHING, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-0024 (M.D.
Tenn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for entry of an order:

   1. permitting the case to proceed as a Fair Labor Standards Act
      collective action for minimum wage and overtime violations on

      behalf of "literary agents" who worked for Defendant
      Christian Faith Publishing within the past three years and
      were misclassified as independent contractors;

   2. directing Defendant to immediately provide a list of last-
      known names, emails, addresses, and telephone numbers for all

      putative class members who performed duties for CFP within
      the last three years; and

   3. deeming Opt-in Plaintiffs' consent forms to be "filed" on
the
      postmarked date.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Gilbert McWherter, Esq.
          Emily S. Alcorn, Esq.
          SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN 37067
          Telephone: (615) 354-1144
          E-mail: ealcorn@gilbertfirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Charles H. Williamson, Esq.
          WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS LLP
          511 Union St., Suite 2700
          Nashville, TN 37219
          E-mail: Charley.williamson@wallerlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Pulito, Esq.
          Jon. C. Beckman, Esq.
          Marcia Lynn DePaula, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON, PLLC
          201 Chestnut St., Suite 200
          Meadville, PA 16335
          E-mail: Brian.pulito@steptoe-johnson.com

CLAUDIO & JOHNSON: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, DONALD CISSON, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CLAUDIO &
JOHNSON, LLC, the Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-01353-HES-PDB (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff and Defendant ask the Court for an order:

   1. scheduling a final fairness hearing on July 24, 2019; and

   2. granting final approval of the class action settlement.

On February 21, 2019, the Court entered its Order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement class. The parties and the
settlement administrator have properly complied with the dictates
of that Order, including the submission of this motion and the
supporting memorandum of law.

The class settlement administrator has effectuated timely and
proper dissemination of the class notice to the members of the
settlement class pursuant to the Court's Order. The class notice
provided the method to be excluded from the class and to object to
the settlement along with the date and time of the scheduled final
fairness hearing.

No member of the class has filed or otherwise stated an objection
or expressed a desire to intervene in this action. In addition,
only six class members have been found undeliverable with no
forwarding address. However, to date, not a single class member has
asked to opt-out of the proposed settlement.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Max Story, Esq.
          Austin Griffin, Esq.
          MAX H. STORY, P.A.
          328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
          Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
          Telephone: (904) 372-4109
          Facsimile: (904) 758-5333
          E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com
                  austin@storylawgroup.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Joan Carlos Wizel, Esq.
          Onier Llopiz, Esq.
          Colby E. Grossman, Esq
          LYDECKER | DIAZ
          1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 416-3180
          Facsimile: (305) 416-3190
          E-mail: ol@lydeckerdiaz.com
                  jcw@lydeckerdiaz.com
                  ceg@lydeckerdiaz.com

CLEARVIEW CENTERS: Purnell FLSA Suit Settlement Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARLA PURNELL and TANISHA SLAUGHTER, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
v. CLEARVIEW CENTERS, LLC; 1334 WESTWOOD, LLC; 2432 WALNUT LLC;
2435 GLYNDON, LLC; QUAINT LLC; and MICHAEL ROY, etc., Defendants,
Case No. 2:18-cv-01172 DSF (SSx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dale S. Fisher
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class/Collective Action Settlement.

The Court preliminarily approved the Parties' Settlement and their
proposed resolution of the Plaintiffs' class, collective, and
representative claims on behalf of the California Class Members and
FLSA Collective Members.  In accordance with the order granting
preliminary approval, and in compliance with due process, the
Settlement Administrator sent the Class Notice to each California
Class Member and FLSA Collective Member by first-class mail.

Judge Fisher finds that the Settlement Administrator has fulfilled
its initial notice and reporting duties under the Settlement
Agreement.  The terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and the standards and applicable requirements for final
approval of the class and collective action settlement are
satisfied.

The Judge appointed the Plaintiffs as the representatives of, and
the Class Counsel as tge counsel for, the California Settlement
Class Members and the FLSA Settlement Collective Members for the
purpose of entering into and implementing the Settlement.  The
Settlement Administrator is to execute the distribution of proceeds
pursuant to the terms of the Settlement.

Payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency of
$7,500 as its share of the settlement of claims arising under the
California Private Attorneys General Act in the case is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  That amount will be paid from the Total
Settlement Amount in accordance with the Settlement Agreement and
the Court's orders, and there will be no further recourse for the
civil penalties released under the terms of the Settlement.

The fees, expenses, and any other costs of CPT Group, Inc. in
administering the Settlement, in the amount of $8,500, are fair and
reasonable.  That amount will be paid out of the Total Settlement
Amount in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, which will
fully, finally, and completely compensate CPT Group, Inc. for all
fees, expenses, and any other costs in administering the
Settlement.

The Judge approved the following payments:

      a. The payment of class representative service awards in the
amount of $750 to each of the Named Plaintiffs (in addition to any
recovery they may receive as a member of one or more of the classes
under the Settlement and their Retaliation Claims Payments);

      b. The payment of Retaliation Claims Payments in the amount
of $20,000 to each of the Plaintiffs (in addition to any recovery
they may receive as a member of one or more of the classes under
the Settlement and their class representative service awards) in
exchange for their general release to the Defendants including
their release of any retaliation claims related to their
termination of employment by the Defendants; and

      c. The payment of attorneys' fees to the Class Counsel in the
amount of 25% of the Total Settlement Amount less their litigation
costs, i.e. $107,647.08, and litigation costs of $16,411.68 to be
paid in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement to the
extent it is not inconsistent with the Courts orders.  No other
attorneys or law firms will be entitled to any award of attorneys'
fees or costs from Defendant in any way connected with the Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/v82kLH from Leagle.com.

Carla Purnell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Tanisha Slaughter, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin J.
Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz PC, pro hac
vice, Rod M. Johnston -- rjohnston@sommerspc.com -- Sommers
Schwartz PC, pro hac vice & David Yeremian -- david@yeremianlaw.com
-- David Yeremian and Associates Inc.

Clearview Centers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Laurie DeYoung --
ldeyoung@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Stacey M.
Cooper -- scooper@grsm.com -- Gordon and Rees LLP & Andrew John
Deddeh -- adeddeh@grsm.com -- Gordon and Rees Scully Mansukhani
LLP.

1334 Westwood, LLC, jointly and severally, 2432 Walnut, LLC,
jointly and severally, 2435 Glyndon, LLC, jointly and severally,
Quaint LLC, jointly and severallly & Michael Roy, jointly and
severally, Defendants, represented by Laurie DeYoung, Gordon Rees
Scully Mansukhani LLP & Andrew John Deddeh, Gordon and Rees Scully
Mansukhani LLP.


COOPER COMPANIES: Deal in Contact Lens Suit Awaits Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that the settlement of the
contact lens-related class action remains subject to final Court
approval at a future hearing to be set by the Court.

Since March 2015, over 50 putative class action complaints were
filed by contact lens consumers alleging that contact lens
manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective Unilateral
Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements between each
other and certain distributors and retailers regarding the prices
at which certain contact lenses could be sold to consumers.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages against CooperVision, Inc.,
other contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, in
various courts around the United States.

In June 2015, all of the class action cases were consolidated and
transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. In August 2017, CooperVision entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, without any admission of
liability, to settle all claims against CooperVision.

In July 2018, the Court approved the plaintiffs’ motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement, and the Company paid the
$3.0 million settlement amount into an escrow account.

The settlement remains subject to final Court approval at a future
hearing to be set by the Court.

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

The Cooper Companies, Inc. operates as a medical device company
worldwide. It operates through CooperVision and CooperSurgical
business units. The Cooper Companies, Inc. was founded in 1980 and
is headquartered in Pleasanton, California.


CREDIT CONTROL: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Arthur D. Spatt entered an order dated June 14, 2019,
granting the motion for final approval of the Class Settlement
Agreement in the case, LANA ARONNE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CREDIT CONTROL,
LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND JANE DOES
NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 10, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-03744-ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y.).  The Court has ordered the case
closed.

Credit Control is a St. Louis credit collection service that offers
debt collections, accounts receivables management, and security.

Attornesys for the Plaintiff are:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-Mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com

DALLAS INDEPENDENT: Normore Job Discrimination Suit Claims Narrowed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TERRY L. NORMORE, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS INDEPENDENT
SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND DWAIN SIMMONS, Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:18-CV-2506-N (N.D. Tex.), Judge David C. Godbey of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division,
(i) denied Defendant Dwain Simmons' motion to dismiss, but (ii)
granted in part and denied in part Dallas Independent School
District ("DISD")'s motion to dismiss.

Normore used to teach English at DISD's L.G. Pinkston High School.
She is 57 years old.  In addition to teaching English, Normore was
heavily involved in Pinkston's female athletics program.  She
coached girls basketball, girls track and field, and served as the
school's Assistant Athletic Director.

During her tenure, Normore believed that the facilities for female
athletes at Pinkston were inferior to those Pinkston provided for
males and that DISD provided to other schools.  In 2011, she began
having conversations with other Pinkston and DISD officials about
the disparity.  She claims these discussions were not fruitful.
She nevertheless continued her efforts with Simmons when he was
named Principal at Pinkston in 2014.

Normore claims, however, that Simmons was particularly unreceptive
towards her complaints and funding requests.  She claims that he
treated her more unfairly than he did her male colleagues in a
number of ways.  Tension between the two reached a boiling point in
April 2016.  Normore requested funding for gym equipment intended
for female athletes, and asked permission to turn an unused room
into a makeshift female workout facility. She claims that Derwin
Dukes, Pinkston's Athletic Director at the time, gave her
permission to take over the unused room.  Normore then began
preparing the space by painting the room.

Simmons claims he was unaware of Normore's intentions to paint the
room.  When he found out the next day, he informed Normore over
email that she had violated policy by not requesting his permission
and removed her from her position as Assistant Athletic Director.

In July, Normore filed an original grievance against Simmons,
claiming that the removal was discriminatory and retaliatory.  She
amended the grievance in August to add various Title IX
allegations.  In September, DISD began investigating the claim,
ultimately exonerating Simmons.  In response, Normore filed a
complaint with the Office of Civil Rights in December. Her
complaint was quickly referred to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC").

While the EEOC investigated her claim, Normore attended Pinkston's
athletic banquet in May 2017.  The Defendants claim that Normore
and Dukes got into an argument at the banquet that ended with
Normore punching Dukes in the chest.  After Dukes reported the
incident, DISD placed Normore on leave and instructed Simmons to
investigate the allegation.  Simmons concluded that the allegations
were credible, and recommended that Normore be terminated.  Normore
appealed the recommendation, but the Texas Commission of Education
upheld the decision.

Normore then filed suit in the Court.  She raises the following
individual claims against DISD: (1) hostile work environment and
retaliation claims under Title IX, (2) sexbased discrimination and
retaliation, and hostile work environment claims under Tile VII,
(3) age-based discrimination and retaliation, and hostile work
environment claims under the Age Discrimination Employment Act
("ADEA"), and (4) a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983.  She also raises First and Fourteenth Amendment claims
against Simmons directly, and a class action ADEA claim against
DISD.  Simmons and DISD now move to dismiss these claims under
Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6).

Simmons argues that Normore's claims fail for four reasons: (1) her
claims against Simmons are redundant of her claims against DISD;
(2) Simmons is protected by qualified immunity; (3) her claims are
time-barred; and (4) Normore generally fails to state a plausible
claim.

Judge Godbey disagrees with all four arguments.  Primarily, he
holds that Normore's claims against Simmons are not redundant.
Second, he holds that Simmons' qualified immunity defense is
improperly raised.  He also disagrees with Simmons' limitations
argument.  Lastly, the Judge holds that Normore makes out plausible
First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Simmons.  Taking what
she has alleged to be true, she makes a plausible claim that
Simmons violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.  Thus,
he denies Simmons' motion in its entirety.

The Judge grants DISD's motion to dismiss in part.  First, he
dismisses Normore's Title IX hostile work claim with prejudice,
holding that Normore's Title IX hostile work environment claim is
preempted by Title VII, and dismisses the claim with prejudice.
Second, the he dismisses all of Normore's claims against DISD that
relate to employment decisions other than her termination.  Normore
exhausted only claims for sex or age based discrimination or
retaliatory discharge.  Everything else -- including her class
claims -- are unexhausted and dismissed with prejudice.  The Judge
holds that, at this stage, Normore's remaining discrimination
claims are plausible.  Thus, while he dismisses Normore's Title IX
hostile work environment and non-termination based Title VII and
ADEA claims, her remaining claims may proceed.

For the reasons stated, Judge Godbey denied Simmons' motion in its
entirety, and granted DISD's motion in part.  He dismissed
Normore's Title IX hostile work environment claim against DISD with
prejudice.  The Judge also dismissed with prejudice Normore's Title
VII and ADEA claims against DISD that are not based on her
termination.  This includes Normore's class action claims.
Normore's remaining claims against DISD may proceed.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/dRZZnq from Leagle.com.

Terry L Normore, Individually and on Behalf of Herself and All
Other Similarly Situated Individuals, Plaintiff, represented by
Douglas C. Bracken -- douglas.bracken@solidcounsel.com -- Scheef &
Stone LLP & Christian Joseph Cowart --
christian.cowart@solidcounsel.com  -- Scheef & Stone LLP.

Dallas Independent School District & Dwain Simmons, in His Official
Capacity, Defendants, represented by Kathryn E. Long --
klong@thompsonhorton.com -- Thompson & Horton LLP, Carlos G. Lopez
-- clopez@thompsonhorton.com -- Thompson & Horton LLP & Van Khanh
Thi Pham, Thompson & Horton LLP.


DIRECT ENERGY: Accused by Perrong of Making Illegal Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW PERRONG, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. DIRECT ENERGY, LP and
JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-02373-JHS (E.D. Pa., May 31,
2019), alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Perrong asserts that Direct Energy hired John Doe Corporation
to perform telemarketing for it and attempt to secure new
customers.  In violation of the TCPA, John Doe Corporation made a
pre-recorded telemarketing call to his telephone number, which is
charged per call, in violation of the TCPA, he contends.

Direct Energy, LP, is a Texas limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Houston, Texas.  Direct Energy
engages in telemarketing into the states where it is licensed to
provide energy.

John Doe Corporation is a company hired by Direct Energy that makes
automated telemarketing calls.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Davies, Esq.
          MARC DAVIES LAW
          1315 Walnut Street, Suite 320
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 876-7636
          E-mail: marc@marcdavieslaw.com

               - and -

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
                  misny@mmmb.com

               - and -

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


DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Employee Suit vs. Dollar Tree Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that Dollar Tree continues to
defend a class action suit initiated by a distribution center
employee.

In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action
in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal
and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely
termination pay.

The employee filed an amended complaint in which he abandoned his
attempt to certify a nation-wide class of non-exempt distribution
center employees for alleged improper calculation of overtime
compensation.

The Company removed this lawsuit to federal court.

The court certified the case as a state-wide class action.

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Illinois Class Suit vs. Family Dollar Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that Family Dollar continues to
defend against a class action suit in Illinois, initiated by a
customer.

In January 2017, a customer filed a class action in federal court
in Illinois alleging the Company violated various state consumer
fraud laws as well as express and implied warranties by selling a
product that purported to contain aloe when it did not.

The requested class is limited to the state of Illinois.

The Company believes that it is fully indemnified by the entities
that supplied it with the product.

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Former Calif. Employee's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the company continues to
defend against a class action suit brought by a former employee in
the California State Court.

In August 2018, a former employee brought suit in California state
court as a class action and as a Private Attorney General Act
("PAGA") representative suit alleging the Company failed to provide
all non-exempt California store employees with compliant rest and
meal breaks, accrued vacation, accurate wage statements and final
pay upon termination of employment.

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DOLLAR TREE: Store Manager Suit vs. Family Dollar in Cal. Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that Family Dollar continues to
defend against a class action suit in California initiated by its
former store manager.

In January 2018, a former store manager and a former assistant
store manager filed suit in California state court asserting class
claims on behalf of themselves and their respective classes seeking
to recover for working off the clock, noncompliant rest and meal
periods and related claims.

The plaintiffs have amended their complaint to add a  Private
Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) claim but have also agreed to
stay the PAGA and class claims pending the arbitration of their
individual claims.

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

Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.


DR REDDY'S: Class Suits over Meprobamate & Zoledronic Acid Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend an Antitrust Overarching Conspiracy Cases Filed
by Direct Payor Plaintiffs ("DPP"), End Payor Plaintiffs ("EPP")
and Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs ("IRP") Classes:

In June 2018, three class action complaints were filed in the
MDL-2724 by the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPP"), Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs ("IRP") and End Payor Plaintiffs ("EPP")
classes.

All three complaints allege conspiracies in restraint of trade in
violation of Sections 1 of the Sherman Act, and violations of 31
state antitrust statutes, Consumer Protection statutes and claims
of unjust enrichment seeking injunctive relief, recovery of treble
damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs.

They allege an "overarching conspiracy" among the named defendants
involving 15 drugs and, with slight variations, name approximately
25 generic pharmaceutical manufacturers including the Company's
U.S. subsidiary, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. The drug-specific
allegations against the Company's U.S. subsidiary involve two of
the 15 drugs, meprobamate and zoledronic acid.

Plaintiffs also allege that the Company's U.S. subsidiary (as well
as all other manufacturers named) were part of a larger
"overarching conspiracy" as to all of the drugs named in the
complaints.

The Complaint alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. Section 1, and violations of thirty-one State antitrust
statutes, Consumer Protection statutes and claims of unjust
enrichment.

The complaint seeks injunctive relief, recovery of treble damages,
punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs against all named
defendants on a joint and several basis.

The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated
pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active
Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Hyderabad, India.


DR REDDY'S: Kroger Co. et al. Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend an Antitrust Case Filed by The Kroger Co.,
Albertsons Companies, LLC, and H.E. Butt Grocery Company, L.P.

On January 22, 2018, each of the Kroger Co., Albertsons Companies,
LLC, and H.E. Butt Grocery Company, L.P., filed a Complaint against
the Company's U.S. subsidiary and 31 other companies alleging that
they had engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices and to allocate bids
and customers in the United States in the sale of the 30 named
generic drugs.

The Company's U.S. subsidiary is specifically named as a defendant
with respect to three generic drugs (divalproex ER, meprobamate and
zoledronic acid), and is named as an alleged co-conspirator on an
alleged "overarching conspiracy" claim with respect to the other
generic drugs named.

This action alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1, and seeks injunctive relief and recovery of
treble damages, punitive damages, plus attorney's fees and costs,
on a joint and several basis.

The Company denies the claims and intends to vigorously defend
against these class action complaints.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated
pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active
Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Hyderabad, India.


DR REDDY'S: Pravastatin Antitrust Class Suits Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend against antitrust class Action cases initiated
by direct payor plaintiffs ("DPP"), end payor plaintiffs ("EPP")
and indirect reseller plaintiffs ("IRP") with respect to the sale
of Pravastatin.

Since November 17, 2016, certain class action complaints on behalf
of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPP"), Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs ("IRP") and End Payor Plaintiffs ("EPP") were filed
against the Company and a number of other pharmaceutical defendants
in the United States District Court for the District of
Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company's U.S. subsidiary and the
other named defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices and to
allocate bids and customers in the sale of pravastatin sodium
tablets in the United States.

The Company's U.S. subsidiary has been dismissed from these
actions, without prejudice, in exchange for a tolling agreement
with the plaintiffs suspending the statute of limitations as to the
claims asserted.

The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated
pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active
Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Hyderabad, India.


DR. REDDY'S: Court Lifts Stay on Discovery in Namenda Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the stay on
discovery in the Namenda litigation has been lifted.

In August 2015, Sergeants Benevolent Assoc. Health & Welfare Fund
("Sergeants") filed suit against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Sergeants alleged that certain parties, including the Company,
violated federal antitrust laws as a consequence of having settled
patent litigation related to the Alzheimer's drug Namenda(R)
(memantine) tablets during a period from about 2009 until 2010.
Sergeants seeks to represent a class of "end-payor" purchasers of
Namenda(R) tablets (i.e., insurers, other third-party payors and
consumers).

Sergeants seeks damages based upon an allegation made in the
complaint that the defendants entered into patent settlements
regarding Namenda(R) tablets for the purpose of delaying generic
competition and facilitating the brand innovator's attempt to shift
sales from the original immediate release product to the more
recently introduced extended release product.

The Company believes that the complaint lacks merit and that the
Company's conduct complied with all applicable laws and
regulations.

Defendants' motions to dismiss were denied. A stay on discovery has
been lifted and some discovery has been taken but there is
currently no schedule in place.

Four other class action complaints, each containing similar
allegations to the Sergeants complaint, have also been filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. However,
two of those complaints were voluntarily dismissed, and the other
two do not name the Company as a defendant.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated
pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active
Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Hyderabad, India.


DR. REDDY'S: Divalproex Antitrust Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself against antitrust class action lawsuits
over Divalproex.

Since November 17, 2016, certain class action complaints on behalf
of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPP"), Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs ("RP") and End Payor Plaintiffs ("EPP") were filed
against the Company's U.S. subsidiary, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories,
Inc., and a number of other pharmaceutical defendants in the United
States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania, alleging
that the Company's U.S. subsidiary and the other named defendants
have engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices and to allocate bids and
customers in the sale of divalproex ER tablets in the United
States.

The actions allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1, and of state consumer protection and antitrust
laws and asserts claims of unjust enrichment under a total of
thirty-one states and the District of Columbia.

The actions seek injunctive relief and recovery of treble damages,
punitive damages, plus attorney's fees and costs, on a joint and
several basis, on behalf of the plaintiff classes.

The Company denies the claims and intends to vigorously defend
against these class action complaints.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated
pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active
Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Hyderabad, India.


DR. REDDY'S: Price-Fixing Class Suits in Pennsylvania Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company
continues to defend itself against class actions related to its
pricing practices in Pennsylvania.

On December 30, 2015 and on February 4, 2016, respectively, a class
action complaint (the "First Pricing Complaint") and another
complaint (not a  class action) (the "Second Pricing Complaint")
were filed against the Company and 18 other pharmaceutical
defendants in State Court in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

In these actions, the class action plaintiffs allege that the
Company and other defendants, individually or in some cases in
concert with one another, have engaged in pricing and price
reporting practices in violation of various Pennsylvania state
laws.

More specifically, the plaintiffs allege that: (1) the Company
provided false and misleading pricing information to third party
drug compendia companies for the Company's generic drugs, and such
information was relied upon by private third party payers that
reimbursed for drugs sold by the Company in the United States, and
(2) the Company acted in concert with certain other defendants to
unfairly raise the prices of generic divalproex sodium ER (bottle
of 80, 500 mg tablets ER 24H) and generic pravastatin sodium
(bottle of 500, 10 mg tablets).

The First Pricing Complaint was removed to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "E.D.P.A. Federal
Court") and, pending the outcome of the First Pricing Complaint,
the Second Pricing Complaint was stayed.

On September 25, 2017, the E.D.P.A. Federal Court dismissed all the
claims of the plaintiffs in the First Pricing Complaint and denied
leave to amend such complaint as futile. Subsequent to this
decision, the plaintiffs right to appeal the dismissal of the First
Pricing Complaint expired.

Further, on November 17, 2016, certain class action complaints were
filed against the Company and a number of other pharmaceutical
companies as defendants in the E.D.P.A. Federal Court.

Subsequently, these complaints were consolidated into one amended
complaint as part of a multi-district, multi-product litigation
pending with the E.D.P.A. Federal Court. These complaints allege
that the Company and the other named defendants have engaged in a
conspiracy to fix prices and to allocate bids and customers in the
sale of pravastatin sodium tablets and divalproex sodium
extended-release tablets in the United States.

In March 2017, plaintiffs agreed by stipulation to dismiss Dr.
Reddy's Laboratories Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited from
the actions related to pravastatin sodium tablets without
prejudice. The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend against these allegations.

In response to the consolidated new complaint, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss in October 2017. The plaintiffs filed opposition
to the motion to dismiss in December 2017 and a reply was filed by
the Company in January 2018.

In October 2018, the Court denied the motion to dismiss on the
grounds that the allegations pled leave open the possibility of
conspiracy. Therefore, discovery will proceed to look into this
possibility.

The Company believes that the asserted claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Also
any liability that may arise on account of these claims is
unascertainable. Accordingly, no provision was made in the
consolidated financial statements of the Company.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated
pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three
segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active
Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in
Hyderabad, India.


DUANE MORRIS: Faces Klein Suit Over FDCPA and FCCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA ANN KLEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. DUANE MORRIS LLP, RUTH P. CLAYTON, and DANIELLE
RUNDLETT BURNS, Case No. 2:19-cv-14189-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 31,
2019), alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act.

Duane Morris LLP is a Delaware Limited Liability Partnership and
law firm engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts
through litigation, which operates from offices located in Boca
Raton, Florida.  The Defendants regularly use the United States
Postal Service and telephone in the collection of consumer debt.

Ruth P. Clayton, Esq., is a commercial litigation attorney, who
focuses her practice in the area of creditors' right law and
represents banks in foreclosure litigation.  Clayton is employed by
Duane Morris LLP in its Boca Raton, Florida office.  Danielle
Rundlett Burns, Esq., is an attorney who focuses her practice in
the area of consumer collection matters for lenders in loan default
actions and contested foreclosures.  Burns is employed by Duane
Morris LLP in its Boca Raton, Florida office.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 32963
          Telephone: (772) 231-9600
          Facsimile: (772) 231-0300
          E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Levinson Files Class Action Under FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------
SARAH LEVINSON, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01418-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla., June 12,
2019) is a class action complaint under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Upon request under the FCRA, Equifax must disclose, clearly and
accurately, all of the information in a consumer's file at the time
of request. Frequently, Equifax fails to do so, asserts the
complaint.

In the instant matter, it provided a consumer disclosure containing
material falsehoods about two separate accounts. Both accounts were
credit card accounts which falsely stated that amounts due were
"payroll deductible," meaning that payment for account was being
deducted from Ms. Levinson's paycheck, i.e., wage garnishment. In
reality, the furnishers of data had reported that each account was
"closed by credit grantor". Equifax's fabrication of materially
misleading information in this manner renders its consumer
disclosure inaccurate and unclear. The inaccuracy appearing on Ms.
Levinson's Equifax consumer disclosure is systemic, and affects
virtually every consumer with an account reported as "closed by
credit grantor," says the complaint.

Plaintiff Ms. Levinson obtained her Equifax disclosure on April 18,
2019, nearly six months after Equifax was made aware of the problem
through a consumer lawsuit under the FCRA alleging this very same
issue. Several more lawsuits alleging the same inaccuracy and
problem followed, but Equifax continued to produce disclosures for
thousands of consumers in which it falsely claimed payment for
credit card accounts had been reported by their creditors as being
deducted from their paychecks. In addition to this false
garnishment issue, Ms. Levinson has eleven credit card accounts on
her Equifax disclosure that are missing identifying account
numbers. These omissions render the disclosures unclear, and could
be easily remedied by the Defendant, who had the missing
information within its knowledge and control, the complaint
relates.

Plaintiff Ms. Levinson is a natural person residing in Tampa,
Hillsborough County, Florida and is a consumer as defined by the
FCRA.

Equifax is a Georgia limited liability company and is a nationwide
consumer reporting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas M. Bonan, Esq.
     Bryan J. Geiger, Esq.
     Philip R. Goldberg, Esq.
     SERAPH LEGAL, P.A.
     2002 E. 5th Ave., Suite 104
     Tampa, FL 33605
     Phone: 813-567-1230
     Fax: 855-500-0705
     Email: TBonan@SeraphLegal.com
            BGeiger@SeraphLegal.com
            PGoldberg@SeraphLegal.com


FAIRLIFE: Schwartz et al Sue over False Marketing of Milk Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Fairlife, LLC, for
unjust enrichment and for alleged violations of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act. The case is captioned ANDREW
SCHWARTZ, and ALICE VITIELLO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FAIRLIFE, LLC. Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03929 (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2019).

Plaintiffs Andrew Schwartz and Alice Vitiello challenge the
Defendant's deceptive marketing practices in connection with its
sale of Fairlife milk products throughout the United States.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated consumers to recover the amounts
Plaintiffs and the other Class members overpaid, to prevent
Defendant from continuing to engage in its unlawful, deceptive, and
unfair conduct, and to correct the false perception it has created
in the marketplace through its misrepresentations of material
facts.

Fairlife states extensively and repeatedly, both on its website and
on its products, that its cows are treated with "the utmost care"
and with extraordinary care and comfort. This marketing forms a
core part of Fairlife's representations regarding its milk, and
Fairlife charges a premium for its milk products as a result.
However, the Animal Recovery Mission observed employees throwing,
slapping, and kicking calves and took video recordings of the
conduct witnessed. Animal Recovery Mission further witnessed young
calves being starved to death, beaten with steel bars, and burned
with branding irons. In addition, Animal Recovery Mission also
witnessed grown cows who could no longer produce milk being shot
and left to die, a process that sometimes took several hours.

Fairlife, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its
principal place of business at 1001 W. Adams St., Chicago,
Illinois. Fairlife, LLC is a joint venture of The Coca Cola Company
and Select Milk Producers, Inc., a New Mexico nonprofit marketing
cooperative. Select Milk Producers, Inc. counts among its portfolio
of companies Fair Oaks Farms, the farm whose conduct is at the
center of this complaint.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
     111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Telephone: (312) 984-0000
     Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
     E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

             - and -

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


FERRELLGAS INC: Claims/Dismissals Scope in Price Suit OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FERRELLGAS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01502-JAH-MSB (S.D. Cal.), Judge John A. Houston of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted
the parties' Joint Motion Re: Scope of Claims and Dismissals in
response to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction.

The First, Second, and Third causes of action asserted by the
Plaintiffs on behalf of bobtail drivers with respect to claimed
wrongs alleged to have occurred prior to June 21, 2016 are
dismissed pursuant to the settlement in Corlew v. Ferrellgas, Inc.,
Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC521730, including to
the extent based thereon any derivative claims and penalties.  Any
remaining claim for violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law based on the contention that the Defendant failed to provide
employees with meal and/or rest periods as required by law within
the second cause of action is dismissed without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs may reassert the claim, and any derivative claims
based thereon, if prior to entry of a final judgement or other
disposition of the case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or the
U.S. Supreme Court issues a final decision reversing the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration's order finding that
California's Meal and Rest Break rules are preempted under 49
U.S.C. 31141 as applied to property-carrying commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) drivers.

Any pending discovery, whether pursuant to court order or
otherwise, related to the dismissed claims are moot, and no further
response is required.  The parties will abide by discovery
deadlines set pursuant to Magistrate Judge Berg's May 16, 2019
Order for all remaining causes of action.

The Judge denied as moot the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction, and vacated the hearing set for June 3, 2019.

The 3. Plaintiff will file a Second Amended Complaint containing
only the remaining causes of action pursuant to the Order by June
3, 2019.

Each party to bear their own costs and fees associated with the
dismissed causes of action.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/zgCW0Z from Leagle.com.

Joshua Price, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Isaac Dychter --
alex@dychterlaw.com -- Dychter Law Offices, APC, Gregory N. Karasik
-- greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- Karasik Law Firm & Seth Adam
Spiewak.

Ferrellgas, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Nicky Jatana -- Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP,
Sehreen Ladak -- Sehreen.Ladak@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis &
Connie Chen -- Connie.Chen@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis.


FIRST AMERICAN: Woodard Sues over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------
CAROL A. WOODARD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL
CORPORATION and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 8:19-cv-01156 (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2019), seeks to recover
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants in
negligently, and/or willfully violating numerous laws relating to
data breach.

According to the complaint, in carrying out its business, First
American often emails a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) to customers
so they can access their records, which First American maintains
online.

To alleviate consumers' concerns about sharing PII with First
American, First American advertises its services as "being, secure,
reliable, and affordable records storage solutions" and it claims
to provide "a complete document management program aimed at
mitigating risk."

The lawsuit contends that First American allowed a serious and
easily detectable hole within  online security for approximately
the last 16 years. Consequently, more than 885 million confidential
documents were accessible to any individual that knew any URL
produced since approximately 2003. For example, if a customer was
sent a URL containing the number  000000076 within the URL, by
changing the six to a seven an individual would be able to view the
next document for which a URL was created. Similarly, if a consumer
modified the six to a five, an individual would be able to see the
document that First America created a link for before this
individual. So long as an individual has the initial URL for any
document created since 2003, that individual would have the power
to look at each and every of the 885 million documents made within
approximately the last 16 years.

To make matters worse, First American does not destroy sensitive
documents after its services end, but instead stores information
"indefinitely, including the period after which any customer
relationship has ceased." Therefore, an individual in 2019 could
steal a customer's PII from First American relating to services it
provided back in 2003.

First American's disregard over several years for even the most
fundamental of cyber security measures not only has rendered
consumers' PII accessible to the general public, but also
demonstrates that First American misrepresented its services as
being secure, the lawsuit says.

Despite this clear failure of security of private information,
First American repeatedly advertised itself as a secure entity that
maintained physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards for
consumers' PPI it possessed. As of the filing of this complaint,
First American has not provided Plaintiff with any notice of the
existence of the Data Breach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FIRST FLEET: Carnegie Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, CHRISTOPHER CARNEGIE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
FIRST FLEET, INC. OF TENNESSEE d/b/a FIRST FLEET, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. NO. 8:18-CV-01070-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a settlement class
consisting of:

   Class 1: The Untimely COBRA Notice Class:

   "all participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant’s Health
   Plan in the United States who were entitled to be provided
   notice of their COBRA rights due to a qualifying event pursuant

   to 29 U.S.C. 1163(a)(1)(2) and (4) and who were not provided a
   COBRA notice in the timeframe mandated by 29 U.S.C. 1166,
   between October 29, 2013 to May 2, 2018 or the date of receipt
   by the subject participants and beneficiaries, whichever is
   later.

   Class 2: The Deficient COBRA Notice Class:

   "all participants and beneficiaries in the Defendant’s Health

   Plan in the United States who were sent a COBRA notice by
   Defendant, between October 29, 2013 to September 21, 2017, as a

   result of a qualifying event, as determined by Defendant, who
   did not elect continuation coverage."

The Settlement Class members who received FirstFleet's COBRA Notice
are unlikely to be aware that their rights may have been violated,
and are therefore unlikely to prosecute individual claims.
Moreover, given the relatively small size of the claims at stake
(involving discretionary statutory penalties, which may not be
awarded), it is unlikely that class members would pursue their
claims. Moreover, even if Settlement Class members were able to
individually prosecute their claims, "separate actions by each of
the class members would be repetitive, wasteful, and an
extraordinary burden on the courts."[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, #300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com

               - and -

          Felipe Fulgencio, Esq.
          FULGENCIO LAW, PLLC
          105 S. Edison Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: 813 463 0123
          Facsimile: 813 670 1288
          E-mail: Felipe@FulgencioLaw.com

Counsel for the Defendant are:

          Sherril M. Colombo, Esq.
          Stefanie Mederos, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400-7500
          E-mail: scolombo@littler.com
                  kljackson@littler.com
                  smederos@littler.com
                  ccano@littler.com

FLINT, MI: High Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Water Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth LeBlanc, writing for The Detroit News, reports that Lansing
the Michigan Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether a
class-action lawsuit against former Gov. Rick Snyder and the state
of Michigan can proceed.

The Supreme Court in its May 22 order said parties should prepare
arguments regarding when the Flint residents' claims were accrued,
whether they are subject to exceptions to the timeline for giving
notice of a lawsuit in the Court of Claims, whether Flint residents
have a constitutional claim to say their bodily integrity was
violated and what direct harm, if any, was done to Flint residents'
property.

The court stopped short of scheduling a day for the arguments.

Lawyers for Flint resident Melissa Mays and other plaintiffs in the
case could not immediately be reached.

A spokeswoman for Attorney General Dana Nessel's office said
officials are reviewing the court's decision, but declined to
comment further.

The state has maintained that the January 2016 lawsuit filed by
Mays against Snyder, the state environmental and health
departments, the city of Flint and two Flint emergency managers did
not comply with a six-month notice requirement pertaining to
lawsuits filed in the Court of Claims. The state also argued
emergency managers appointed by the governor are not considered
state officials.

The state Court of Appeals in January 2018 upheld an earlier Court
of Claims decision and denied the state's motion for summary
disposition on those grounds, noting that dismissal of the case on
those arguments would be "premature."

". . . accepting defendants' position would require a finding that
plaintiffs should have filed suit or provided notice at a time when
the state itself claims it had no reason to know that the Flint
River water was contaminated," the Court of Appeals ruled.

Mays and others who filed the suit could be subject to exceptions
to the timeline for giving notice based on the potential that the
state attempted to fraudulently conceal the damage caused by the
Flint water crisis.

"Whether plaintiffs can satisfy the exception is a question that
involves disputed facts and is subject to further discovery," the
appellate ruling said.

In March 2018, the state began its appeal to the Supreme Court, but
the high court did not order oral arguments until May 22. [GN]


FMR LLC: Accused by Lawson of Operating a Fraudulent Enterprise
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACKIE HOSANG LAWSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FMR LLC, dba FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, FMR CORP., dba
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, and FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC, dba
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS, Case No. 1:19-cv-11222-DPW (D. Mass., May 31,
2019), alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, among
other laws.

The Defendants, doing business as Fidelity Investments, egregiously
operates an organized fraudulent enterprise that is powered by
obstruction of justice, witness intimidation, fear of reprisal,
bribery, collusion with The Fidelity Mutual Fund Board of Trustees
to defraud shareholders, and the corruption of two government
agencies--the Department of Labor, and the Securities Exchange
Commission, the Plaintiff alleges.

Fidelity Investments, the world's largest mutual fund firm, is a
privately held, for profit firm that is owned and controlled by the
Johnson family.

FMR LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of
Delaware and registered to do business in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts in the general character of "parent company."  The
company's headquarters is in Boston, Massachusetts.  FMR Corp. is a
Delaware corporation and, prior to 2007, was registered to do
business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the general
character of "parent company of Fidelity subsidiaries" and with its
principal offices in Boston.

Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC, is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of Delaware, and registered to do business
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the general character of
investments.

Plaintiff Jackie Hosang Lawson, of Brookline, Massachusetts,
appears pro se.[BN]


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Trucks Fuel Economy Data
------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Hyatt, writing for Total Landscape Care, reports that
according to Hard Working Trucks, Hagens Berman, the lawfirm behind
the Volkswagen's Dieselgate lawsuit, recently announced a
class-action suit accusing Ford of falsifying fuel economy data in
2019 Ford Ranger trucks.

The suit claims Ford was "knowingly installing a mileage cheat
device and misrepresenting fuel economy ratings" in its latest
midsize trucks. The device is also referred to as an
emissions-cheating device, which attorneys say is "also likely
installed in F-150 trucks and possibly all other Ford vehicles."

Ford told Hard Working Trucks that they had not yet reviewed the
suit.

"We haven't been served with this complaint yet. When we are, we'll
review it and respond appropriately," a statement from Ford reads.

Hard Working Trucks says Hagens Berman reports that the suit was
filed on behalf of consumers on May 20 in the U.S. District for the
Eastern District of Michigan.

"Ford deceptively advertised its Rangers to consumers as
'best-in-class' in fuel economy," Steve Berman, managing partner of
Hagens Berman, tells Hard Working Trucks. "Ford knew that consumers
pay a premium for fuel efficiency and that less fuel burned means
less emissions, and therefore more profits. Its own employees
questioned its fuel efficiency calculations, Ford chose to
blatantly ignore the clear warning signs it was given."

In February, Hard Working Trucks says Ford announced that Ranger
would be the first among other Ford vehicles to be subjected to a
fuel economy and emissions investigation following concerns that
were raised within the company roughly three months before MPG
figures were announced for Ranger in December.

"In September, a handful of employees raised a concern through our
Speak Up employee reporting channel regarding the analytical
modeling that is part of our U.S. fuel economy and emissions
compliance process," Kim Pittel, Ford's vice president of
sustainability, environment and safety engineering, told Hard
Working Trucks.

"At Ford, we believe that trust in our brand is earned by acting
with integrity and transparency," Pittel continued. "As part of
this, we have a process for looking at how we perform and behave in
our broad and complex company."

Hard Working Trucks says Ford hired an outside firm to investigate
the validity of its vehicle road load specifications used in its
testing and applications to certify emissions and fuel economy.

Ford also notified the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the California Air Resources Board of its actions, according to
Hard Working Trucks.

Ram recalls 410,000 pickups for defect in tailgate lock  
An additional 410,351 older Ram pickup trucks have been recalled by
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) due to a faulty remote tailgate
lock that will allow the tailgate to suddenly drop and spill its
contents, according to a new filing with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

According to Car and Driver, a total of 1,559,588 trucks in the
United States have a defective latch in which a broken tab can
allow the electric actuator's locking rod control to "overtravel"
and pull the locking rods, which is equivalent to a person using
the handle to open the tailgate manually.

If this occurs, FCA says the tailgate isn't considered just
unlocked, as the latch is completely open and would let the
tailgate drop open at any given time.

In August 2018, FCA recalled more than 1.1 million similarly
equipped 2015-2017 Ram 1500, 2500 and 3500 pickup trucks with
shorter beds, and it has now recalled more than 1.5 million trucks
for the issue, according to Trucks.com.

According to Car and Driver, FCA says it found at least 127
warranty claims and 67 owner reports of the defect on the long-bed
models through April 29.

Trucks.com says the latest recalled pickups have eight-foot beds
and a power-locking tailgate, and the power lock actuator could
fracture, which would allow the lock rod control bracket to move
too far and pull the lock rods. Trucks.com says this could then
release the tailgate, and according to FCA, no known crashes or
injuries are related to the condition.

Ram dealers will fix the locks for free, and FCA will reimburse
customers who have already paid to have the work done before the
recall, according to Trucks.com. Recall notifications will go to
dealers and owners on June 28.

Car and Driver reports that as of April 16, FCA dealers have
repaired 58 percent of the short- and medium-bed trucks. [GN]


FRONTIER UTILITIES: Frey Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
JON FREY, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and
entities similarly situated v. FRONTIER UTILITIES NORTHEAST LLC and
JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-02372-GEKP (E.D. Pa., May
31, 2019), alleges that in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, Frontier hired John Doe Corporation, who made an
automated telemarketing call to a telephone number of the Plaintiff
where he is charged for the call for the purposes of advertising
Frontier goods and services using an automated dialing system.

Frontier Utilities Northeast LLC is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Houston, Texas.  Frontier is an
energy company.

John Doe Corporation is an unidentified entity hired by Frontier to
generate business.  John Doe Corporation does business in this
district, including through the making of telemarketing calls, as
it did with the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc Davies, Esq.
          MARC DAVIES LAW
          1315 Walnut Street, Suite 320
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 876-7636
          E-mail: marc@marcdavieslaw.com

               - and -

          Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
          Jonathan P. Misny, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
                  misny@mmmb.com

               - and -

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


GARMIN USA: Faces Class Action Over Promises of "Lifetime" Maps
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Garmin USA
Inc. is using misleading advertisement to sell its portable
navigational devices, according to a new federal lawsuit.

Garmin promises that it will provide free lifetime maps and traffic
updates for various models of its devices, including Drivesmart,
Nüvi, Drive, and DriveAssist. But this marketing is deceptive,
according to Francis McVetty.

Garmin, as the company's warranty terms indicate, will only provide
these updates for the useful life of the product. [GN]


GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: Young Seeks OT Pay for Straight Time Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL YOUNG, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. GRANITE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
and KENNY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03922 (N.D. Ill., June 11, 2019), alleges that Michael
Young and other so-called "Straight Time" workers like him were not
paid overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act for work
they performed for Granite Construction and Kenny Construction
Company.

Young and the similarly situated Straight Time Workers are
Defendants' employees who were paid the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
To avoid paying the Straight Time Workers overtime, Defendants
uniformly misclassified them as exempt from the overtime provisions
of the FLSA and applicable state laws.

Young worked as a Field Construction/Commissioning Manager for
Defendants from March 2015 to December 2017. Young worked for
Defendants in New York state. Young was staffed by Defendants to
Rochester Electric & Gas and New York State Electric & Gas
Company.

While working for Defendants, Young was paid the same hourly rate
for all hours worked (including those hours in excess of 40 hours
in a single workweek) with no overtime compensation.

Young, the FLSA Collective, and the New York Class did not receive
overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek while working for Defendants. Rather than receiving time
and half as required by the FLSA, Young, the FLSA Collective, and
the New York Class were only paid their straight time regular rates
of pay for all hours worked, the lawsuit says.

Granite is a full-service general contractor, construction
management firm and construction materials producer. Granite claims
it is recognized as one of the top 25 largest construction
companies in the United States. In January 2013, Kenny Construction
became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Granite Construction, Inc.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for the Plaintiff are:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

HEWLETT PACKARD: Hearing in Ross & Rogus Suit Set for June 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that the company's
demurrer to all causes of action and an alternative motion to
strike portions of the complaint in Ross and Rogus v. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company, is set for hearing on June 28, 2019.

On November 8, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed in
in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging
that Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company (HPE) pays its
California-based female employees "systemically lower compensation"
than HPE pays male employees performing substantially similar work.


The complaint alleges various California state law claims,
including California's Equal Pay Act, Fair Employment and Housing
Act, and Unfair Competition Law, and seeks certification of a
California-only class of female employees employed in certain
"Covered Positions."

The complaint seeks damages, statutory and civil penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 2, 2019, HPE filed a demurrer to all causes of action and
an alternative motion to strike portions of the complaint. HPE's
motions are set for hearing on June 28, 2019.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Sept. 27 Hearing on Settlement Distributions Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that the court in
Wall v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and HP Inc., sets a
hearing for September 27, 2019 to confirm that the settlement
distributions have been made.  

This certified California class action and Private Attorney General
Act action was filed against Hewlett-Packard Company on January 17,
2012 and the fifth amended (and operative) complaint was filed
against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise on June 28, 2016 in
the Superior Court of California, County of Orange.

The complaint alleges that the defendants paid earned incentive
compensation late and failed to timely pay final wages in violation
of the California Labor Code. On August 9, 2016, the court ordered
the class certified without prejudice to a future motion to amend
or modify the class certification order or to decertify.

The scheduled January 22, 2018 trial date was vacated following the
parties' notification to the court that they had reached a
preliminary agreement to resolve the dispute.

The parties subsequently finalized and executed a settlement
agreement and, on May 9, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion seeking
preliminary approval of the settlement. On July 2, 2018, the court
issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement.

On December 21, 2018, the court issued an order granting final
approval of the settlement and setting a hearing for September 27,
2019 to confirm that the settlement distributions have been made.


A Qualified Settlement Fund has been fully funded.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company operates as a technology
company. The company operates through four segments: Hybrid IT,
Intelligent Edge, Financial Services, and Corporate Investments.
The company serves small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises. It has strategic alliance with ABB Ltd. Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company was founded in 1939 and is headquartered
in Palo Alto, California.


IMPAX LAB: Pension Fund OK'd to File Statement of Recent Decision
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREG FLEMING, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-06557-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood
S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland Division, granted Lead Plaintiff
New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City,
Inc. Pension Fund's administrative motion to file a statement of
recent decision.

On May 20, 2019, the Plaintiff respectfully moved for permission to
file a statement of recent decision in support of its Jan. 17, 2019
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.  Judge Gilliam,
having considered the papers filed, granted the Plaintiff's
administrative motion to file a statement of recent decision.  The
statement should not include any argument.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0DFINf from Leagle.com.

Greg Fleming, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Angel Puimei
Lau, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Eric Ian Niehaus, Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey James
Stein, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Luke O. Brooks, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Spencer A. Burkholz, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Impax Laboratories Inc., George Frederick Wilkinson, Larry Hsu,
Bryan M. Reasons & Carole Ben-Maimon, Defendants, represented by
Christopher S. Turner -- christopher.turner@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP, pro hac vice, Peter Allen Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com --
Latham & Watkins LLP, Marcy Christina Priedeman, Latham & Watkins
LLP & Morgan Edwin Whitworth -- morgan.whitworth@lw.com -- Latham
and Watkins LLP.

New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City,
Inc. Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Angel Puimei Lau, Robbins
Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Eric Ian Niehaus, Robbins Geller Rudman and
Dowd LLP, Jeffrey James Stein, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP,
Luke O. Brooks, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Spencer A.
Burkholz, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Tricia Lynn McCormick,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.



INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Must Face "Black Liquor" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Sellers, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
International Paper Co. will face a class action by Louisiana
residents who were allegedly injured by the release of a pulp mill
byproduct, a federal court in Louisiana ruled.

Shirley Slocum and other residents of Bogalusa, La., adequately
stated liability class claims that the paper manufacturer
negligently exposed them to "black liquor" from a ruptured tank at
the Bogalusa Paper Mill, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana said on May 21. [GN]


ISRAT INC: Worthy Sues over Regular & Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT WORTHY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ISRAT, INC. and SHEIKH M.
MONIRUZZAMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00065-TCB (N.D. Ga.,
June 11, 2019), seeks recover unpaid regular and overtime
compensation owed to the Plaintiff and all current and former
employees of Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have committed
violations of the FLSA by failing to compensate their employees for
overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any given
workweek.[BN]

Attorneysfor the Plaintiff is:

          Tylers Kaspers, Esq.
          THE KASPERS FIRM, LLC
          152 New Street, Suite 109B
          Macon, GA 3120

JOINT CORP: Hindi Sues Over Illegal Marketing Texts Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIL HINDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE JOINT CORP., Case No. 0:19-cv-61364-WPD (S.D. Fla.,
May 31, 2019), arises alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

In efforts to drum-up business, 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, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Joint Corp. is a Delaware corporation with a principal office
located in Scottsdale, Arizona.  The Company operates chiropractic
centers with more than 400 locations across the county.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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: tom@jibraellaw.com


KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Woolgar Sues over Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Kingstone
Companies, Inc., Barry Goldstein, Dale A. Thatcher, and Victor J.
Brodsky for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The case is captioned PHILLIP WOOLGAR, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. KINGSTONE
COMPANIES, INC., BARRY GOLDSTEIN, DALE A. THATCHER, and VICTOR J.
BRODSKY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05500 (S.D.N.Y., June 12,
2019).

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the company did not adequately follow industry
best practices related to claims handling; (2) that, as a result,
the company did not record sufficient claims reserves; (3) that the
company lacked  adequate internal control over financial reporting;
and (4) 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.

Kingstone is incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its
principal executive offices located in Kingston, New York.
Kingstone's common stock trades on the NASDAQ exchange under the
symbol KINS.  Kingstone offers property and casualty insurance
products through its whollyowned subsidiary, Kingstone Insurance
Company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lesly F. Portnoy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     230 Park Ave., Suite 530
     New York, NY 10169
     Telephone: (212)682-5340
     Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
     Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

            - and -

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


KNOX COUNTY, TN: Inmates File Amended Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, MICHAEL AMBLE, FLOYD COULSON, JOHN
HICKSM ALONZO HOSKINS, DAVID JOHNSON, CURTIS LANE, JESSICA MASE,
JESSICA MORGAN, MICHAEL RICE, RICK SAYLES, ROBERT THOMAS, MATTHEW
WALLS, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situtated persons,
the Plaintiffs, vs KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:18-cv-538 (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
approve their amended motion for class certification.

The plaintiffs allege prisoner civil rights violations.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          John E. Eldrige, Esq.
          ELDRIGE & BLANKEY, P.C.
          P.O. Box 398
          Knoxville, TN 37901-0398
          Telephone: (865) 544 2010

               - and -

          Francis L. Lloyd, Jr.
          9111 Cross Park Drive, Suite D200
          Knoxville, TN 37923
          Telephone: 865 470 4070

KURTELL GROWTH: Bid for Class Certification Denied
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Whispering Pines Mobile Homeowners'
Association, Inc., of Kissimmee, on behalf of the homeowner-members
in its representative capacity and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Kurt Wallach, Regina
Wattles, Marilyn Wallach, Mark Wallach, John Muschaweck, Kurtell
Growth Industries, Ltd., Sunny Lakes Capital, LLC, Kurtell
Management Company, LLC, Kurtell Holdings, LLC, Kurtell Sales, LLC,
Kurtell Realty, LLC, and Kurmar Capital, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 6:19-cv-00487-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla.), the Court denied Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification without prejudice on June 13, 2019,
for failing to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g).

In their motion, the Plaintiffs ask the Court for order certifying
a class consisting of:

   "all persons who are or were mobile homeowners in the
   Whispering Pines Mobile Home Park from 2009 to the present and
   have identical, or substantially similar underlying mobile
   home lot rental agreements with identical or substantially
   similar restrictions or sub-parts requiring, inter alia:

   1) increase lot rental and associated fees without regard for
      the homeowners' statutory rights under the Florida Mobile
      Home Act.

   2) eliminated or reduced services and Park facilities without
      the statutorily required 90 day advance written notice or
      corresponding reduction in lot rent.

   3) rejection of the submission of the Whispering Pines HOA's
      other park comparables in violation of §723.037, Fla. Stat.,

      on the illegal basis that those comparables included other
      parks with single-wide mobile homes.

   4) deprivation of the elderly and disabled Plaintiff homeowners

      of a handicap accessible Park clubhouse, facilities, golf
      course, and common areas.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated various provisions
of Federal and Florida law by scheming to fraudulently manipulate
Lot Rental Agreements of 400 elderly homeowners to commit
fraudulent and conspiratorial acts.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs:

          Daniel W. Perry, Esq.
          4767 New Broad St., No. 1007
          Orlando, FL 32814-6405
          Telephone: (407) 894-9003
          E-mail: dan@danielperry.com

LITTLE JOHN: Class in Warner FLSA/AMWA Suit Conditionally Certified
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE WARNER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LITTLE JOHN TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, INC.; CHRISTOPHER DALE; and STEVENDALE, Defendants, Case
No. 5:19-CV-05042 (W.D. Ark.), Judge P.K. Holmes, III of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Division, granted Warner's motion for conditional certification of
a collective action.

Based on the pleadings before the Court, Little John is a
corporation that procures and transports freight.  Little John has
locations in Russellville, Arkansas, Springdale, Arkansas, and
Houston, Texas.  Since 2015, the Plaintiff has worked as an Agent
at Little John's Springdale location.  Agents are primarily
responsible for procuring freight customers and organizing the
freight's shipment. Agents are personally responsible for the
shipments they organize and must troubleshoot any issues that
arise.  As a result, Little John policy requires that Agents always
be available while the freight is in transit.

The Plaintiff contends that Agents routinely work in excess of
forty hours per workweek because of this policy.  However, Agents
are not eligible to receive overtime compensation for these hours
because Little John classifies Agents as "exempt" from receiving
overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff contends that because Agents are willfully
misclassified as "exempt," Little John's policy violates the FLSA
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of her FLSA claim as
a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b),
authorization to issue notice to the putative class members, and
approval of the proposed notice and consent-to-join forms.

Regarding the class definition, the Plaintiff requests that the
Court conditionally certifies and approves notice for the following
class: current or former salaried "Freight Broker" or "Agent"
employees of Little John Transportation Services, Inc. at any time
during the three years prior to their filing of a Consent to Join
Collective Action Form.  The Defendant makes no objection to the
class designation.

The Defendants, however, raise several arguments against
conditional certification.  First, they argue that the Plaintiff
has failed to show that there are other similarly situated
Plaintiffs that want or intend to join the action.  Next, they
offer several arguments as to the merits of the Plaintiff's case.

Judge Holmes holds that because both parties use the terms "Agent"
and "Freight Broker" interchangeably, and because the Defendants
offer no objection to the proposed class designation, both "Agent"
and "Freight Broker" will be included in the class definition.

The proposed forms are reasonable except that the words "AND CLASS"
are to be removed from the title "COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION" on
both forms.  The Plaintiff has not moved to certify a class action
lawsuit and the Judge will not certify one.  The notice as
submitted is sufficiently limited to only those employees who are
similarly situated to the Plaintiff and imposes no undue burden on
the Defendants.  The form accurately notifies all members of their
choice to opt-in or not opt-in and properly outlines the
consequences of both choices.  The forms will be approved with the
stated revision.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court requires the Defendants to
provide the names and last-known addresses of all the potential
plaintiffs within the class definition.  The Defendants offer no
objection to this request.  The Court has routinely required
defendants to produce the last-known contact information for
putative class members.  The Judge directed the Defendants to
produce the names and last known addresses for all the putative
class members.

The Plaintiff also requests the deadline to file opt-in Plaintiffs'
consent-to-join forms be no less than 90 days after the Defendants
provide the putative members' contact information.  The Defendants
again offer no objection.  Two individuals have already provided
notice of their consent-to-join the lawsuit and the potential class
may be as large as over one hundred.  The Plaintiff also represents
that some putative members may live in Texas as well as Arkansas.
Because the Defendants offer no objection, the Judge finds that a
90-day opt-in period is sufficient and will serve the interests of
efficiently facilitating the notice without further delaying the
litigation.  Therefore, a 90-day opt-in period is appropriate and
will be authorized.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Holmes granted the Plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification of a collective action and approval
of notice.  He conditionally certified the case as a collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and authorized notice
to be sent to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs.

The opt-in class will consist of all current and former salaried
Freight Brokers and Agents employed by Little John Transportation
Services, Inc. at any time during the three years prior to their
filing of a Consent to Join Collective Action Form.

Upon receiving the information described, the Plaintiff will have
10 days to prepare and distribute the notices to all the putative
Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiff will then have 90 days in which to file
the opt-in Plaintiffs' signed consent-to-join forms with the Court.
The 90-day opt-in period will begin on June 10, 2019.

The Judge directed the Defendants are directed to provide the names
and last known addresses of all putative members of the collective
action.  They may provide this information ordered disclosed in any
reasonable format.  The Defendants have until May 31, 2019 to
deliver the contact information to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent-to-join forms are
approved except that the words "AND CLASS" must be removed from the
title "COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION."

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/1Mv4Z3 from Leagle.com.

Michelle Warner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by George M. Rozzell, IV --
grozzell@arkattorneys.com -- Keith, Miller, Butler, Schneider &
Pawlik & Jenna Reed Fogleman -- jfogleman@arkattorneys.com -- Keith
Miller Butler Schneider Pawlik PLLC.

Little John Transportation Services, Inc., Christopher Dale &
Steven Dale, Defendants, represented by Allison Christine Pearson
-- apearson@fridayfirm.com -- Friday, Eldredge & Clark, Christy
Comstock -- Christy@walescomstock.com -- Wales & Comstock & Daniel
L. Herrington -- herring@fridayfirm.com -- Friday, Eldredge &
Clark.



LOUISIANA FARM: Franks Seeks to Recoup Wages for Insurance Agents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY FRANKS, TODD HEBERT, And CRAIG LEDET, individually And on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU,
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LOUISIANA FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY and SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY And
SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
2:19-cv-10839-BWA-KWR (E.D. La., May 31, 2019), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act on
behalf of the Defendants' insurance agents.

Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company is a Louisiana
corporation, which maintains a presence and corporate address in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance
Company is a Louisiana corporation, which maintains a presence and
corporate address in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Southern Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company is a Louisiana
insurance company, which maintains a presence and corporate address
in Jackson, Mississippi.  Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance
Company is a Louisiana insurance company, which maintains a
presence and corporate address in Jackson, Mississippi.

The Defendants engage in activities related to selling and
servicing insurance policies under the Louisiana Farm Bureau name.
The Defendants have a unified operation, with each of the entities
working together to offer different kinds of insurance in the
Louisiana markets under a single Louisiana Farm Bureau
identity.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
          Jason Z. Landry, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-9065
          Facsimile: (504) 581-7635
          E-mail: lcentola@mbfirm.com
                  jzl@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Damon J. Baldone, Esq.
          DAMON J. BALDONE, APLC
          162 New Orleans Boulevard
          Houma, LA 70364
          Telephone: (985) 868-3427


LOWE'S HOME: Danford et al. Seek to Certify Collective FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, DANIEL DANFORD and HARRY HOUTMAN,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs vs. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-0041-FDW-DCK (W.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, for entry of an order:

   1. conditionally certifying proposed collective FLSA class;

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail and
      text message) to:

      "all current and former hourly managers (including, but not
      limited to, Back-End Department Supervisors, Department
      Managers, Department Supervisors, Front-End Department
      Supervisors, Loss Prevention Managers, Merchandising Service

      Managers, Night Ops Department Supervisors, Overnight
      Department Supervisors, Overnight Managers, Overnight Support

      Managers, Product Sales Associate Managers, ProService
      Department Supervisors, Sales Floor Department
      Supervisors, Service Managers, and Support Managers) who work

      or have worked for Lowe's Companies, Inc. and Lowe's Home
      Centers, LLC ("Defendants" or "Lowe's") at any of their
      retail locations at any time on or after April 11, 2016
      through judgment"; and

   3. requiring the Defendants to identify all putative collective

      action members by providing a list of their names, last known

      addresses, dates and location of employment, phone numbers,
      and email addresses in electronic and importable format
      within 14 days of the entry of the order.[CC]

Attorneys for th Plaintiffs and the Putative Class/Collective
Action Members are:

          Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17 th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  rjohnston@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          James J. Mills, Esq.
          BURNS, DAY & PRESNELL, P.A.
          2626 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 560
          Raleigh, NC 27608
          Telephone: (919) 782-1441
          E-mail: jmills@bdppa.com

MALTA PARK: Denial of Class Certification Bid in Sullivan Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUDITH SULLIVAN AND WILMONT THOMPSON, v. MALTA PARK,
DONALD RANKEY, MARIE LETELLIER, WILLWOODS COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT,
INC., AND HOMELIFE IN THE GARDENS, LLC, Case No. 2019-CA-0086 (La.
App.), Judge Paul A. Brown of the Court of Appeal of Louisiana for
the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment denying
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Malta Park was an assisted living facility located at 1101 Aline
Drive, New Orleans, Louisiana.  Mrs. Sullivan resided at Malta Park
from Dec. 26, 2011 until Nov. 16, 2012.  Mr. Thompson resided at
Malta Park from April 21, 2010 to Nov. 19, 2012.  Both Mrs.
Sullivan and Mr. Thompson are now deceased.

In February 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Petition in Civil District
Court for the Parish of Orleans.  They alleged that they, or
through their representatives, entered a contract to reside in
Malta Park, and relied on the assurance that there would be
professional staff on site 24 hours a day including L.P.N.s and
R.C.A.s.  The Plaintiffs allege, amongst other claims, that they
paid a $2,000 community fee which Malta Park purportedly dedicated
to the preservation and maintenance of the building, but no such
preservation occurred.

The Plaintiffs assert breach of contract along with tort claims
arising out of the alleged deficient care provided to them by Malta
Park while they were residents.  Specifically, they asserted the
following causes of action: (1) fraud in the inducement, (2) strict
liability pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 2317.1, (3) failure to
exercise reasonable and ordinary care over the premises, (4)
negligent hiring, (5) a Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice Act claim,
(6) breach of state law as to the administration of drugs to
residents, (7) breach of fiduciary duty, (8) mental anguish, (9)
invasion of Mrs. Sullivan's right to privacy, (10) unjust
enrichment for refusal to reimburse for unused portion of rent and
unaccounted for $2,000 fee, (11) fraud as to documents, (12)
negligent misrepresentation, (13) conspiracy, (14) detrimental
reliance, (15) conversion, (16) duty to exercise reasonable care as
to the premises, and (17) respondeat superior.  Additionally, the
Plaintiffs alleged that their action satisfied the requirements for
maintaining a class action and set forth a proposed class
definition, reserving their right to amend the class definition.

The Plaintiffs' current proposed class definition is as follows:
All current and former residents of Malta Park from April 21, 2010
to the present, who entered into contracts of service with the
facility and did not receive the contract services provided by the
entities and who were forced to pay $2,000 each as an unknown entry
fee to reside at the facility.

The district court issued a judgment on Oct. 24, 2018, denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and set forth written
reasons for its judgment.  In denying the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, the district court found the Plaintiffs failed
to prove, pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 591, numerosity, commonality,
predominance, and superiority.  From this judgment, the Plaintiffs
appeal.

In challenging the district court's judgment, the Plaintiffs
complain in three assigned errors: (1) the district court erred by
finding they failed to prove numerosity by concluding they failed
to adduce sufficient evidence that an impracticably large number of
individuals were aggrieved by the Defendants' alleged actions; (2)
the district court erred by finding Plaintiffs failed to prove
commonality; and (3) the district court erred by finding the
Plaintiffs did not meet the requirements set forth in La. C.C.P.
art. 591(B)(3) of predominance and superiority.

Judge Brown concludes the district court did not err in finding the
Plaintiffs failed to adduce sufficient evidence that an
impracticably large number of individuals were aggrieved by the
Defendants' alleged actions.  The Plaintiffs failed to submit
evidence to prove by a preponderance of the evidence there was a
definable group of aggrieved claimants to find joinder impractical;
instead, the evidence adduced showed joinder would be an efficient
manner to proceed.

As to the $2,000 community fee that the Plaintiffs allege all Malta
Park residents paid but was unaccounted for, only Mrs. Sullivan's
signed agreement to pay the community fee was contained in the
appellate record.  Again, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs
failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the
Malta Park residents or even a substantial number of them were
aggrieved by agreeing to pay the community fee.

Accordingly, Judge Brown concludes the district court did not
manifestly err in finding the threshold requirement of La. C.C.P.
art. 591(A)(1) -- the class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable -- was not proven. Furthermore, the de
novo review reflects that the district court applied the correct
legal standard in denying the certification of a class action.

Because she finds the numerosity requirement of La. C.C.P. art. 591
was not met, there is no need to address the Plaintiffs' remaining
assignments of error or the remaining factors of La. C.C. P. art.
591, including those reviewed by the district court.  As a result,
the Plaintiffs' remaining assignments of error are moot, and any
discussion thereof is pretermitted.

The district court's judgment is affirmed.

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

Madro Bandaries -- madro@bandarieslaw.com -- MADRO BANDARIES,
P.L.C., 938 Lafayette Street, Suite 507, Post Office Box 56458, New
Orleans, LA 70113, Suzette P. Bagneris --
sbagneris@bagnerislawfirm.com -- THE BAGNERIS FIRM, LLC, 2714 Canal
Street, Suite 403, New Orleans, LA 70119, James J. Carter, JAMES
CARTER & ASSOCIATES, LLC, 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1160, New
Orleans, LA 70163, Steven J. Rando, LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN J. RANDO,
L.L.C., 3530 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70119, COUNSEL FOR
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT.

C. William Bradley, Jr. -- bbradley@bradleyfirm.com -- Benjamin J.
Biller -- bbiller@bradleyfirm.com -- BRADLEY MURCHISON KELLY &
SHEA, LLC, 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2700, New Orleans, LA
70163-2700, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.


MDL 2741: Brizendine v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETT BRIZENDINE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-70-TBR (Filed May 16,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03324-VC to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
          Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
          BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC
          601 Washington St.
          P.O. Box 1876
          Paducah, KY 42002-1876
          Telephone: 270 442 1422
          Facsimile: 270 443 8788
          E-mail: mark@bryant.law
                  emily@bryant.law

MDL 2741: Cashdollar v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
LORI CASHDOLLAR, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00551 (Filed March 22,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03328-VC to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
          GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
          9500 Nall Ave. Suite 400
          Overland Park, KS 66207
          Telephone: (913) 451-3433
          Facsimile: (913) 839-0567
          E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com

MDL 2741: Luo v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES P. WONG and HONG LUO, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a
Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03329-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MDL 2741: Martin v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES R. MARTIN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-71-TBR (Filed May 16,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District of
California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03323-VC to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
          Emily Ward Roark, Esq.
          BRYANT LAW CENTER, PSC
          601 Washington St.
          P.O. Box 1876
          Paducah, KY 42002-1876
          Telephone: 270 442 1422
          Facsimile: 270 443 8788
          E-mail: mark@bryant.law
                  emily@bryant.law

MDL 2741: Treadway v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER L. TREADWAY and JEAN C. TREADWAY,, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00794 (Filed April 1, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03330-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

In its October 3, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions
in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization in the Northern District of California will serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings (including with respect to discovery, privilege, and
Daubert motion practice); and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the
MDL is Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is
3:16-md-02741-VC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com

MDL 2744: Bid to Exclude Hastings & Rosenberg Testimony Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FCA US LLC MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC GEARSHIFT
LITIGATION, MDL No. 2744, Case No. 16-md-02744 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan, Southern Division, (i) granted in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to exclude the Defendant's damages expert, Bruce Strombom;
and (ii) denied the Defendants' motion to exclude the Plaintiffs'
damages expert, Justine Hastings, and their design defect expert,
Craig Rosenberg.

The Plaintiffs in these putative class actions -- consolidated
before the Court by the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation -- allege
that the Defendant FCA US, LLC (Chrysler) manufactured certain
vehicles equipped with defective gear shifter mechanisms.  The
Plaintiffs contend that they overpaid for their vehicles because
the defect was concealed from them at the time of sale. They have
moved for class certification, supporting their motion with
affidavits from expert witnesses, and the Defendant likewise
supports its opposition to the class motion with expert
affidavits.

Presently before the Court are the parties' motions to exclude
expert testimony from the proceedings to determine whether the
matter should be certified as a class action.  The Plaintiffs have
moved to exclude the Defendant's damages expert, Dr. Strombom, and
the Defendants have moved to exclude the Plaintiffs' damages
expert, Dr. Hastings, and their design defect expert, Rosenberg.

The Defendants will rely on an affidavit by Dr. Strombom, an
economist who professes expertise in the fields of applied
microeconomics, industrial organization, and finance.  Most of Dr.
Strombom's report is devoted to a critique of numerous aspects of
the opinions rendered by the Plaintiffs' experts Hastings and
Rosenberg.  He mainly focuses on Dr. Hastings and the discussion of
her conjoint analysis that supported her conclusion that class-wide
damages can be calculated using standard econometric methods.

The Plaintiffs argue that (1) Dr. Strombom is not qualified to
offer any opinion on the validity of Dr. Hastings' proposed
conjoint analysis and consumer survey method, because he admits
that he has no expertise in conjoint analysis and has never
performed such an analysis, (2) his opinion that conjoint analysis
is never useful for assessing damages in a consumer class action is
contrary to extensive case law approving the use of the method, (3)
his testimony about the use of used car pricing data to assess the
Plaintiffs' damages is unreliable because Dr. Strombom admitted
that analysis of used car sales is not an accepted method for
assessing damages originating at the point of sale, based on new
car pricing, and (4) the testimony about used car sales data is
irrelevant, unhelpful, and merely would confuse the issues, because
Dr. Strombom admitted that he did not make any attempt to calculate
damages at the point of sale, and he does not know of any way in
which used car sales data could be translated to estimate
point-of-sale damages.

Judge Lawson concludes that the Defendant has not established the
required foundation for Dr. Strombom's testimony criticizing Dr.
Hastings' conjoint analysis and its supporting data.  However. Dr.
Strombom may offer evidence about his own analysis of used class
vehicle prices.  There is adequate foundation for the expert
opinions of Dr. Justine Hastings and Dr. Craig Rosenberg.

Accordingly, he granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs'
motion to exclude testimony by Dr. Strombom.  Dr. Strombom may not
offer opinions criticizing the basis of the opinion of the
Plaintiffs' expert Dr. Hastings with respect to her proposed
damages model and whether calculation of class-wide damages at the
original point of sale would be insufficient.  However, Dr.
Strombom may testify about his separate analysis of pricing of the
class vehicles on the used market, insofar as it is pertinent to
the Plaintiffs' claims that they suffered damages due to increased
depreciation of their cars.

The Judge denied the Defendant's motions to exclude testimony by
Dr. Hastings and Rosenberg.

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

In Re FCA US LLC Monostable Electronic Gearshift Litigation,
represented by Larry J. Saylor -- saylor@millercanfield.com --
Miller, Canfield.

Bruce Vosburgh, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller --
epm@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm, Sharon S. Almonrode --
ssa@miller.law.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C. & Dennis A.
Lienhardt -- dal@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C..

Timothy Weber, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm, Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Peter A. Muhic -- pmuhic@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode, The
Miller
Law Firm, P.C. & Tyler S. Graden, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP.

Bernadine Hartt, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Honigman --
dhonigman@manteselaw.com -- Mantese Honigman, PC, Douglas Toering
-- dtoering@manteselaw.com -- Mantese Honigman, P.C., Gerard V.
Mantese -- gmantese@manteselaw.com -- Mantese Honigman, P.C., E.
Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, James A. Buster, Mantese
Honigman, P.C., Kevin A. Seely, Robbins Arroyo LLP, Krista M.
Hosmer, Mantese Honigman, P.C., Leonid Kandinov, Robbins Arroyo
LLP, Matthew Thomas Prewitt, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Robert
K. Shelquist  -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal
Nauen
PLLP.

Berardino D'Onofrio, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Honigman,
Mantese Honigman, PC, Douglas Toering, Mantese Honigman, P.C.,
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Honigman, P.C., E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm, James A. Buster, Mantese Honigman, P.C., Kevin A.
Seely, Robbins Arroyo LLP, Krista M. Hosmer, Mantese Honigman,
P.C., Leonid Kandinov, Robbins Arroyo LLP, Matthew Thomas Prewitt,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Robert K. Shelquist, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Marc Hughes, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Gustafson --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC & E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Andre Barfield, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm, Kevin F. O'Shea -- kfo@miller.law -- Miller Law
Firm & Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C..

Nina Walker, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Gustafson,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

David Goldsmith, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Christopher
R. Pitoun -- christopherp@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman, E. Powell
Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Elizabeth A. Fegan --
beth@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Michael Vincent Nathan, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W.
Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Christopher R. Pitoun,
Hagens Berman, E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Elizabeth A.
Fegan, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser --
toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Pascual Pietri, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Christopher R. Pitoun, Hagens Berman, E.
Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm, Elizabeth A. Fegan, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman
Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Amanda J. Hettinger --
ahettinger@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Kathy A.
Wisniewski -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn
LLP, Larry J. Saylor, Miller, Canfield, Sharon B. Rosenberg --
srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Stephen A.
D'Aunoy, Thompson Coburn LLP, Cheryl A. Bush -- bush@bsplaw.com --
Bush, Seyferth & Paige, PLLC, Michael R. Williams --
williams@bsplaw.com -- Bush Seyferth & Paige PLLC & Thomas L.
Azar,
Jr. -- tazar@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP.


MDL 2887: Lavalle Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, Lisa Lavalle, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC.
and Colgate-Palmolive Company, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02971 (Filed May 20, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City) on June 14,
2019. The District of Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ to proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. The suit alleges
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation. The lead case is Case No.
2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          James S. Notis, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905-0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905-0508

               - and -

          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          Two Gateway Center-12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: jsarnelli@ldgrlaw.com

MDL 2887: McIlvaine Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOHN MCILVAINE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00497 (Filed April 30, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas (Kansas City) on June 14, 2019. The District of Kansas Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02320-JAR-TJJ to proceeding. The
case is assigned to the Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. The
suit alleges Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation. The lead case is
Case No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
          MORROW & ARTIM, PC
          304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 209-0656
          Facsimile: (412) 386-3184

MDL 2887: Reed Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
The case, Carole Reed on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated , the Plaintiff, vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC. and
Colgate-Palmolive Company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02225
(Filed April 16, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City) on June 14, 2019.
The District of Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-02314-JAR-TJJ to proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. The suit alleges
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation. The lead case is Case No.
2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Joseph Nicholas Kravec Jr., Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC LLC
          429 Fourth Avenue
          Law & Finance Building, Suite 1300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

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

MDL 2887: Sahli Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, JENAEL SAHLI and SUSAN KINDREGAN, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated , the Plaintiffs, vs. HILL'S PET
NUTRITION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-09239 (Filed April
3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas (Kansas City) on June 14, 2019. The District of Kansas
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02319-JAR-TJJ to proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson.
The suit alleges Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation. The lead
case is Case No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Michael M. Weinkowitz, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

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

MDL 2887: Sun-Dampier Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Jun Virginia Sun-Dampier, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated , the Plaintiff, vs. HILL'S PET
NUTRITION, INC., the Defendant, and  John Navarrete, the Movant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00819 (Filed Feb. 14, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City) on
June 14, 2019. The District of Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-02310-JAR-TJJ to proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. The suit alleges
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation. The lead case is Case No.
2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Adam Tamburelli, Esq.
          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN AND SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

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

Attorneys for the Movant are:

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161

MICROCHIP TECH: Bid to Dismiss Jackson Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Microchip Technology 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 a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint has been filed in the class action suit entitled,
Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al., Case No.
2:18-cv-02914-JJT.

On May 29, 2018, the company completed its acquisition of Microsemi
Corporation (Microsemi), a publicly traded company headquartered in
Aliso Viejo, California. As a result of the acquisition, Microsemi
became a wholly owned subsidiary of Microchip.

Beginning on September 14, 2018, the Company and certain of its
officers were named in two putative shareholder class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Arizona, captioned Jackson v. Microchip Technology Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-02914-JJT and Maknissian v. Microchip Technology
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-02924-JJT.

On November 13, 2018, the Maknissian complaint was voluntarily
dismissed.  

The Jackson complaint is allegedly brought on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of Microchip common stock between March 2, 2018
and August 9, 2018.  

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws and generally alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects during the putative class period.  

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative class.  

On December 11, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing the lead
plaintiff. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2019.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April
1, 2019.

Microchip Technology Inc. develops and manufactures semiconductor
products for various embedded control applications worldwide. The
company, which was incorporated in 1989, is based in Chandler,
Arizona.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Bourgeoises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
HELEN BOURGEOIS, and CHARLES BOURGEOIS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03325-VC (M.D. La., May
20, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          D. Blayne Honeycutt, Esq.
          Colt J. Fore, Esq.
          FAYARD & HONEYCUTT
          519 Florida Avenue SW
          Denham Springs, LA 70726
          Telephone: 225-664-0304
          Facsimile: 225-664-2010
          E-mail: dbhoneycutt@fayardlaw.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Colemans Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL COLEMAN and RUBY COLEMAN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01684-JAR (E.D. Mo., June
12, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth S. Webb, Esq.
          BROWN & CROUPPEN, P.C.
          211 North Broadway, Suite 1600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Lamkay et al. Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD L. LAMKAY and ARTHUR NOVELL, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05518 (S.D.N.Y., June 13,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul D. Rheingold, Esq.
          RHEINGOLD GIUFFRA
          RUFFO & PLOTKIN LLP
          551 Fifth Avenue, 29 th Floor
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: (212) 684-1880

MOWI ASA: Wilkey Alleges Price-Fixing of Salmon
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against MOWI ASA et al. alleges unlawful
coordination of the prices charged to indirect purchasers of
farm-raised salmon and derived salmon products (such as salmon
fillets or smoked salmon) which were sold by Defendants, in
violation the antitrust and consumer protection laws of each state
recognizing a right of action for indirect purchasers harmed by
anticompetitive conduct. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
under the Clayton Act and Sherman Act.

The European Commission recently confirmed "that on February 19,
2019 its officials carried out unannounced inspections in several
Member States at the premises of several companies in the sector of
farmed Atlantic salmon." The EC commenced its investigation by
sending a letter in early February 2019 to the world's dominant
suppliers of farm-raised salmon and their affiliates, in which it
explained that it had received information that the companies --
the Defendants -- are "participating in or have participated in
anti-competitive agreements and/or concerted practices related to
different ways of price coordination in order to sustain and
possibly increase the prices for Norwegian salmon."

The  Plaintiff asserts a claim for damages for all indirect
purchasers under the laws of the several States and Territories
recognizing such a claim.

The case is captioned as ROBIN WILKEY, the Plaintiff, vs. MOWI ASA
(FKA MARINE HARVEST ASA), MARINE HARVEST USA, LLC, MARINE HARVEST
CANADA, INC., DUCKTRAP RIVER OF MAINE LLC, GRIEG SEAFOOD ASA, GRIEG
SEAFOOD BC LTD., BREMNES SEASHORE AS, OCEAN QUALITY AS, OCEAN
QUALITY NORTH AMERICA INC., OCEAN QUALITY USA INC., OCEAN QUALITY
PREMIUM BRANDS, INC., SALMAR ASA, LEROY SEAFOOD GROUP ASA, LEROY
SEAFOOD USA INC., AND SCOTTISH SEA FARMS LTD., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00268-JAW (D. Maine, June 11, 2019).

Mowi ASA is a Norwegian seafood company with operations in several
countries around the world. It engages in the production,
processing, and sale of farmed salmon, the operations of which are
focused in Norway, Scotland, British Columbia, Canada, the Faroe
Islands, Ireland, and Chile. Marine Harvest USA, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Mowi, processes salmon in Florida and Texas and
distributes it to wholesalers, retailers and others in Florida and
elsewhere in the United States. Marine Harvest Canada processes
salmon in British Columbia, Canada, and distributes salmon in
Canada and the western United States. Ducktrap sells processed
salmon products, such as sliced smoked salmon, under a number of
trade names, including Ducktrap and Kendall Brook. Grieg is a
foreign corporation that describes itself as "one of the world's
leading fish farming companies, specializing in Atlantic salmon.
Bremnes Seashore is in the business of salmon-farming and has
operations throughout Norway. Ocean Quality engaged in the salmon
distribution business. Ocean Quality North America Inc. facilitates
the distribution of farm-raised salmon produced by Grieg and its
subsidiaries and Bremnes Seashore throughout the United States.
Ocean Quality USA Inc. distributes salmon products produced by
Grieg and its subsidiaries and Bremnes Seashore throughout the
United States. SalMar ASA describes itself as "one of the world's
largest and most efficient producers of Atlantic salmon, and is
vertically integrated along the entire value chain from broodfish,
roe and smolt to harvesting, processing and sales.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Richard L. O'Meara
          MURRAY, PLUMB & MURRAY
          75 Pearl Street, P.O. Box 9785
          Portland, ME 04104-5085
          Telephone: (207) 773-5651
          E-mail: romeara@mpmlaw.com

               - and -

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com


               - and -

          Benjamin J. Widlanski
          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9 th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305-372-1800
          Facsimile: 305-372-3508
          E-mail: bwidlanski@kttlaw.com
                  tjl@kttlaw.com

MYLAN: Bid for Class Certification in Epipen Suit Shelved
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: EPIPEN (EPINEPHRINE INJECTION, USP)
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
2:17-md-02785-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel D. Crabtree
took the Plaintiff's motion for class certification under
advisement.

According to the Clerk's Courtroom Minute Sheet, the court heard
argument from counsel on the motion. The parties are directed to
submit exhibits and presentations from the hearing to be made part
of the record. The court directed the plaintiffs to submit waivers
or notices that certain plaintiffs are not waiving as to their
lexicon remand rights by July 15, 2019.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs are:

          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          Telephone: 469 904 4551
          E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
                  scox@burnscharest.com

               - and -

          Duane L. Loft, Esq.
          55 Hudson Yards, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Phone: 212 909 7606
          Mobile: 917 767 6733

Attorneys for Mylan are:

          Adam K. Levin, Esq.
          Justin Bernick, Esq.
          Brian C. Fries, Esq.
          Katherine Booth Wellington, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS
          Columbia Square
          555 Thirteenth Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20004
          Telephone: 202 637 6846
          Facsimile: 202 637 5910
          E-mail: adam.levin@hoganlovells.com

Attorneys for Pfizer are:

          Raj Gandesha, Esq.
          Joseph M. Rebein, Esq.
          White & Case
          Telephone: 212 819 8975
          Facsimile: 212 819 8200
          E-mail: rgandesha@whitecase.com

NATIONWIDE BANK: Court Denies Bid to Amend/Correct Hughes Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSHUA HUGHES, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE BANK,
Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01235 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Mark R. Hornak
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
denied the Plaintiff Joshua Hughes's Motion to Amend/Correct his
Complaint.

On Sept. 17, 2018, the Plaintiff initiated the action individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Defendant
Nationwide Bank.  The Complaint states that the consumer protection
class action seeks equitable, declaratory, and monetary relief to
redress the Defendant's pattern and practice to fail to provide
commercially reasonable post-repossession consumer disclosure
notices.

According to the Complaint, in 2013, the Plaintiff, a Pennsylvania
resident, refinanced his 2012 Ford Mustang through the Defendant,
executing a Promissory Note in favor of the Defendant and entering
into a Consumer Security Agreement ("CSA") with the Defendant.  On
Sept. 17, 2015, the Defendant (or agents on its behalf) repossessed
the Plaintiff's Ford Mustang.  The Defendant sent him a Notice of
Repossession on the same day as repossession, which he alleges
failed to comply with the UCC requirements for post-repossession
consumer disclosure notices.  He also alleges that the Defendant
never sent him a Post-Sale Notice, which would have provided an
explanation of the calculation of surplus or deficiency after the
Defendant sold the repossessed vehicle, and such failure is also a
UCC violation.

The Complaint pleads a proposed "Main Class" comprised of all
persons a) who financed or refinanced a motor vehicle primarily for
personal, family or household use through Defendant; and, b) whom
Defendant, as secured party, repossessed the vehicle or ordered it
to be repossessed; and, c) who, at the time the Defendant or its
agent, sent a Notice of Repossession to its borrower(s), who
resided in a state that adopted the sections of the UCC which is
the same or substantially similar in content to 13 Pa. C.S.
Sections 9610, 9611, 9613, 9614, and 9625; and, d) who were not
sent a Notice of Repossession clearly and conspicuously stated: (i)
the intended method of disposition (whether the vehicle would be
sold at a public or private sale) and, in the case of a public
sale, the time and place of the location of the disposition; or,
(ii) that the recipient was entitled to an accounting of the unpaid
indebtedness and the charge for such accounting.  The claims of the
"Main Class," which focus on UCC violations related to Notices of
Repossession, are labeled as "Count I."  

The Complaint then pleads a "Subclass" defined as all persons in
the Main Class; a) whose vehicle was resold by the Defendant
following repossession; and, b) who: (i) either were not sent a
Post-Sale Notice; or, (ii) were sent a Post-Sale Notice which
failed to contain all of the following information, in the
following order: 1) first, the aggregate amount of the obligation
secured by the security interest, and, if the amount reflects a
rebate of unearned interest or credit service charge, a timely
indication of that fact; 2) second, the amount of proceeds of the
disposition; 3) third, the aggregate amount of the obligations
after deducting the amount of proceeds; 4) fourth, the amount, in
aggregate or by type, and types of expenses, including expenses of
retaking, holding, preparing for disposition, processing and
disposing of the collateral and attorney fees secured by the
collateral which are known to the secured party and relate to the
current disposition; 5) fifth, the amount, in the aggregate or by
type and types of credits, including rebates of interest or credit
service charges, to which the obligor is known to be entitled and
which are not reflected in the amount in subparagraph 1; and, 6)
lastly, the amount of the surplus or deficiency. The claims of the
"SubClass," which relate to UCC violations pertaining to Post-Sale
Notices, are labeled as "Count II."

The Defendant answered the Complaint, and filed a Motion for
Partial Judgment on the Pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(c) -- seeking dismissal of Count II of the Plaintiffs
Complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of standing -- and
a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Class Allegations under Rule
23(d)(1)(D).  The Court denied the Motion to Stay and directed the
parties to fully brief the Plaintiffs Motion to Amend.

The Plaintiff seeks leave to amend his Complaint:"(1) to add more
factual detail in light of the preliminary discovery provided; (2)
to make the claims for relief under Ohio law (in the alternative to
Pennsylvania); (3) to add additional classes; and (4) to bolster
the pending UCC claims, adding an additional subclass.  He attached
the Proposed Amended Complaint ("PAC") to the Motion to Amend.

The PAC contains substantial changes from the Complaint.  Most
important to the pending Motion to Amend, the PAC pleads that the
CSA (Exhibit 7 to the PAC) and the Promissory Note (Exhibit 6 to
the PAC) trigger the application of Ohio substantive law to the
Plaintiffs individual UCC claims at issue, but should the Court
conclude Ohio law is not the applicable law, then Pennsylvania law
applies.  The Plaintiff relies on two contractual provisions to
support his shift in position from the initial Complaint, which
asserted that Pennsylvania law applied to his individual claims.

The PAC also re-structures the Complaint's proposed classes and
subclasses.  The PAC pleads:

     a. A proposed Main Class of individuals who
financed/refinanced a motor vehicle through the Defendant, were
sent a notice of repossession substantially similar to the
Plaintiffs, and entered into a promissory note and a consumer
security agreement containing a Governing Law provision stating
that Ohio law applies.

     b. A proposed Alternative Main Class that would include
individuals whose vehicle was repossessed in Pennsylvania and
received a Notice of Repossession (the same or substantially
similar to the Plaintiffs) but not by certified mail.

     c. A proposed Post-Sale Notice Subclass, which purports to
include persons in the proposed Main Class who were not sent a
Post-Sale Notice, or were sent one only after being sent a monthly
statement stating that a balance existed or payment was owed, or
were sent a post-sale notice which stated an incorrect amount in
the itemization of the total amount owed at the time of sale as of
the fate of the notice.

     d. Two proposed Alternative Post-Sale Notice Subclasses, in
the event the Court concludes Ohio choice of law does not apply.

          i. The first would include all persons in the proposed
Main Class6 whose vehicles were repossessed in Pennsylvania and,
within six months of the filing of the action, were not sent
Post-Sale Notices, or were sent Post-Sale Notices only after being
sent either a monthly statement stating that a balance existed or
any other demand for payment on the account.

          ii. The second would include all persons in the proposed
Main Class who were sent a Post-Sale Notice at an address in
Pennsylvania on or after December 1, 2014, but not by registered or
certified mail.

In opposing the Motion to Amend, the Defendant argues that the
Plaintiff is attempting to avoid a ruling on arguments raised in
its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and is using the pending
motion to test drive various legal positions to avoid adverse
rulings.  Specifically, the Defendant argues that the PAC would be
futile because the proposed amendments seeking to add claims under
Ohio law fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
It incorporates its brief in opposition to the Plaintiffs Motion to
Determine Choice of Law.  The Plaintiff replied, incorporating its
Motion to Determine Choice of Law and brief in support.

Judge Hornak finds that because the Plaintiff's rights under the
UCC spring to life upon the transaction that creates the security
interest, his UCC claims arise under the CSA, not the Promissory
Note.  The Judge concludes that the governing law provision
applicable to the claims at issue is that contained within the
CSA.

He also concludes that the Plaintiff's claims fall within the
Exception Clause, and Pennsylvania law will apply to his claims.
Each of the Plaintiff's suggested interpretation arguments
independently fails for the same reason: the proposed
interpretation of a word or a phrase is unreasonable when viewed in
context of the Exception Clause as a whole.  Those results become
clearer when the Plaintiff's three arguments are viewed together.
Under the Plaintiff's reading of the Exception Clause, only claims
related to Procedural Law, as that term is used in the legal
context, but simultaneously related to both perfection and
enforcement, and that directly enforce the Defendant's rights and
remedies against the property would fall within the Exception
Clause.  This is an internally conflicting statement, and its
application would render an absurd result.

Now that he has concluded that Pennsylvania law applies to the
Plaintiff's individual claims, the Judge may evaluate the PAC for
futility.  The PAC proposes alternative class descriptions based on
either Ohio law or another state's law expressly contingent on the
Court's finding and conclusion regarding which state law applies to
Plaintiffs individual claims.  Therefore, the Plaintiff will not be
given leave to amend to include proposed claims that fail to
conform with the Opinion (i.e. the claims predicated on the Court
concluding that the Plaintiff's claims are governed by Ohio law).
Given that the PAC, as filed, cannot survive in its entirety, the
Plaintiff will not be granted leave to amend with that particular
pleading, but he will be given another, final, opportunity to move
anew for amendment.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Hornak denied Plaintiffs Motion to
Amend.  Because the Initial Complaint fails to adequately plead
subject-matter jurisdiction, the case is dismissed without
prejudice to the Plaintiff filing a Second Motion to Amend the
Complaint conforming with the Opinion and Accompanying Order and
without prejudice to the Defendant asserting any new argument or
re-asserting previous arguments should it decide to oppose the
Second Motion to Amend the Complaint.

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

JOSHUA HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Richard E. Shenkan, Shenkan
Injury Lawyers, LLC.

NATIONWIDE BANK, Defendant, represented by Albert G. Lin --
alin@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Marissa A. Peirsol --
mpeirsol@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice.


NBTY INC: Court Denies Bid for Summary Judgment in Alvarez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSA ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NBTY, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment.

Alvarez brings an individual and class complaint against the
Defendants, alleging the Defendants have violated California's
unfair competition law; and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute biotin
supplements under the Nature's Bounty brand.  The products at issue
here are: Biotin 5000 mcg, SUPER POTENCY Biotin 5000 mcg, QUICK
DISSOLVE Biotin 5000 mcg, Biotin 10,000 mcg rapid release softgels,
and Biotin 10,000 mcg HEALTH & BEAUTY rapid release liquid
softgels.  The Products' labels state the Products "Support Healthy
Hair, Skin, and Nails" and provide "Energy Support."

In approximately 2014, Plaintiff Alvarez's hair began falling out.
She went to a dermatologist, who informed her she had alopecia, but
told her not to worry and that her hair would grow back.  The
dermatologist suggested laser treatment, but the Plaintiff was not
interested.  The dermatologist did not recommend any supplements.
Also around this time, the Plaintiff went to her regular nail salon
for a manicure.  The nail technician told her there was a
supplement on the market that helps with hair and nails.  The nail
technician took out his bottle of biotin, showed it to her and
others, and recommended taking the supplement in softgel form.

The Plaintiff was suffering from hair loss at the time and the
thought of "great hair" made her interested in biotin.  She then
went to Bed Bath & Beyond and purchased Defendants'10,000 mcg
HEALTH & BEAUTY rapid release liquid softgels biotin product.  She
took biotin for a few years, purchasing a new bottle of supplements
"religiously" so that she would never run out.

The Plaintiff states she purchased the Product in reliance on the
Defendants' health benefit representations.  She claims these
representations are false, misleading, and reasonably likely to
deceive the public.  In sum, the Plaintiff claims the Defendants'
representations are false because the supplements do not support
healthy hair, skin, and nails.

The Defendants moved for summary judgment on all of the Plaintiff's
claims.  They argue the Plaintiff has no standing to bring her UCL
and CLRA claims.  The Defendants' argument is two-fold: (1) the
Plaintiff did not rely on the Products' labels; and (2) she did not
suffer damages.

Judge Bashant finds that the Plaintiff has produced at least
debatable evidence demonstrating that the scientific consensus is
on her side.  A jury could conclude that a reasonable consumer
would find the Defendants' Products misleading.  Drawing all
inferences from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to
the Plaintiff, the Judge finds there is a disputed issue as to
whether reasonable consumer could believe that the high doses of
biotin in the Defendants' Products support the consumer's hair,
skin, and nails, when, as Plaintiff presents, the biotin in one's
diet sufficiently supports hair, skin, and nails, and one does not
need biotin from the Defendants' Products for such support.  This
creates a disputed issue of material fact.  For these reasons, she
denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/UlO6B5 from Leagle.com.

Rosa Alvarez, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie A. Laliberte --
claliberte@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, PC, pro
hac vice., Elaine A. Ryan -- eryan@bffb.com --Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint, PC, pro hac vice, Michael Matthew Chang --
mchang@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, pro hac vice, Nada Djordjevic --
ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com -- Boodell & Domanskis, LLC, pro hac vice,
Patricia N. Syverson -- psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint, PC & Stewart Weltman -- sweltman@siprut.com --
Siprut PC, pro hac vice.

Colleen Lesher, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nada Djordjevic , Boodell &
Domanskis, LLC, pro hac vice & Patricia N. Syverson, Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC.

NBTY, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Nature's Bounty, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Amanda Leigh
Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP & Shawn Rieko
Obi, Winston & Stawn LLP.


NBTY INC: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Alvarez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSA ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NBTY, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00567-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Alvarez's Motion for Class
Certification.

Alvarez brings an individual and class complaint against the
Defendants, alleging the Defendants have violated California's
unfair competition law; and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute biotin
supplements under the Nature's Bounty brand.  The products at issue
here are: Biotin 5000 mcg, SUPER POTENCY Biotin 5000 mcg, QUICK
DISSOLVE Biotin 5000 mcg, Biotin 10,000 mcg rapid release softgels,
and Biotin 10,000 mcg HEALTH & BEAUTY rapid release liquid
softgels.  The Products' labels state the Products "Support Healthy
Hair, Skin, and Nails" and provide "Energy Support."

In approximately 2014, Plaintiff Alvarez's hair began falling out.
She went to a dermatologist, who informed her she had alopecia, but
told her not to worry and that her hair would grow back.  The
dermatologist suggested laser treatment, but the Plaintiff was not
interested.  The dermatologist did not recommend any supplements.
Also around this time, the Plaintiff went to her regular nail salon
for a manicure.  The nail technician told her there was a
supplement on the market that helps with hair and nails.  The nail
technician took out his bottle of biotin, showed it to her and
others, and recommended taking the supplement in softgel form.

The Plaintiff was suffering from hair loss at the time and the
thought of "great hair" made her interested in biotin.  She then
went to Bed Bath & Beyond and purchased Defendants' 10,000 mcg
HEALTH & BEAUTY rapid release liquid softgels biotin product.  She
took biotin for a few years, purchasing a new bottle of supplements
"religiously" so that she would never run out.

The Plaintiff states she purchased the Product in reliance on the
Defendants' health benefit representations.  She claims these
representations are false, misleading, and reasonably likely to
deceive the public.  In sum, the Plaintiff claims the Defendants'
representations are false because the supplements do not support
healthy hair, skin, and nails.

Presently before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.  She seeks certification of the following classes:

     a. Multi-State UCL Class: All consumers who, within the
applicable statute of limitations period until the date notice is
disseminated, purchased Biotin Products in California, Florida,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey,
New York, and Washington.

     b. California-Only UCL Class: All California consumers who,
within the applicable statute of limitations period until the date
notice is disseminated, purchased Biotin Products.

     c. California-Only CLRA Class: All California consumers who,
within the applicable statute of limitations period until the date
notice is disseminated, purchased Biotin Products.

The Defendants only challenge the typicality and predominance
elements.  They argue the Plaintiff is subject to a number of
unique defenses" and is not typical of the class.  They further
argue the Plaintiff cannot establish predominance for three
reasons: (1) individual issues regarding the materiality of the
Products' labels predominate over common issues; (2) the Plaintiff
cannot demonstrate the labels are false to all class members; and
(3) the Plaintiff has no valid class-wide damages model.

Judge Bashant holds that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the
predominance requirement under Rule 23(b)(3).  She finds that there
is no question that the labels on the Defendants' Products are
uniform, and because the Plaintiff has sufficiently shown the
misrepresentations are material, the Plaintiff is entitled to an
inference of reliance and causation for her California class.

The Judge is not finding that the Plaintiff must prove the Products
are worthless before certification is appropriate.  Proof of the
manifestation of a defect is not a prerequisite to class
certification.  Assuming the Plaintiff can prove that the Products
are worthless to the members of the general population who ingest
enough biotin through their diets, the Products do provide some
"support" to those who do not, and the label is therefore not false
to them.  Differentiating between the various types of people and
determining how much, if any, benefit each person receive from the
Products would overwhelm the common issues in the case.  For this
reason, predominance is not satisfied.

Finally, she finds that the Plaintiff has not proven that
subtracting 1% from each purchase price is adequate to make up for
the value of the benefit some class members may receive.  The
Plaintiff therefore has not presented a damages model consistent
with her theory of their case, because even under her theory, some
people benefitted from the Products.  Therefore, damages are not
subject to common proof on a class-wide basis.  For this reason,
predominance is not satisfied.

Because the Plaintiff has failed to meet the predominance
requirement under Rule 23(b)(3), Judge Bashant denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/pqwm32 from Leagle.com.

Rosa Alvarez, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie A. Laliberte --
claliberte@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, PC, pro
hac vice., Elaine A. Ryan -- eryan@bffb.com --Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint, PC, pro hac vice, Michael Matthew Chang --
mchang@siprut.com -- Siprut PC, pro hac vice, Nada Djordjevic --
ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com -- Boodell & Domanskis, LLC, pro hac vice,
Patricia N. Syverson -- psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint, PC & Stewart Weltman -- sweltman@siprut.com --
Siprut PC, pro hac vice.

Colleen Lesher, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Nada Djordjevic, Boodell &
Domanskis, LLC, pro hac vice & Patricia N. Syverson, Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC.

NBTY, Inc., a Delaware corporation & Nature's Bounty, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Amanda Leigh
Groves -- agroves@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP & Shawn Rieko
Obi, Winston & Stawn LLP.


NELNET: Court Allows Class Action Over Student Loan Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Domina Law Group on May 22 disclosed that a national class action
against one of America's largest student loan companies will go
forward.

The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska (Hon.
John M. Gerrard, Judge) issued a ruling holding that Jessica Olsen
of Oregon and Teri Smith of Florida may proceed with their national
class action case.

Olsen and Smith allege that Nelnet, Inc. of Lincoln breached
student loan contracts and promissory notes held by the company,
and are requiring an accounting from the company for its breaches.

The students' lawyer, David Domina of Domina Law Group pc llo in
Omaha, NE said the Court's ruling for the Plaintiffs is "consistent
with a clear federal legislative intent [expressed at 20 USC 1082]
to make companies in Nelnet's business financially responsible for
their misconduct."

Domina Law Group represents Olsen and Smith along with Anthony
Fiorentino, Cassandra Miller and Dan Edelman of Chicago, IL.

The 23-page Court ruling allows four of the students' six claims to
go forward against Nelnet.  In 2018, Nelnet described itself in
connection with an acquisition.

Domina and his colleagues filed the Olsen lawsuit in June 2018
(Case No. 4:18-cv-03081). They sued for two separate classes of
student borrowers. One class borrowed funds more than five years
before suit was filed and used an IDR Plan which was not processed
correctly by Nelnet. The second class consists of students who fall
into a separate legal category with different features to change
lending terms. Each class is "composed of tens to hundreds of
thousands of individuals and thus are so numerous" as to require
that they be dealt with in a class action. (Am Compl Filing # 37,
p14).

Ms. Olsen and Ms. Smith contend their student loans, serviced by
Nelnet were mismanaged and that this caused them to lose available
privileges to pay the loans at lower interest rates and on more
favorable terms. They allege Nelnet breached contracts with the
government made to help students, and made misrepresentations about
what had to be done by students to take advantage of favorable loan
options.

Nelnet, Inc. shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol "NNI". The company operates more than 50 subsidiaries from
its headquarters in Lincoln. The stock was lower in trading on May
20 and May 21 after the ruling.

In a May 8, 2019 PR Newswire Release, Nelnet was described as
operating "four primary business segments, earning interest income
on loans in its Asset Generation and Management segment and
fee-based revenue in its Loan Servicing and Systems; Education
Technology, Services, and Payment Processing; and Communications
segments."

The same press release identified "the company's average balance of
loans in the first quarter of 2019 [as] $22.3 billion compared with
$21.9 billion for the same period in 2018."

Forbes' Zack Friedman called student debt a $1.5 trillion crisis
and "now the second highest consumer debt category -- behind only
mortgage debt -- and higher than both credit cards and auto
loans."

As of the time of this release, Nelnet has not reacted to the court
ruling. [GN]


NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Weaver Alleges Bait-and-Switch Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY P. WEAVER, individually and on behalf of a class of those
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NORTH AMERICAN POWER
& GAS LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01339-DAP (N.D. Ohio.,
June 10, 2019), alleges that NAP engages in a classic
bait-and-switch deceptive marketing scheme aimed at consumers
hoping to save money on the cost of electricity. NAP intentionally
offers below-market fixed rates for electricity in order to entrap
customers, with the expectation that a high proportion of customers
will automatically and without affirmation renew into an exorbitant
month-to-month variable rate contract based on poorly defined
factors that take several billing cycles to be recognized.

NAP lures consumers into switching from the local utility's
electric rate by offering a teaser rate that is fixed for a limited
number of months and initially lower than local utility rates for
electricity. Once that initial rate expires, NAP automatically
switches its customers over to a "variable rate product" that "may
vary from month-to-month based on NAP's assessment of applicable
market conditions."

A reasonable consumer thus expects that after the initial rate
expires, he or she will receive a variable rate that might vary
from the fixed rate that he or she was receiving, depending on
whether market conditions have changed -- i.e. a variable market
rate. Thus, a reasonable consumer would expect that NAP's variable
market rate would reflect market conditions, including wholesale
market rates and conditions and the rates other market participants
charge (including local utilities).

These representations by NAP are misleading. What NAP does not
inform customers is that its variable rate is invariably
substantially higher than the initial teaser rate, that it does not
fluctuate based on changes in the wholesale market, and that it
does not vary according to other market rates because NAP's rate is
significantly higher than the rates local utilities charge and the
rates most other suppliers charge (including NAP's own fixed
rates).

The Plaintiff and reasonable consumers were allegedly misled and
deceived because NAP's variable rate never materially varies based
on market conditions, because the variable rate does not vary based
on changes in competitors' rates, and it does not vary based on
changes in wholesale rates. Instead, NAP raises the rate as high as
it thinks it can without causing its customers to quit and it
leaves the rate high no matter what happens with its competitors'
rates or wholesale market rates. A reasonable consumer would not
expect there to be no connection between market conditions and
NAP's variable rates. As a result, consumers are being fleeced
millions of dollars in exorbitant charges for electricity, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Keith L. Gibson, Esq.
          BROTSCHUL POTTS LLC
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 551-9003
          Facsimile: (312) 277-3278
          E-mail: kgibson@brotschulpotts.com

OASIS LEGAL: McClain et al. Suit Moved to W.D. Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, Nickesha McClain, Administratrix of the Estate of May
King, and Cheston Mason, Individually and on behalf of classes of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, vs. Oasis Legal
Finance, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 19-CI-002802, was removed
from the Jefferson Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky (Louisville) on June 12, 2019. The
Western District of Kentucky Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00426-CRS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Charles R. Simpson, III.

Oasis Legal, doing business as Oasis Financial, provides
non-recourse consumer legal funding to individuals involved in
personal injury litigation due to auto and work-related accidents
in the United States. It offers pre-settlement funding and
structured settlements for civil rights, construction negligence,
railroad, general negligence, maritime, motor vehicle and passenger
injury, pedestrian injury, premises negligence, workers
compensation, accidental injuries, workplace negligence, and
wrongful death.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          James Robert Craig, Esq.
          Michele Henry, Esq.
          Tyler A. Larson, Esq.
          CRAIG HENRY PLC
          239 S. Fifth Street, Suite 1400
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 614-5962
          Facsimile: (502) 614-5968
          E-mail: jcraig@craighenrylaw.com
                  mhenry@craighenrylaw.com
                  TLARSON@CRAIGHENRYLAW.COM

Attorneys for Oasis Legal Finance, LLC are:

          Christine Skoczylas, Esq.
          Donald J. Kelly, Esq.
          Marianna J. Michael, Esq.
          WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
          500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 2800
          Louisville, KY 40202-2898
          Telephone: (502) 562-7327
          Facsimile: (502) 589-0309
          E-mail: dkelly@wyattfirm.com
                  mjmichael@wyattfirm.com

PACIFIC RAIL: Wilmsen Suit Moved to Southern District of Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Matthew Wilmsen, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Pacific Rail Services, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 19L0293, was removed from the Circuit Court
for the 20th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis) on June 14, 2019.
The Southern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-00649-NJR-GCS to the proceeding. The case assigned to the
Hon. Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel.

Pacific Rail Services, LLC manages rail ramp operations. The
company was founded in 1987 and is based in Seattle, Washington.
Pacific Rail Services, LLC operates as a subsidiary of SSA Marine,
Inc.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
          818 Lafayette Avenue, Floor 2
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: (314) 833-4825
          E-mail: bwise@pwcklegal.com

Attorneys for the Pacific Rail Services, LLC:

          Melissa A. Logan, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          321 North Clark Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 795-3262
          Facsimile: (312) 602-3807
          E-mail: mlogan@littler.com

PATIENT INNOVATION: Tomala Agrees to Drop FLSA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Boguslawa Tomala, the Plaintiff, vs.
Patient Innovation Center, NFP, et al., the Defendant, Case No.
1:17−cv−08530 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Jugde Joan H. Lefkow
entered an order granting Plaintiff's oral motion to voluntarily
dismiss the case without prejudice.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the docket entry made by the Court Clerk on June 12,
2019, all outstanding motions are terminated as moot.  The civil
case is terminated.[CC]


PHILADELPHIA: Sanders Seeks to Certify Class of Detainees
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Rocmon L. Sanders, the Plaintiff, vs. Sean Marler, et
al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-05477-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff ask the Court for entry of an order:

   1. certifying a class of present and future detainees confined
      at Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia; and

   2. appointing class counsel.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]

PLURALSIGHT: Bid to Amend Initial Sched Order in Johnson Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KYLE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PLURALSIGHT, LLC; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01148-MCE-CKD (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California (i) denied Defendant Pluralsight's
Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and (ii) granted the Plaintiff's
Motion to Amend Initial Scheduling Order.

On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the putative class action
against Pluralsight, alleging two claims for relief: (1) a
violation of California's Automatic Purchase Renewals Statute
("CAPRS"), codified at California Business and Professions Code
Sections 17600-176061; and (2) a violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL").  According to the Plaintiff, when he
purchased a subscription for the Defendant's online technology
training and related products/services, he was not advised of the
applicable automatic renewal and/or continuous service terms, and
further was not advised of the Defendant's cancellation policies.
Pluralsight sells access to online training videos designed to
facilitate learning for IT professionals and software developers.


The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on May 27, 2016, seeking to
represent a class of all California consumers who purchased
subscriptions for any products from Pluralsight. He alleged the
Pluralsight's shortcomings as delineated above violated both CAPRS
and California's UCL.

The Court issued its Initial Pretrial Scheduling Order ("PTSO") the
same day the lawsuit was filed.  Under the terms of the PTSO, the
parties were given 365 days to complete initial discovery, with
additional deadlines being calculated from the close of discovery.

Pluralsight responded to the Plaintiff's Complaint by filing a
Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted, in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6), on June 22,
2016.  The basis for that Motion was two-fold.  According to
Pluralsight, the Plaintiff's first cause of action could not be
maintained because no direct cause of action was accorded under
CAPRS, and the second cause of action failed because the Plaintiff
failed to plead any injury cognizable under the UCL.

By Memorandum and Order filed Feb. 16, 2017, the Court granted
Pluralsight's Motion as to both causes of action but permitted the
Plaintiff to amend his Complaint in order to state a viable UCL
claim.  Rather than doing so, the Plaintiff allowed judgment to be
entered in Pluralsight's favor and then proceeded to appeal the
Court's ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

By a Memorandum dated March 29, 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed
dismissal as to the first cause of action on grounds that CAPRS
does not create an independent cause of action, but reversed and
remanded the Court's dismissal of the second cause of action on
grounds that Plaintiff could in fact pursue a UCL claim.  The
mandate was issued to the Court on April 20, 2018, and Pluralsight
thereafter filed its answer to the operative complaint on May 18,
2018.

On Nov. 30, 2018, after nothing further had occurred for more than
six months, Pluralsight filed the Motion to Dismiss now before the
Court, arguing that the Plaintiff's inaction during that period
justifies dismissal.  The Plaintiff's counsel, for his part, argues
that because all dates in the initial PTSO had long since passed by
the time the matter was remanded back for further disposition, he
believed the Court itself would issue a new PTSO governing the
further conduct of the litigation.

According to the Plaintiff, he believed he could be subject to
sanctions if he proceeded forward with discovery absent an
additional PTSO permitting him to do so.  Moreover, the Plaintiff's
counsel claims he thought his partners were negotiating a
settlement of the case in any event.

In addition to opposing Pluralsight's Motion to Dismiss under Rule
41(b), the Plaintiff has also filed his own motion seeking a
further scheduling order from the Court.  Pluralsight does not
oppose that Motion provided the matter is not dismissed, but does
ask that a bifurcated discovery schedule be adopted by the Court as
previously agreed by the parties.

As indicated, the Plaintiff argues that it expected the Court to
sua sponte issue a new scheduling order once the case was remanded.
Although the Plaintiff admittedly did not file a motion seeking
the issuance of a new scheduling order, Judge England cannot say
that his position in this regard was utterly without merit.
Additionally, the counsel's claim that he mistakenly believed that
his partners were negotiating a settlement of this matter is not
per se implausible.  This shifts the burden back to Pluralsight to
show actual prejudice, and it has not done so.  Aside from vague
and unsubstantiated allegations that memories have faded and
documents may be harder to find, no specific instances of prejudice
have been identified.  Consequently, since the requisite prejudice
has not been identified and because the other factors to be
considered in justifying dismissal under Rule 41(b) also do not
weigh in favor of a terminating sanction either, Pluralsight's
Motion to Dismiss necessarily fails.

Inasmuch as he declines to dismiss the matter, the Judge next turns
to Plaintiff's request that the PTSO be modified.  Having found
dismissal to be improper on grounds that the subject delay was
reasonable under the circumstances, an operative PTSO is obviously
necessary in order to move the case forward.  While even
Pluralsight concedes that point, it advocates bifurcating discovery
in pre- and post-certification phases since the matter is being
litigated as a class action, and because proceeding without
bifurcation runs the risk of conducting certain discovery that may
ultimately be unnecessary.  Indeed, Pluralsight points to the fact
that the parties submitted a Joint Status Report on Sept. 3, 2016
in which both sides agreed that phased discovery was appropriate
given the ircumstances of the case.  The Plaintiff opposes that
request, arguing that the fact that the Court did not issue an
amended PTSO upon receipt of said Joint Status Report amounts to a
tantamount rejection of its proposal for bifurcated discovery.

The Judge holds that the Plaintiff's argument is misplaced.
Neither party moved to amend the PTSO as they should have done, and
absent an affirmative request in that regard the issue was not
squarely before the Court.  Consequently, the Judge has not yet
taken any position on the merits of phased discovery and given the
nature of the action, and the parties' previous stipulation that
such discovery was proper, he believes that Pluralsight's proposed
PTSO with its phased discovery approach is sensible.

In addition, the Judge rejects any notion, as suggested by the
Plaintiff, that the facts of this matter dictate that only the
Plaintiff should be permitted discovery due to Pluralsight's
alleged recalcitrance in doing nothing after remand besides waiting
for enough time to transpire to justify moving to dismiss.  Both
sides bear some responsibility for the subject delay in the matter,
and any discovery must be reciprocal.

For all the foregoing reasons, Judge England (i) denied Defendant
Pluralsight's Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and (ii) granted
the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Initial Scheduling Order.  An
amended PTSO will issue separately.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/xhbghP from Leagle.com.

Kyle Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott J. Ferrell --
sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com -- Pacific Trial Attorneys.

Pluralsight, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Defendant,
represented by Arthur Robert Petrie, II --
a_petrie@hattonpetrie.com -- Hatton Petrie & Stackler APC & John
Anthony McMahon -- j_mcmahon@hattonpetrie.com -- Hatton, Petrie &
Stackler APC.


PORSCHE CARS: Florida Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Padilla
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANTIAGO PADILLA and MURRAY L. SHAMES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 18-24988-CIV-MORENO (S.D. Fla.), Judge Federico
A. Moreno of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division, granted in part and denied in part
Porsche's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs' 3-count Class Action
Complaint with prejudice under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
8(a), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs Padilla and Shames filed a Class Action Complaint
against Defendant Porsche, seeking declaratory relief and damages
for alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act ("FDUTPA") and for breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability under Florida law, based upon Porsche's alleged
knowledge of an alleged safety defect in the cooling system of
certain Porsche vehicle models.

The Plaintiffs allege that Porsche sold its high-end performance
vehicles as safe, despite knowing for more than a decade that it
used a defective epoxy adhesive to join coolant pipes to the
thermostat housing assembly.  According to them, the "Cooling
System Defect" occurs when the epoxy adhesive degrades, loosens,
and eventually fails due to the contraction and expansion of
coolant pipes caused by repeated heating and cooling over time; and
when the epoxy adhesive fails, the cooling pipes separate from the
thermostat housing assembly, causing a significant coolant leak
that in turn causes the engine to overheat.

Plaintiff Padilla purchased his used 2011 Porsche Panamera from The
Collection, a car dealership located in Miami, Florida.  Plaintiff
Shames bought his used 2011 Cayenne S from the Carmax in Tampa,
Florida.

On November 29, 2018, the Plaintiffs commenced the class action
lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of all
current or former owners and/or lessees of certain Porsche models
that suffer from the Cooling System Defect.  The Class Action
Complaint asserts three claims against Porsche: (1) in Count I,
violation of the FDUTPA; (2) in Count II, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability under Florida law; and (3) in Count
III, declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201.

On Jan. 28, 2019, Porsche filed a Motion to Dismiss the Class
Action Complaint.

Judge Moreno finds that the Plaintiffs fail to establish fraudulent
concealment, and thus they cannot toll the statute of limitations.
In their Opposition memorandum, the Plaintiffs request leave to
amend the complaint to allege additional facts regarding
communications with Porsche and its authorized dealers.  He grants
their request is granted, such that they may plead additional facts
to support fraudulent concealment.  Therefore, Porsche's Motion to
Dismiss Count I with prejudice is granted in part, as Count I is
dismissed without prejudice.  And because the Judge is granting the
Plaintiffs leave to amend their fraudulent concealment
allegations,he need not address the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs'
FDUTPA claims at this time.  Notwithstanding, the parties are
granted leave to renew these arguments after Plaintiffs amend the
Class Action Complaint.

Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs purchased their used
Porsche vehicles from The Collection and Carmax dealerships -- not
directly from Porsche.  Because Porsche did not directly sell, or
negotiate the sale of, the used vehicles to the Plaintiffs, there
is no contractual privity, and thus the Plaintiffs cannot state a
claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under
Florida law.  Therefore, Porsche's Motion to Dismiss Count II is
granted.  Furthermore, Count II is dismissed with prejudice because
any amendment would be futile.

Finally, because the Judge is granting the Plaintiffs leave to
amend their allegations concerning fraudulent concealment, thus
leaving open the question whether or not the FDUTPA claims are
barred by the statute of limitations, the declaratory relief claim
in Count III is dismissed without prejudice.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Moreno granted in part and denied
in part Porsche's Motion to Dismiss.  He dismissed without
prejudice Counts I and III, and granted the Plaintiffs' request for
leave to amend the Class Action Complaint such that the Plaintiffs
may allege additional facts regarding fraudulent concealment in
support of tolling the statute of limitations on the FDUTPA claim
in Count I.  The Judge dismissed Count II with prejudice.

The Plaintiffs must file an amended complaint no later than June
12, 2019.  Failure to do so will result in a final order of
dismissal.  Should the Plaintiffs file an amended complaint,
Porsche must answer or respond to the amended complaint no later
than Wednesday, June 26, 2019.  The Judge granted in part Porsche's
Motion for Judicial Notice, such that the Court takes judicial
notice only of Exhibits A and B.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/9uLZwA from Leagle.com.

SANTIAGO PADILLA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated & MURRAY L. SHAMES, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew
Parker Felix, Morgan, Morgan, P.A., Paula R. Brown --
pbrown@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & OReardon, LLP, pro hac vice,
Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon,
LLP, pro hac vice & T. Michael Morgan -- mmorgan@forthepeople.com
-- Morgan and Morgan.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Fredrick Howard Lebron McClure --
fredrick.mcclure@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, J. Trumon Phillips
-- trumon.phillips@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, Matthew A.
Goldberg -- matthew.goldberg@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP, pro hac
vice & William F. Kiniry, Jr. -- william.kiniry@dlapiper.com -- DLA
Piper LLP, pro hac vice.


PRECISION CASTPARTS: Homeowners File Pollution Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Koberstein, writing for Portland Tribune, reports that five
residents of Portland and Milwaukie have asked Multnomah County
Circuit Court to certify their ongoing litigation against Precision
Castparts as a class-action lawsuit.

In recent court filings, the plaintiffs accused the company of
polluting their homes along with thousands of other residential
properties in their community with "significant" amounts of
potentially dangerous airborne particulates.

They all live in the so-called "Precision Plume," which the lawsuit
defines as an area straddling the Multnomah-Clackamas County line
in the Brentwood-Darlington and Ardenwald neighborhoods of Portland
and Milwaukie. If granted, the class-action motion would add the
occupants of about 5,000 residential properties to the litigation,
so long as they lived there on Feb. 17, 2016. Renters and
homeowners qualify. The plaintiffs are seeking court-ordered relief
and damages on behalf of everyone who lived in the "Precision
Plume" on that date.

The company, however, disagrees.

"We strenuously dispute the claims made by the plaintiffs, and we
will be filing our response with the court in the coming weeks,"
said company spokesman David Dugan. "Due to the pending litigation,
we will not provide further comment at this time."

Pollution in tree moss

Founded in 1956, Precision Castparts manufactures metal castings at
its "Large Parts Campus" at 4600 S.E. Harney St., for aerospace,
medical and military uses, including parts for jet engines. The
plant makes parts out of steel and titanium.

Southeast Portland residents Kelley Foster, Juan Pratsanchez, Kirk
Gayton and Debra Taevs sued the company in July 2016, seeking an
unspecified amount of damages. Their lawsuit wanted Precision
Castparts to pay each area resident a specific amount based on how
much pollution "trespassed" on their property.

In October 2016, the court consolidated that case with another
filed by Southeast Portland residents Brian Resendez, Rodica Alina
Resendez, Michelle Francisco and Matthew Talbot. The Resendez case
sought more than $10 million in damages.

A hearing on further court proceedings is planned in late July. A
jury trial that could take more than a month is tentatively
scheduled for mid-July 2020.

Plaintiffs claim that Precision Castparts "invaded" their
properties by allowing its toxic air pollution to "trespass" for
several decades. They also accuse the company of negligence and
creating a nuisance, which they say interfered with their "use and
enjoyment "of their properties.

"That relief is particularly important here in Oregon, where
'corporate polluters' often 'get their way' by threatening the
budgets of environmental regulatory agencies," plaintiffs said in
their motion to make the lawsuit a class action.

Their lawsuit came soon after U.S. Forest Service researchers
identified Precision Castparts as a possible source of toxic metals
detected in tree moss in their community. This was the same moss
study that linked Bullseye Glass, another Southeast Portland
business, to toxic air pollution in the area. Plaintiffs in both
the Bullseye and Precision Castparts cases are represented by the
same Seattle law firm, Keller Rohrback.

As moss does not have roots, it absorbs nutrients, water and
pollution from the atmosphere. The Forest Service says moss tissue
makes a record of pollution levels in the surrounding environment
and serves as a "bioindicator" of air pollution.

The moss study found the highest concentration of nickel in
Portland near the Precision Castparts site. It detected the
fourth-highest concentration of chromium in the city at the same
location. In the spring of 2016, after the moss study was made
public, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality installed
air monitors near Precision Castparts that showed elevated levels
of nickel, arsenic and hexavalent chromium in the air, according to
expert testimony filed by the plaintiffs.

According to the plaintiffs' motion, the company uses raw materials
containing "substantial" percentages of nickel and chromium. It
said that in 2016, it emitted up to 2.6 tons of nickel and chromium
into the air. DEQ classifies nickel and chromium as hazardous air
pollutants that can cause cancer and other diseases.

Plaintiffs hired experts in the fields of engineering, air modeling
and public health to examine Precision Castparts' emissions, model
the ambient concentrations of toxic metals in the air, and produce
maps that are based upon this information. One of its experts said
the average concentration of the carcinogenic compound hexavalent
chromium was 5.9 times higher than a cancer risk guideline set by
the federal government.

The motion said Precision Castparts' emissions created an
"objectively unreasonable risk" to property owners and residents of
the properties within the Plume, thus substantially and
unreasonably interfering" with their use and enjoyment of their
property.

Improved pollution controls

Precision Castparts says on its website that it has completed, or
is in the process of completing, "multiple upgrades" to its air
pollution control equipment, including new baghouses and air
filtration equipment. While it does not deny that it uses a high
nickel content in its alloys, it said it uses a type of nickel that
has a "very low toxicity" to humans. The website also claims that
scientific studies found that workers exposed to the type of nickel
alloys used by Precision Castparts "have no increased cancer
risk."

"We recently completed installation of improved controls that will
further reduce our chromium emissions," the Precision Castparts
website states.

But the court motion pointed out that the company's emissions were
significant "not only because they are so large, but also because
it appears (the company's) systems to limit those emissions are
ineffective or nonexistent. (The company's) own records and
deposition testimony demonstrate that they have failed to properly
maintain their baghouse system, causing increased emissions."

For example, the baghouses, which function like giant vacuum
cleaners, developed leaks that were "improperly and untimely
repaired," according to depositions taken from company officials.
Because the baghouses were not properly maintained, the motion
said, they were "far less effective at capturing metal-laden
particulate matter pollution. That particulate matter ultimately
escapes -- unfiltered and untreated -- into the outside air."

Moreover, the motion claims that many "significant sources of
particulate pollution at the company's Large Parts Campus have no
emissions controls at all."

Last fall, the Oregon Health Authority released a report that said
toxic metals and other chemicals released over the years by the
company's plants are not likely to have harmed human health. The
public health assessment found that levels of metals -- including
arsenic, cadmium, chromium and nickel -- detected near the Harney
Street plant were below levels that would be expected to harm
public health.

However, the class-action motion casts doubt on the accuracy of the
health assessment, in part because it relied on data the company
self-reported to the state. "(The company's) poor maintenance of
its emissions control equipment means (the company) likely
underestimates their total emissions as reported to regulators," it
said. [GN]


QING JIN RESTAURANT: Lin Seeks to Recoup Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ZENG HAI LIN, on behalf of himself and other similar situated
employers v. QING JIN RESTAURANT, INC. TRADING AS MR. CHAN'S
CHINESE CUISINE, FENG YAN OU AND "A ZHONG" Doe, Case No.
1:19-cv-03271 (E.D.N.Y., May 31, 2019), alleges that pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover
from the Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wages, (2) unpaid overtime
wages, (3) uncompensated tools of trade, (4) liquidated damages,
(5) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or (6) attorneys'
fees and costs.

Qing Jin Restaurant, Inc., is a corporation incorporated under the
laws of New York and has its registered office at 30-21 Stratton
Street, in Flushing, New York.  Feng Yan Ou is one of the owner,
chief executive officer, and/or managing agent of the Defendant
Corporation.  "A Zhong" Doe (Legal Name Unknown) is one of the
owner, chief executive officer, and/or managing agent of the
Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants operate a Chinese restaurant known as Mr. Chan's
Chinese Cuisine located in Flushing, New York.  Mr. Chan's Chinese
Cuisine offers delicious dining, takeout and delivery to
Flushing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jiajing Fan, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 353-8588
          Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
          E-mail: jfan@hanglaw.com


RCI HOSPITALITY: July 22 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. on May 22 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc.
(NASDAQ: RICK) securities between February 14, 2018 and May 10,
2019 (the "Class Period").  Investors have until July 22, 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 materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
the company engaged in numerous transactions with the CEO,
including lending him significant sums of money; (2) these
practices were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny of
the company; (3) as a result of investigations into the company's
governance, the company would be unable to timely file its
financial statements; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about the company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis

If you purchased RCI securities during the Class Period or continue
to hold shares purchased before 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 or Melissa
Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.  There is no
cost or obligation to you.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. -- http://www.bespc.com-- is a New
York-based law firm concentrating in commercial and securities
litigation. [GN]


REWALK ROBOTICS: Shearman & Sterling Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
May 16, 2019, Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed a
putative class action against the medical device company ReWalk
Robotics and certain of its officers and directors under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act").  Yan v. ReWalk
Robotics Ltd., No. 17 Civ. 10169 (D. Mass. May 16, 2019).  As
discussed in our prior post, the Court previously dismissed, with
prejudice, claims under the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities
Act") related to an IPO registration statement for failure to
identify a false or misleading statement in the registration
statement.  The Court also dismissed, for lack of standing,
Exchange Act claims based on alleged post-IPO misstatements,
because the sole lead plaintiff only purchased stock in the IPO.
The prior dismissal of the Exchange Act claims, however, was
without prejudice.  The lead plaintiff then moved for leave to
amend the complaint to add a plaintiff who purportedly had standing
to bring the Exchange Act claims.  The Court again held that
plaintiff lacked standing, and further held that the lack of
standing was fatal to the putative class action and could not be
cured by amendment.

Plaintiff argued that, even though he purchased his shares before
the alleged post-IPO misstatements and therefore could not have
relied on them, he nevertheless should remain the lead plaintiff
because his Securities Act claims and the Exchange Act claims were
based on a "common scheme" to defraud.  The Court held, however,
that the "common scheme" contention was undercut by the structure
of plaintiff's complaint, which clearly alleged that the Securities
Act and Exchange Act claims were based on different theories --
namely, the Securities Act claims were based on an alleged failure
to disclose the reason the FDA required a post-market surveillance
study, and the Exchange Act claims were based on the alleged
failure to disclose the company's difficulties in meeting that
requirement.  See slip op. at 9.  Moreover, the complaint
disclaimed reliance on the Exchange Act allegations for the
Securities Act claims, and counsel for plaintiff had argued that
the two classes were separate.  Id.  Thus, the Court held that the
misstatements alleged by the two classes were not "sufficiently
similar" to constitute a "common scheme."

Plaintiff also argued in the alternative that, even if a "common
scheme" were not present, the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act ("PSLRA") permitted him to assert claims as to which he did not
personally have standing.  While the Court noted Second Circuit
authority supporting the principle that a lead plaintiff does not
have to have standing to bring every claim asserted, id. at 9-10
(citing Hevesi v. Citigroup Inc., 366 F.3d 70, 82 (2d Cir. 2004)),
the Court held such authority inapposite because plaintiff here
"lack[ed] standing to sue on any remaining claim" and there was no
support in either the PSLRA or under constitutional standing
principles for such a plaintiff to be able to maintain an action.
Id. at 10-11.

Plaintiff sought to cure the standing defect by adding a new
plaintiff who purportedly had standing to assert the Exchange Act
claims.  The Court held, however, that "black-letter" law required
that substitution of a lead plaintiff can occur only if there
initially were multiple lead plaintiffs, because if the sole class
representative lacks standing, "this means that the court never had
jurisdiction over the matter."   Id. at 11.  Although one Southern
District of New York case suggested that substitution of a lead
plaintiff might be permissible if class counsel's inadequate
investigation caused a mistaken belief as to the lead plaintiff's
standing, id. at 14 (citing In re Initial Public Offering Sec.
Litig., 2004 WL 3015304, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2004)), the Court
noted that there was no such mistake here.  Moreover, "no court
appears to have held that a plaintiff in a class action who does
not have standing can simply move to amend the complaint to add
someone who does."  Id. at 16.  The Court thus dismissed the
Exchange Act claims and denied plaintiff's motion to amend the
complaint, "without prejudice to the filing of a proper complaint
by a proper plaintiff."  Id. [GN]


RUSSELL CELLULAR: Bid to Certify Store Managers Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JENNY POBLANO and NATHAN BARTLETT,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. RUSSELL CELLULAR, INC., a foreign Corporation
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00265-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court enter an Order:

   a. conditionally certifying the nationwide Fair Labor Standards
      Act Collective of salaried Store Managers (SMs);

   b. requiring Defendant to produce in an electronic or computer-
      readable format the full name, address(es), work and personal

      telephone number(s), and email address(es) (including
      personal email addresses to the extent they are available)
      for each member of the FLSA Collective;

   c. authorizing notice with a form of Consent to Join to the
      members of the FLSA Collective, disseminated by U.S. Mail,
      email and via website (returnable via mail, email, fax, or
      via website);

   d. authorizing reminder notices halfway through the 60-day
      notice period; and

   e. granting any further relief that this Court deems just
      and proper.

Russell Cellular, Inc. is an exclusive Verizon Authorized Retailer
specializing in wireless communication services and is one of the
nation's largest Verizon Wireless Retailers. The Plaintiffs and the
supporting Opt In Declarants worked for Defendant as salaried SMs
at a combined total of over 50 locations in 10 different states
throughout the United States. The Fair Labor Standards Act's
overtime requirements. Notwithstanding the fact that salaried SMs
primarily performed non-exempt tasks including: selling phones,
stocking, helping customers, troubleshooting phones, answering
calls, cleaning, and cold calling customers, Defendant classified
them as exempt and did not pay overtime wages for their overtime
hours worked.

The Defendant had a common corporate policy not to pay salaried SMs
any wages for overtime hours worked. 6 In addition to their own
experiences, the salaried SMs identified over 45 other SMs who also
performed similar job duties, worked unpaid overtime hours, and
were subjected to Russell Cellular's common policies and
procedures, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Putative SM Collective:

          Camar Jones, Esq.
          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  cjones@shavitzlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Eric B. Moody, Esq.
          Brian Rubenstein, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          4301 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 400
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 864-9324
          Facsimile: (813) 286-2900
          E-mail: Brian.Rubenstein@csklegal.com
                  Eric.Moody@csklegal.com

SAFEWAY INC: Violates FACTA, Martin Suit Asserts
------------------------------------------------
FRED MARTIN, individually and on behalf of a class of other
similarly situated individuals v. SAFEWAY, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. RG19021180 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., May
31, 2019), arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Despite the clear language of the statute, the Defendant knowingly
or recklessly failed to comply with FACTA by printing the first six
and the last four of credit or debit card numbers on receipts
provided to consumers, the Plaintiff alleges.

Safeway, Inc., is a Delaware corporation whose principal executive
office is located in Pleasanton, California.  Safeway is one of the
largest food and drug retailers in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          LEGG LAW FIRM, LLP
          1900 S. Norfolk St., Suite 350
          San Mateo, CA 94403
          Telephone: (301) 620-1016
          E-mail: borison@legglaw.com

               - and -

          Bret L. Lusskin, Jr., Esq.
          BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Suite # 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454-5841
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603-5024
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com


SANDALS RESORTS: Sued Over Deceptive Tax Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Jelski, writing for Travel Weekly, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Sandals Resorts
International, claiming that the company has engaged in deceptive
tax collection practices for decades.

The suit alleges that all-inclusive Sandals properties throughout
the Caribbean have charged guests fees that claim to be local
government taxes but are instead retained by Sandals in part or in
full "for their own use, benefit and profit."

Sandals said it "intends to vigorously defend these claims and
trusts the judicial process. . . . Our customers are our top
priority, and under no circumstances would we exploit their faith
in us. Our valued guests have never -- and will never -- be
unlawfully charged for taxes, and allegations to the contrary are
simply false. Not only do we conduct our business with
transparency, we meet all our tax obligations in each of the
islands where we call home. We take great pride in being the gold
standard in the islands where we operate and have spent close to
four decades providing guests with the most comprehensive vacation
experience bar none. This is an attempt by a law firm to use the
media to generate publicity based on an erroneous claim."

Miami law firm Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, which filed
the suit in the Southern District of Florida, said in the filing
that "deceptive charges are used to generate extra profit at the
expense of [guests], who are deceived into believing the fees are
legitimate charges directly related to Sandals' taxes to the
government."

The lawsuit highlights, in particular, a 12% accommodation tax that
is currently collected at Sandals' Beaches Turks & Caicos resort,
with the majority of that fee allegedly being retained by Sandals
as part of an agreement with the Turks & Caicos government.

Additionally, the filing accuses Beaches Turks & Caicos of
collecting the accommodation tax on guests under 12 years of age,
which is said to be illegal under Turks & Caicos law.

Also cited in the filing is a 12.5% sales tax that was collected by
the Sandals Grande Antigua, Sandals Barbados and Sandals Royal
Barbados resorts prior to 2017 and allegedly retained in part by
Sandals. [GN]


SANDERSON FARMS: Class Suit in North Carolina Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, 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 class action suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina remains stayed pending resolution of the action in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.   

On January 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries
were named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers
and certain of their affiliated companies, in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its subsidiaries were
named as defendants, along with four other poultry producers and
certain of their affiliated companies, in a second putative class
action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The Court ordered the suits consolidated into one proceeding, and
on July 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants
unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation paid to
broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of suppressing the
farmers' compensation below competitive levels.

The consolidated amended complaint also alleges that the defendants
unlawfully conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who
were providing services to other defendants.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks treble damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On September 8, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, on October 23, 2017, the plaintiffs filed their
response, and on November 22, 2017, the defendants filed a reply.

On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the Sanderson Farms
defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The motion to dismiss the complaint filed in the Eastern District
of Oklahoma on its merits is pending as to the remaining
defendants.

On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a substantially similar
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina against Sanderson Farms and its
subsidiaries and another poultry producer.

The plaintiffs subsequently moved to consolidate this action with
the Eastern District of Oklahoma action in the Eastern District of
Oklahoma for pre-trial proceedings, with the defendants in support
thereof. That motion was denied.

On July 13, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit in
the Eastern District of North Carolina.

On January 15, 2019, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss and stayed the action in the Eastern District of
North Carolina pending resolution of the action in the Eastern
District of Oklahoma.

Sanderson Farms said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously;
however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this action. If
the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."

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

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Discovery Ongoing in Broiler Chicken Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, 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 discovery is still
ongoing in the Broiler Chicken-related suits.

Between September 2, 2016 and October 13, 2016, Sanderson Farms,
Inc. and its subsidiaries were named as defendants, along with 13
other poultry producers and certain of their affiliated companies,
in multiple putative class action lawsuits filed by direct and
indirect purchasers of broiler chickens in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of broiler chickens,
thereby violating federal and certain states' antitrust laws, and
also allege certain related state-law claims.

The complaints also allege that the defendants fraudulently
concealed the alleged anticompetitive conduct in furtherance of the
conspiracy. The complaints seek damages, including treble damages
for the antitrust claims, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys'
fees.

The Court has consolidated all of the direct purchaser complaints
into one case, and the indirect purchaser complaints into two
cases, one on behalf of commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs and one on behalf of end-user consumer
plaintiffs.

On October 28, 2016, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated, amended complaints, and on November 23, 2016,
the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed second amended
complaints.

On December 16, 2016, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs separated
into two cases. On that date, the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, and
the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On January 27, 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints in all of the cases, and on November 20, 2017,
the motions to dismiss were denied. On February 7, 2018, the direct
purchaser plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint, adding
three additional poultry producers as defendants.

On February 12, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their
second amended complaint, in which they also added three additional
poultry producers as defendants, along with Agri Stats.

On February 20, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint, adding
three additional poultry producers as defendants.

On November 13, 2018, the commercial and institutional indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed their fifth amended complaint. On
November 28, 2018, the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their
third amended complaint.

On January 15, 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their
fourth amended complaint, and the commercial and institutional
indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their sixth amended complaint.


Both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the commercial and
institutional indirect purchaser plaintiffs added two new poultry
producers as defendants, as well as Agri Stats. On April 29, 2019,
the end-user consumer plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
complaint. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

Between December 8, 2017 and April 25, 2019, additional purported
direct-purchaser entities individually brought twenty-five separate
suits against nineteen poultry producers, including Sanderson
Farms, and Agri Stats in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois and the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas.

These suits allege substantially similar claims to the direct
purchaser class complaint described above. Those filed in the
Northern District of Illinois are now pending in front of the same
judge as the putative class action lawsuits.

On June 26, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the
case filed in the District of Kansas to the Northern District of
Illinois, and that motion was granted on September 13, 2018. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery. It is possible
additional individual actions may be filed.

Separately, the Company has become aware that certain plaintiffs'
counsel in In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation received from
the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, a
subpoena that includes a request to produce all discovery in the
case to a grand jury.

Sanderson Farms said, "We intend to continue to defend the lawsuits
vigorously; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of
these actions. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could
be liable for damages, which could have a material, adverse effect
on our financial position and results of operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SANDERSON FARMS: Plaintiffs' Appeal in NY Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, 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 company still
awaits a ruling on the appeal made by the plaintiff in the putative
class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Joe F. Sanderson, Jr., the Chairman of the
Registrant's Board of Directors and its Chief Executive Officer;
and D. Michael Cockrell, director and Chief Financial Officer, were
named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed on
October 28, 2016, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On March 30, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding Lampkin Butts, director, Chief Operating Officer, and
President, as a defendant, and on June 15, 2017, the lead plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made statements in the
Company's SEC filings and press releases, and other public
statements, that were materially false and misleading in light of
the Company's alleged, undisclosed violation of the federal
antitrust laws.

The complaint also alleges that the material misstatements were
made in order to, among other things, "artificially inflate and
maintain the market price of Sanderson Farms securities. The
complaint alleges the defendants thereby violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), including
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and, for the individual defendants, Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and seeks damages, interest, costs and attorneys'
fees.

On January 19, 2018, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss and entered judgment for the defendants. On January 31,
2018, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That appeal is now fully
briefed, and the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on August 31,
2018.

The Company is awaiting a ruling on the appeal.

Sanderson Farms said, "If the plaintiffs were to prevail in the
action, the Company could be liable for damages, which could have a
material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of
operations."

Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.


SANTANA CONTRACTING: Faces Saguaray Suit over Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Santana Contracting
Corp., Santana Contracting I LLC, and Lemuel Santana for violations
of the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the wage and overtime
provisions of the of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).
The case is captioned SEGUNDO JESUS SANAGUARAY and MANUEL
SANAGUARAY, Plaintiffs, v. SANTANA CONTRACTING CORP., SANTANA
CONTRACTING I LLC, and LEMUEL SANTANA, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03486 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2019).

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to pay them overtime
premiums -- at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
hourly rate of pay -- for the hours they worked in excess of 40
hours per week. Defendants also failed to keep accurate and
sufficient time records as required by Federal and New York State
laws. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages and unpaid
overtime wages based upon Defendants' violations of the FLSA, the
NYLL, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
regulations, as well as statutory penalties for violations of NYLL
195(1) and (3).

Santana Contracting Corp. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business located at 534 Merrick Road, Suite 1,
Lynbrook, NY 11563. Santana Contracting I LLC is a New York
corporation with its principal place of business located at 277
Denton Avenue Lynbrook, NY 11563. Lemanuel Santana is the owner,
chairman, chief executive officer, manager, and/or operator of
Santana Contracting Corp. and Santana Contracting I LLC. Defendants
own, operate and manage a construction company that renovates
apartments in New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Harrison, Esq.
     HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
     110 State Highway 35, Suite #10
     Red Bank, NJ 07701
     Telephone: (718) 799-9111
     Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
     E-mail: dharrison@nynjemploymentlaw.com


SCOTTS CO: Court Removes Depalma & Leszczynski from FLSA Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOMINICK DEPALMA and JOSEPH LESZCZYNSKI, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former
employees, Plaintiffs, v. THE SCOTTS COMPLANY, LLC, Defendant, Civ.
No. 13-7740 (KM) (JAD) (D. N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and
denied in part Scotts' motion for partial summary judgment as to
named Plaintiffs Depalma and Leszczynski.

On Dec. 20, 2013, the named Plaintiffs, through their counsel,
filed a "Class Action Complaint and Demand for a Jury Trial."  On
Feb. 4, 2014, they filed their "First Amended Collective Action
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial."  In both the original and
amended complaint, the named Plaintiffs alleged a single claim for
violation of the FLSA's overtime requirement.  A little more than a
month after the named Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint, on
Jan. 27, 2017, the first opt-in filed a notice of consent to become
a party-Plaintiff.  Others followed.

On Feb. 26, 2014, Scotts filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint.
Among its defenses, Scotts asserted that certain putative
plaintiffs had not filed written consents.  Between March 13, 2014
and Jan. 12, 2015, four additional opt-ins filed notices of consent
to become a party Plaintiff.

After a period of limited discovery, on March 20, 2015, the named
Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a collective
action.  On March 31, 2016, the Court granted the Plaintiff's
motion and conditionally certified the class.  On April 15, 2016,
the Court approved the Plaintiffs' submitted FLSA Notice.  By July
22, 2016, approximately 100 opt-ins had filed their consent forms.


On Aug. 4, 2016, Magistrate Judge Dickson granted the named
Plaintiffs' motion to equitably toll the statute of limitations for
the putative collective action members from March 20, 2015 until 10
days after the Court decided their motion for certification.
Scotts appealed to the district court.

On Sept. 19, 2016, Magistrate Judge Dickson's Joint Case Management
Order permitted the parties to obtain written and deposition
discovery from 20 opt-ins.  On Jan. 20, 2017, the Court filed an
opinion and order denying Scotts' appeal of Magistrate Judge
Dickson's opinion granting equitable tolling.

On Nov. 12, 2018, both parties made several filings.  Among them
was Scotts' motion for summary judgment as to all the Plaintiffs.
The named Plaintiffs filed their own motion for summary judgment.
Scotts also filed the motion now before the Court, the motion for
partial summary judgment as to the named Plaintiffs.  Scotts argues
that named Plaintiffs Depalma and Leszczynski should be dismissed
from the case for failure to file consents to join the collective
action.  The named Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to
the motion, and Scotts filed a reply.

Plaintiff Depalma's employment with Scotts ended on or about Oct.
20, 2013.  Plaintiff Leszczynski's employment with Scotts ended on
June 21, 2013.

The named Plaintiffs assert that, because the Amended Complaint
contains statements that they consented to the action under Section
216(b), they have properly filed their consent.  Judge McNulty
holds that had the named Plaintiffs actually signed the Amended
Complaint, he would be more inclined to agree.  But it is an
accepted principle of collective action litigation that the named
plaintiffs must manifest their written consent to be a party to the
collective action.  These Plaintiffs did not.  Moreover, the
collective action complaint was filed over five years ago, so any
such consent, if filed now, would be well outside the statute of
limitations.

In the action, on the first page of the Amended Complaint,
Plaintiffs Depalma and Leszczynski represent themselves as bringing
suit "individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
employees."   The Judge follows Jun Yin and Smith in finding that
these Plaintiffs manifested a clear intent to bring their claims in
a dual capacity.  In their non-representative capacity as
individuals (which did not require the filing of a consent form),
they filed their individual claims timely.

Scotts counters that it would not be fair to allow named Plaintiffs
to proceed on an individual basis when they had made the "strategic
choice" to pursue the case as a collective action for four years.
However, Scotts was put on notice that the named Plaintiffs had
brought an individual claim by the plain text of the Amended
Complaint.  Further, Scotts' fairness argument is not very
persuasive -- Scotts itself made the strategic choice not to raise
this issue until four years into the litigation.

For the reasons set forth above, Judge McNulty granted in part and
denied in part Scotts' motion for partial summary judgment.  Named
Plaintiffs Depalma and Leszczynski are removed as members of the
collective action but may proceed in the litigation with their
individual FLSA claims.  An appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/TeGF6v from Leagle.com.

DOMINICK DEPALMA, Plaintiff, represented by ALEXIS HELENE CASTILLO,
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, DEREK T. BRASLOW, THE BRASLOW LAW FIRM,
LLC, HARRIS L. POGUST, POGUST, BRASLOW & MILLROOD, LLC, MICHAEL
HAYDEN REED, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, SARAH OLIVIA SCHINDLER,
POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD & SETH RICHARD LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN &
LESSER, LLP.

JOSEPH LESZCZYNSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All other
Similarly Situated Current and Former Employees, Plaintiff,
represented by ALEXIS HELENE CASTILLO, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP,
DEREK T. BRASLO, THE BRASLOW LAW FIRM, LLC, HARRIS L. POGUST,
POGUST, BRASLOW & MILLROOD, LLC, MICHAEL HAYDEN REED, KLAFTER OLSEN
& LESSER LLP & SARAH OLIVIA SCHINDLER, POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD.

THE SCOTTS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, represented by JUSTIN TAYLOR
QUINN -- jquinn@rwmlegal.com -- ROBINSON MILLER LLC & KEITH J.
MILLER -- kmiller@rwmlegal.com -- ROBINSON MILLER LLC.


SECOND ROUND: Illegally Collects Time-Barred Debt, Gileno Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
STELLA GILENO, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. SECOND ROUND SUB, LLC, Case No. 0:19-cv-61376-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., June 2, 2019), is brought for alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act relating to the Defendant's attempt to
collect a time-barred debt.

Second Round is a Texas corporation, with its principal place of
business located in Austin, Texas.  The Defendant engages in
interstate commerce by regularly using telephone and mail in a
business whose principal purpose is the collection of debts.[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


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Fails to Provide Seats for Sales Associates
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTOR POLINA, individually, and as a representative
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SKECHERS
U.S.A., INC., a corporation; SKECHERS U.S.A., INC. II, a
corporation; SKECHERS USA RETAIL, LLC, a limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
19STCV20234 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 10, 2019), the Plaintiff, who
has been employed by Defendants as a sales associate and doing
checker and/or cashier duties in the County of Los Angeles, alleges
that Skechers failed to provide him and other sales associates with
seats as required by section 14. By failing to provide seats,
Skechers violated Labor Code section 1198.

Skechers sales associate, checker and/or cashier duties include
several duties where the sales associate, checker and/or cashier
work in place for an entire work shift. During these time periods,
a seat is required by law, the lawsuit contends.

Skechers owns and operates a network of retail chain that sells
athletic shoes and related apparel and accessories nationwide. It
is believed there are 100 Skechers stores throughout
California.[BN]

Attorneys for Victor Polina, individually, and as a representative
of all others similarly situated are:

          Andre E. Jardini, Esq.
          K.L. Myles, Esq.
          KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 547-5000
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5329
          E-mail: aej@kpclegal.com
                  klm@kpclegal.com

               - and -

          Michael V. Jehdian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL V. JEHDIAN, APC
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 2150
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 247-9111
          Facsimile: (818) 247-9222
          E-mail: jehdian@lawyer.com

TESLA INC: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid in Vaughn
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARCUS VAUGHN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TESLA,
INC., Defendant and Appellant, Case No. A154753 (Cal. App.), Judge
Barbara J.R. Jones of the Court of Appeals of California for the
First District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court order
denying Tesla's motion to compel arbitration.

Vaughn filed a putative class action complaint against Tesla,
alleging race discrimination and harassment claims pursuant to
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA").  Vaughn --
an African American -- began working at Tesla's Fremont factory in
April 2017.  Tesla employees regularly called Vaughn and other
African American employees "nigger" and "nigga."

Vaughn reported the conduct to Tesla, but it continued.  At some
point, Vaughn applied for a permanent position as a production
associate.  On Oct. 18, 2017, Tesla sent Vaughn an offer letter for
the position.  The letter contained an arbitration agreement and a
Nov. 22, 2017 effective date.

Vaughn did not sign or return the offer letter.  Oct. 31, 2017 was
Vaughn's last day of work.  On Nov. 3, 2017 Tesla informed him it
would not proceed with his application for production associate.
Shortly thereafter, Vaughn filed a putative class action complaint
against Tesla on behalf of similarly situated African American
employees, alleging FEHA claims for discrimination, harassment, and
failure to prevent discrimination and harassment.

After answering the complaint, Tesla moved to compel arbitration
pursuant to the offer letter.  It acknowledged the letter was
unsigned, but argued Vaughn could be compelled to arbitrate based
on the equitable estoppel doctrine, which provides a nonsignatory
plaintiff may be compelled to arbitrate when his claims rely on,
and presume the existence of, a contract containing an arbitration
agreement.

In opposition, Vaughn argued he did not consent to arbitration, and
that the equitable estoppel doctrine did not apply.  The trial
court agreed.  It denied the motion to compel arbitration.

Judge Jones opines that to accept the offer letter, Vaughn was
required to sign and return it before Nov. 6, 2017 after which date
the offer will expire.   Vaughn did not sign or return the offer
letter, and Tesla later withdrew the offer.  Thus, the offer letter
did not create a mutual agreement to arbitrate.  Numerous cases
support this  conclusion.

The Judge concludes that Vaughn is not relying on the offer letter
to hold Tesla liable, and the offer letter does not control the
terms of his employment.  As a result, the basis for equitable
estoppel -- relying on an agreement for one purpose while
disavowing the arbitration clause of the agreement -- is completely
absent" and the court properly declined to apply the equitable
estoppel doctrine.

Accordingly, Judge Jones affirmed the order denying Tesla's motion
to compel arbitration.  Vaughn is entitled to costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/Iwl1yD from Leagle.com.


THOMAS DART: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Michael Hayes, et al., the Plaintiff,
v. Thomas Dart, et al., the Defendants, Case No.: 1:18−cv−04657
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman entered an order
denying Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary and permanent injunction
and motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on June 13, 2019, a
motion and status hearing was held June 3, 2019. For the reasons
stated on the record, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary and
permanent injunction and motion for class certification were
denied. Another status hearing is set for June 27, 2019 at 11:30
a.m.[CC]

TRACTOR SUPPLY: Hornbeck, et al. Seek to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit SHAWN HORNBECK, et al. , each on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, and SMITTY'S SUPPLY, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 4:18-CV-00523 (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs move the Court
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons and other entities who purchased Super S Super
      Trac 303 Tractor Hydraulic Fluid in Missouri, at any point in

      time from May 25, 2013 to present, excluding any persons
      and/or entities who purchased for resale. Also excluded from

      the Class are Defendants, including any parent, subsidiary,
      affiliate or controlled person of Defendants; Defendants'
      officers, directors, agents, employees and their immediate
      family members, as well as the judicial officers assigned to

      this litigation and members of their staffs and immediate
      families";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs' first amended class action complaint asserts eight
counts: violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act;
breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty of
merchantability; fraudulent misrepresentation; negligent
misrepresentation; unjust enrichment; negligence; and breach of
implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Class Members are:

          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          Dirk Hubbard, Esq.
          HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
          2600 Grand, Ste. 1100
          Kansas City MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 421-0700
          Facsimile: (816) 421-0899
          E-mail: tbender@hab-law.com
                  dhubbard@hab-law.com

               - and -

          Gene P. Graham, Jr., Esq.
          William Carr, Esq.
          Bryan T. White, Esq.
          WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY, & CARR, L.L.C
          19049 East Valley View Parkway
          Independence, MO 64055
          E-mail: ggraham@wagblaw.com
                  bcarr@wagblaw.com
                  bwhite@wagblaw.com

               - and -

          Clayton A. Jones, Esq.
          CLAYTON JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          P.O. Box 257
          405 W. 58 Hwy.
          Raymore, MO 64083
          Telephone: (816) 318-4266
          Facsimile: (816) 318-4267
          E-mail: clayton@claytonjoneslaw.com

TTEC HEALTHCARE: Can Compel Beattie, Houston to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SONDRA BEATTIE, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, and FRANCIS HOUSTON, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. TTEC HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., and
TTEC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No.
1:18-cv-01574-RM-SKC (D. Colo.), Judge Raymond P. Moore of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado granted the Defendants'
Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration.

Plaintiffs Beattie and Houston worked at one of the Defendants'
call centers.  They have filed a collective and class action
complaint, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and state law claims.  Numerous other Plaintiffs have
opted in to the case by filing consents to join.

The Defendants have moved to compel individual arbitration, arguing
that Plaintiffs Beattie and Houston assented to arbitration as part
of their online job training.  Although they did not sign a paper
version of the arbitration agreement, the Defendants argue that
Plaintiffs Beattie and Houston assented to it online by clicking
the "Accept" button after having an opportunity to read it.
Plaintiffs Beattie and Houston argue that they are not bound by the
arbitration agreement because do not recall agreeing to it.

The matter is before the Court on the April 15, 2019, Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter to deny the
Defendants' Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration.  The
Defendants objected to the recommendation, and the Plaintiffs
responded to the objections.

Judge Moore finds that Plaintiffs Beattie and Houston do not
actually deny that they executed the arbitration agreement.  But
even if their strong belief that they did not assent to arbitration
is "equivalent to a denial," as they contend in their response to
the Defendants' objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation,
it is insufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial.  The Judge
holds that general denials and statements that a user does not
recall visiting a website or agreeing to arbitrate are insufficient
to defeat arbitration."

In addition, he finds that the Plaintiffs have cited no authority
for the proposition that parties to an agreement may be excused
from performing under it simply because they do not recall agreeing
to it.  If one chooses to 'sign' a contract and to accept its
benefits without reading and understanding its terms, he generally
must accept the consequences of his decision.  In the face of the
Defendants' records indicating that Plaintiffs Beattie and Houston
assented to the arbitration agreement, the Plaintiffs offer only
speculative arguments and their lack of recall.  This is not enough
to raise a genuine dispute about the existence of the arbitration
agreement.  The Plaintiffs cite no authority that is binding on the
Court where a motion to compel arbitration was denied under
comparable circumstances.

Accordingly, Judge Moore granted the Defendants' Motion to Compel
Individual Arbitration.  He rejected the recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge and sustained the Defendants' objections to the
recommendation.  The case is stayed with respect to Plaintiffs
Beattie and Houston.  However, the case can proceed with respect to
the other Plaintiffs who have opted in to the case.  The
Defendants' response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Collective Certification and Court-Authorized Notice to Potential
Opt-In Plaintiffs is due in 14 days.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/tGyw3o from Leagle.com.

Sondra Beattie, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals & Francis Houston, Jr., individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
represented by Matthew L. Turner -- mturner@sommerspc.com --
Sommers Schwartz, PC, Rod M. Johnston -- rjohnston@sommerspc.com --
Sommers Schwartz, PC & Kevin Jay Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com --
Sommers Schwartz, PC.

TTEC Healthcare Solutions, Inc. & TTEC Holdings, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Arthur James Rooney, III --
Arthur.Rooney@bakermckenzie.com -- Baker McKenzie LLP.


US BANK: Court Denies Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Snyder TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KEITH SNYDER, SUSAN MANSANAREZ, and TRACEE A.
BEECROFT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. BANK N.A., WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A.,
and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, individually and in their
capacities as trustees, Defendants, Case No. 16 C 11675 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Matthew F.Kennelly of the District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied the
Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The Plaintiffs in the case filed suit against the Defendants on
behalf of a putative class, alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  Specifically, they allege that
the Defendant banks owned certain mortgage loans upon which a
third-party servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, attempted to
collect.  In the course of those collection efforts, the Plaintiffs
say, Ocwen and the Defendants violated the TCPA by using automatic
dialing technology to contact the named Plaintiffs and the other
members of the putative class.

In 2014 and 2016, the Plaintiffs in the case filed two suits
against Ocwen, which the Court consolidated into a single
proceeding.  They challenged Ocwen's alleged practice of making
debt-collection calls using an automated telephone dialing system
without the call recipients' prior consent.  

In late December 2016, after the Court denied their motion to add
the banks as defendants in the Ocwen case, the Plaintiffs filed the
instant suit against U.S. Bank, Deutsche Bank, and Wilmington
Trust.  They allege that the illegal debt-collection calls were
made on the banks' behalf, making them liable for the resulting
violations.  In early 2017, the Court found the cases related under
Local Rule 40.4, resulting in the transfer of the case to Judge
Kennelly's docket.

The Plaintiffs negotiated a settlement with Ocwen and sought the
Court's approval.  The Court recently approved the Plaintiffs'
revised settlement with Ocwen.

The Plaintiffs' allegations against the bank Defendants are based
on the same calls at the center of their suit against Ocwen.  They
each received a home mortgage loan from one of the Defendants or
its predecessor in interest.  The Plaintiffs allege that Ocwen
subsequently sought to collect on the loans on behalf of the
Defendant banks.  In the course of those efforts, Ocwen allegedly
made numerous calls that violated the TCPA.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the bank Defendants exercise significant oversight and control
over Ocwen's collection practices.

The Defendants have moved for partial judgment on the pleadings
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).  First, the Defendants
contend that the Plaintiffs have made insufficient allegations to
support their claims against the banks in their individual
capacities.  Second, they contend that the Plaintiffs cannot allege
injuries traceable to the banks in their capacities as trustees of
trusts other than the three trusts in which the named Plaintiffs'
loans were held.

As to the Defendants' first argument, Judge Kennelly holds that a
Rule 12(c) motion may be granted only if the complaint fails to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.  This
standard is not satisfied in the case, so the Judge will deny the
motion.  Of course, this does not mean that the Plaintiffs will
ultimately be able to marshal evidence sufficient to support their
allegations.  It simply means that they will have a chance to try.

As to the Defendants' second argument, the Judge concludes that
Payton v. County of Kane's rule applies to the instant putative
class action.  It is true that some courts have held that Payton's
requirement that class certification be assessed before standing
only applies in cases where there is already a motion for class
certification pending.  But even if the Court adopted the reasoning
from Caitlin and similar non-binding precedents, the Payton rule
clearly has purchase.

Although there is no motion for class certification currently
pending on the docket, the Court notes that in Snyder's earlier
lawsuit against the banks' loan servicer, Ocwen, the Court
conditionally certified a class with the same named Plaintiffs as
representatives for nearly identical claims based on the same
allegedly illegal calls.  It would be incongruous to, as the
Defendants request, short circuit this related case on what amounts
to a technicality.

Instead, the Judge opts to heed Payton's admonition and defer
consideration of the Defendant's standing argument until the Court
has occasion to consider class certification.  The parties should
be prepared to argue this issue in tandem with class certification
at an appropriate point in the litigation.

In light of this, Judge Kennelly denied the Defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings.  Prior to the June 5, 2019 status
hearing, the parties should discuss and attempt to agree upon a
revised discovery and pretrial schedule to propose to the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/wsUx8f from Leagle.com.

Keith Snyder, Susan Mansanarez & Tracee A. Beecroft, Individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Alexander Holmes Burke -- aburke@burkelawllc.com --
Burke Law Offices, LLC, Mark Luther Heaney -- mark@ankcorn.com --
Heaney Law Firm, Llc, Adrienne D. McEntee --
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC,
Beth Ellen Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel J. Marovitch --
dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com -- Burke Law Offices, LLC, Guillermo
Cabrera -- gil@cabrerafirm.com -- The Cabrera Firm, Apc, Jennifer
Rust Murray, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, pro hac vice & Mark
Daniel Ankcorn, Ankcorn Law Firm, PLLC.

U.S. Bank N.A. & Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Individually
and in their capacities as Trustees, Defendants, represented by
Kenneth Michael Kliebard -- kenneth.kliebard@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael S. Kraut --
michael.kraut@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius Llp, pro
hac vice & William James Kraus -- william.kraus@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Wilmington Trust, N.A., Defendant, represented by Frank A. Hirsch,
Jr. , Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Terance A. Gonsalves, Alston
& Bird LLP, Anna-Katrina S. Christakis, Pilgrim Christakis LLP,
David Baird Carpenter, Alston & Bird, pro hac vice, Jennifer Lisa
Majewski, Pilgrim Christakis LLP, Kelsey Louise Kingsbery, Alston &
Bird LLP & Sarah R. Cansler, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice.


US HEALTHWORKS: Summary Judgment Bid in Rodriguez FCRA Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CATRINA R. RODRIGUEZ, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF, ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. U.S. HEALTHWORKS, INC., A
DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-06924-KAW
(N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (i) denied
Plaintiff's motion to remand, and (ii) granted the Defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff Rodriguez filed the instant putative class action against
Defendants U.S. Healthworks, Inc. and U.S. Healthworks Medical
Group, asserting violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and similar California laws.  On July 16, 2013, the
Plaintiff applied for employment with Defendants through an online
employment application.  The online application system includes
several stand-alone pages.

First, there is a "Certification" standalone webpage which requires
applicants to certify the truth of their statements, "authorize the
company and/or its agents, including consumer reporting bureaus, to
verify any of the information, and release the Company and all
parties providing information to the Company about the applicant's
background and experience from any liability whatsoever arising
therefrom."  To continue, the applicant must select "I Agree" or "I
Disagree" before clicking "Save and Continue."  Second, there is a
standalone webpage "Notice and Disclosure Statement.  Third, there
is the "Application Statement," the final webpage in the
Defendants' application.

As part of her application, the Plaintiff selected "I Agree" as to
the Certification, the Notice and Disclosure Statement, and the
Application Statement.  On July 17, 2013, she received an offer
letter from the Defendants.  On July 24, 2013, Defendant USH
requested that ADP perform a background check, ordering a social
security number check, a criminal history report from Alameda
County, and a "smart scan."  The background check was completed on
July 25, 2013.

The Plaintiff's first day of employment was July 26, 2013.  That
day, she was required to acknowledge that she had received her
offer letter and the satisfactory completion of pre-employment
screening.  On April 4, 2016, her employment was terminated.
During the Plaintiff's employment, she states that she did not know
that the Defendants had obtained a background check report, nor was
she provided with a report.

On Oct. 24, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant putative class
action in state court.  She brought four causes of action based on
Defendants' alleged failure to: (1) make proper disclosures in
violation of FCRA Section 1681b(b)(2)(A); (2) give a proper summary
of rights in violation of FCRA Sections 1681d(a)(1) and 1681g(c);
(3) make proper disclosures in violation of California's
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRAA"); and (4)
make proper disclosures in violation of California's Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA").  The Plaintiff also brings
a cause of action for violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law ("UCL"), which "incorporates by reference" the Plaintiff's
other four causes of action.

On Dec. 4, 2017, the Defendants removed the case to federal court
based on federal question jurisdiction.  On April 1, 2019, the
Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment.  On April
2, 2019, the parties filed a case management conference statement,
in which the Plaintiff for the first time suggested that the Court
lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case because there was
no Article III standing.  On April 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed her
motion to remand.

The Plaintiff moves to remand the case on the grounds that there is
no subject matter jurisdiction because she has failed to
sufficiently allege Article III standing.  Specifically, she
contends she has not asserted any economic or other concrete injury
as to her FCRA claims, which concern procedural violations only.

Magistrate Judge Westmore concludes that there is Article III
standing for the FCRA claims, and will deny the Plaintiff's motion
to remand.  Although the Plaintiff does not allege any economic
harm in her FCRA causes of action, the Plaintiff has alleged that
she suffered an economic injury as a direct result of her FCRA
claims.

Additionally, even if the Plaintiff lacked Article III standing,
remand would still be inappropriate because the Plaintiff's state
claims are futile because they are time-barred.  And because the
Plaintiff brought the case more than four years after she knew or
should have known a consumer report was procured by the Defendants,
the Plaintiff's claims are time-barred.

For these reasons, she (i) denied the Plaintiff's motion to remand,
and (ii) granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

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

CATRINA R. RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra Rochelle McIntosh,
Setareh Law Group, 315 S Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212,
William Matthew Pao -- william@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group
& Chaim Shaun Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law
Group.

U.S. HEALTHWORKS, INC., a Delaware corporation & U.S. HEALTHWORKS
MEDICAL GROUP, PROF. CORP., A Delaware corporation, Defendants,
represented by Fraser Angus McAlpine --
fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C., Hardev
Singh Chhokar -- Hardev.Chhokar@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C. & Hazel Uy Poei -- poeih@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C.


VERMONT: Sued for Refusing to Treat Inmates with Hepatitis C
------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont Business Magazine reports that after years of advocating
for Vermont prisoners to have access to life-saving medication for
Hepatitis C Virus (HCV), the ACLU of Vermont and the Center for
Health Law and Policy Innovation at Harvard Law School, with
cooperating counsel James Valente, on May 21 filed a class action
lawsuit challenging the state's refusal to treat hundreds of
inmates diagnosed with chronic Hepatitis C. The case was filed in
the federal district court in Burlington on behalf of two Vermont
prisoners, Richard West and Joseph Bruyette, who seek to represent
a class of inmates who have been or will be denied treatment
without medical justification.

The Plaintiffs assert the Agency of Human Services (AHS),
Department of Corrections (DOC), and Centurion of Vermont's
systematic denial of the HCV cure to prisoners diagnosed with
chronic HCV violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel
and unusual punishment as well as the Americans with Disabilities
Act. They are asking the court to end the Defendants' policy of
categorically denying effective, efficient, and medically
appropriate HCV treatment.

ACLU of Vermont Staff Attorney Jay Diaz: "State officials are
purposefully withholding the cure for Hepatitis C from hundreds of
Vermont inmates, many of whom would have received it long ago it if
they were not imprisoned. This is not only inhumane and
short-sighted—it is unconstitutional. Vermont cannot rely on cost
considerations to try to justify unlawful treatment of the people
in its care and custody."

Hepatitis C is a progressive infectious disease—identified by the
CDC as the deadliest infectious disease in America—that if left
untreated is likely to cause a variety of medical symptoms,
including permanent liver damage, and in some cases, cancer and
death. More than five years ago, the FDA approved breakthrough
medication with few side effects that effectively cures the
disease.

After years of advocacy by the Vermont Coalition for Access to HCV
Treatment, of which the ACLU of Vermont is a member, in 2018 DOC
began to provide the cure to some inmates on a more regular basis,
but still denied it to the vast majority because of the associated
expense. Prior to this lawsuit, Coalition members appealed to DOC
to stop denying access to the HCV cure to the hundreds of other
Vermont inmates who were categorically excluded. DOC refused and to
date has only treated about one-fifth of the more than 300 people
with chronic Hepatitis C it has identified.

Kevin Costello is the Director of Litigation for the Center for
Health Law and Policy Innovation of Harvard Law School: "Hepatitis
C is responsible for more deaths in the United States than any
other infectious disease by a mile. There is no medical reason to
actively prevent hundreds of incarcerated people from receiving
curative medications for Hepatitis C. In fact, the refusal to treat
prisoners needlessly prolongs suffering and heightens the risk of
serious health problems for a group of people who are completely at
the mercy of the State of Vermont to provide their health care."

Similar lawsuits challenging denial of Hepatitis C treatment to
individuals in state custody have been won or favorably settled by
ACLU affiliates and other organizations in several states,
including Colorado, Florida, Massachusetts, Missouri and others,
with more cases pending in additional states.

The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU of Vermont, Harvard Law
School's Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, and the law
firm of Costello, Valente & Gentry. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN: Court Certifies "Manlove" as Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JONATHAN MANLOVE, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VOLKSWAGEN
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-00145-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Travis R.
McDonough entered an order:

   1. denying in part Volkswagen's motion for oral argument on
      Manlove's motion for collective-action certification and on
      Volkswagen's motion for judgment on the pleadings, to the
      extent it requests oral argument on Manlove's motion for
      conditional certification;

   2. reserving ruling on Volkswagen's request for oral argument
on
       its motion for judgment on the pleadings;

   3. conditionally certifying a collective action under the Age
      Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 of:

      "all current employees of Volkswagen Chattanooga and
      Volkswagen America who work in Chattanooga and who are 50
      years of age or older;

   4. directing Defendants to disclose the names, last-known
      addresses, and other available contact information for all
      putative collective-action members, within twenty days of the

      date of this order";

   5. directing parties to file an agreed proposed order addressing

      the form, substance, and timing of notice, within 20 days of

      the date of the order; and

   6. denying Manlove's request for equitable tolling.[CC]

WASATCH ADVANTAGE: Goldstein Borgen Named Counsel for Tenant Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. DENIKA TERRY, ROY
HUSKEY III, and TAMERA LIVINGSTON, and each of them for themselves
individually, and for all other persons similarly situated and on
behalf of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiffs/Relators, v.
WASATCH ADVANTAGE GROUP, LLC, WASATCH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.,
WASATCH POOL HOLDINGS, LLC, CHESAPEAKE COMMONS HOLDINGS, LLC, LOGAN
PARK APARTMENTS, LLC, LOGAN PARK APARTMENTS, LP, and DOES 1-30,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-0799 KJM-DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California, Sacramento Division, appointed the law firm
of Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho ("GBDH") as the Class Counsel
for the Classes previously certified by the Court on July 30,
2018.

Plaintiffs Terry, Huskey, and Tamara, and the Defendants

On July 30, 2018, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification as to the Rule 23(b)(3) class and granted their
motion for class certification as to the Rule 23(b)(2) class.  The
Court previously appointed Centro Legal de la Raza and the Law
Offices of Andrew Wolff, PC as the class counsel on July 30, 2018.


The Plaintiffs wish to have the law firm of GBDH appointed as the
class counsel in order to bring additional resources and expertise
to the litigation of their class action.  The Declaration of Laura
L. Ho sets forth her experience and expertise in class action
litigation, as well as GBDH's history of prosecuting class actions.
The Defendants consent to the appointment of GBDH as the class
counsel.

Judge Mueller finds that the Declaration of Laura L. Ho filed in
support of the stipulation provides further evidence demonstrating
that the Plaintiffs' new counsel have considerable experience in
class actions, are qualified to represent the proposed class, and
can be expected to perform their responsibilities adequately in
light of that experience, the record to date in the case, and
related considerations.  Since being retained, GBDH has been
working closely with Centro Legal de la Raza and the Law Offices of
Andrew Wolff, PC to litigate the case in an effective manner.

She finds that the appointment of additional class counsel is
appropriate given the magnitude and scope of the litigation.  The
appointment of GBDH is reasonably necessary and appropriate to
effectively represent the class.  The use of multiple law firms in
large scale class action is routine.

The Parties stipulated, and Judge Mueller granted, that GDBH is
adequate to serve as the class counsel and is appointed as the
Class Counsel for the Classes previously certified by the Court on
July 30, 2018.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bwa4uJ from Leagle.com.

Denika Terry & Roy Huskey, III, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew
Wolff -- andrew@awolfflaw.com -- Law Office of Andrew Wolff, PC,
Anne Bellows, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Beth Holtzman,
Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Jesse Mica Newmark, Centro Legal
de la Raza & Laura L. Ho, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho.

United States of America, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by
Vincente Antonio Tennerelli , United States Attorney's Office.

Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company, Wasatch Property Management, Inc., a California
Corporation, Wasatch Pool Holdings, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, Chesapeake Commons Holdings, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company, Logan Park Apartments, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company & Logan Park Apartments, LP, a California
Limited Partnership, Defendants, represented by Joseph A. Salazar,
Jr. -- Joe.Salazar@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and
Smith LLP & Ryan James Matthews -- ryan.matthews@lewisbrisbois.com
-- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith.


WELLS FARGO: $1.7MM Attorneys' Fees Awarded in Nakamura Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JIN NAKAMURA, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, d/b/a WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 17-4029-DDC-GEB (D. Kan.), Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted the the
Class Representative's Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Expenses.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant agreed to pay $5.125
million to the Settlement Class.  It also agreed to pay, separate
and apart from the Gross Settlement Fund, the Class Counsel's
attorneys' fees in an amount up to 33% of the Gross Settlement
Fund.  The Class Representative has requested the Class Counsel
attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,691,250, which is 33% of the
Gross Settlement Fund.

In addition, under the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant agreed
to reimburse the Class Counsel for its reasonable expenses incurred
in connection with prosecuting the Action.  The Class Counsel has
incurred expenses in connection with prosecuting the Action in the
amount of $78,209.59.  These expenses were necessary to the
successful conclusion of the Action.

Judge Crabtree concludes that the Fee and reimbursement of
expensesrequests are warranted.  He granted the Class
Representative's Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Expenses.  He approved payment by the Defendant of
the Class Counsel's attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,691,250
(33% of the Gross Settlement Fund) and reimbursement of $78,209.59
in litigation expenses, both to be paid by the Defendant to the
Class Counsel in the manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/rn6rwm from Leagle.com.

Jin Nakamura, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley Scott Waddell ,
Waddell Law Firm LLC, Bryce B. Bell -- Bryce@belllawkc.com -- Bell
Law, LLC, Mark W. Schmitz -- ms@belllawkc.com -- Bell Law, LLC,
Rex
A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA, Ryan C.
Hudson -- rhudson@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA, Sarah
Bradshaw , Rex A. Sharp, PA & Scott B. Goodger --
sgoodger@midwest-law.com -- Rex A. Sharp, PA.

Wells Fargo Bank, NA, doing business as Wells Fargo Dealer
Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Marienthal, pro
hac vice, Alicia A. Baiardo -- abaiardo@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods, LLP, pro hac vice, Anna M. Berman, Kutak Rock LLP,
Carolee A. Hoover -- choover@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods,
LLP,
pro hac vice, David C. Powell, McGuireWoods, LLP, pro hac vice &
Michael E. Brown, Kutak Rock LLP.


[*] Court Refuses to Approve Florida Class Action Rule Amendment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Allen, Esq., of Carlton Fields, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that cy pres distribution of residual
settlement funds has come under increased scrutiny in recent years.
Perhaps for this reason, the Florida Supreme Court on May 16, 2019,
refused to approve an amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.220, the state class action rule, that would have encouraged
settling parties to distribute residual funds to The Florida Bar
Foundation or another nonprofit legal services organization. The
court, however, declined to provide any reasoning for its
decision.

In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220, No.
SC18-1176 (Fla. May 16, 2019) [GN]


[*] Quinn Emanuel Attorney Loses Bid to Lead Fannie Rigging Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Schoenberg and David McLaughlin, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that a top Manhattan class-action lawyer spread anxiety
across trading desks recently when he identified 27 traders by name
in a lawsuit alleging that their employers colluded to rig trading
in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds.

Now, the lawyer's suit is effectively on hold -- meaning that any
evidence he collected could remain under wraps, while the traders
may have no legal venue for answering any questions the filing may
have raised.

That's because Dan Brockett, the lawyer at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP who drafted the suit, lost his attempt in May to lead
a proposed class action accusing nearly a dozen banks of ripping
off pension plans and others through collusion and fraud.

Instead, the decision by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff means that
a similar suit will go forward against at least 10 banks, led by
two other law firms, Scott + Scott and Lowey Dannenberg.

Brockett's suit was akin to several previous class actions that
have made him a nemesis of Wall Street. His firm says it has won
more than $35 billion in damages from banks. That includes $25
billion for the Federal Housing Finance Agency over toxic
mortgage-backed securities and nearly $2 billion for investors who
claimed they were cheated by banks in the market for credit default
swaps.

But Brockett's latest suit had a twist: Early in the process, even
before a court rules on whether to certify a class action, Brockett
took the unusual step of identifying more than two dozen traders as
"key personnel" on their firms trading desks.

His suit stopped short of accusing the traders themselves -- but
raised tantalizing questions about the substance and sources of the
information he gathered in a preliminary investigation.

"We're disappointed we weren't chosen as the lead but we support
the plaintiffs' case and hope they get a good recovery," said
Brockett, who declined to discuss the evidence he collected.

It's unclear to what extent, if at all, the lead attorneys will
adopt Brockett's legal theory that reduced trading commissions
resulting from the U.S. government's takeover of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac during the global financial crisis prompted bank
employees to cut corners. The plaintiffs had until May 23 to file a
consolidated complaint laying out their theory.

Scott + Scott and Lowey didn't respond to requests for comment.

Quinn Emanuel, in partnership with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, spent about $750,000 on its preliminary investigation, about
double the amount spent collectively by the two firms picked to
lead the case, according to a transcript of an April 29 hearing.
Quinn and Robbins together have 1,000 lawyers worldwide compared
with about 113 at the combined Scott and Lowey firms.

"Our firm did a 10-month investigation, interviewed well-placed
industry insiders, including the head of one of the agency desks at
one of the defendants, and several industry traders at the
defendants," Manisha Sheth of Quinn Emanuel told Rakoff during the
April 29 hearing.

Rakoff said his decision to appoint Scott and Lowey as lead counsel
was influenced by the fact that they had the largest client, the
Treasury of Pennsylvania, which he understood would be actively
engaged in the direction of the case.

In March, Brockett drew wide attention on Wall Street after he
listed the names of the bank employees. As common as investor
lawsuits against Wall Street banks are, they almost never identify
employees by name in their preliminary stages. None of the other 10
lawsuits filed against the banks by other firms named as many
individuals.

Rakoff will soon decide whether the case will have class action
status. He has said in court that he's committed to a May 4, 2020,
trial date. In choosing Scott and Lowey, Rakoff said his only
concern was whether those firms had the resources to litigate the
case on their own.

Last June, Bloomberg News reported that the Justice Department had
opened a criminal investigation into whether some traders
manipulated prices in the market for unsecured bonds, known as
agencies, issued by the government-backed companies. The size of
that market runs into the hundreds of billions of dollars. No
individuals or banks have been charged.

All of the defendant banks in Brockett's civil suit had traders
identified in the complaint. Six were associated with Deutsche Bank
AG, and five each with UBS Group AG and FTN Financial Securities
Corp. Other defendants include Bank of America Corp., Barclays Plc,
BNP Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse Group AG, Goldman
Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley. The
banks have declined to comment.

The lawsuit filed by the Scott and Lowey firms identify the same
banks except Morgan Stanley as defendants but single out just four
specific traders as examples of the revolving door on bond-trading
desks. It also alleges the misconduct began several years earlier,
in 2009, and ran only to April 2014.

Antitrust experts said the lead firms could pick pieces from the
Quinn Emanuel complaint or stick with the lawsuit as initially
proposed. Cases can change, however, once plaintiffs begin
receiving evidence from the banks, they said. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***