CAR_Public/190628.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, June 28, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 129

                            Headlines

ABM INDUSTRIES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 3
ABM INDUSTRIES: Hussein and Isse Class Suits Concluded
ABM INDUSTRIES: Mediation Expected in Bucio Suit in July 2019
ADP INC: Rozwood Seeks Wages & OT Premiums for Service Reps
AIX SPECIALTY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss MSP Recovery Suit

AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Keryx Merger Suit Underway
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Pa. Cmmw. Affirms Dismissal of Martel Suit
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Worthey Removes Own Suit to S.D. New York
AMERICAN POWER: Settlement in Evans Suit Has Final Approval
ART OF ALEX: San Martin Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages

BANACO II LLC: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
BEST BUY: IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund Suit Concluded
BLC LEXINGTON: Bid to Remand Johnson to Fayette Circuit Court Nixed
BRITAX CHILD SAFETY: Perez Files Suit Over Defective Stroller
CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated New Jersey Suit Ongoing

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Turner Sues over Debt Collection Practices
CAPITAL ONE: Petruzzi Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement
CHICO'S FAS: Altman Class Suit Stayed
CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend Fisher Class Suit

CHINACACHE INTERNATIONAL: Sun Sues over Misleading Statements
CIENA CORP: Settlement Reached in Employee Retirement Fund Suit
CIRCLE K: Halawani Sues over Automated Marketing Text Messages
CLIENT SERVICES: Han Says Collection Letter Violates FDCPA
CLIENT SERVICES: Park Sues over Debt Collection Practices

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGIES: Denies Call Center Agents Wages, Says Luker
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Consolidated Johnson & Chen Suit Ongoing
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Numerous Employees' Class Suits Filed in Calif.
DAKINE INC: Website not Accessible to Blind Person, Reid Says
DART CONTAINER: Pretrial Scheduling Order Issued in Flores

DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Intends to Dismiss Class V Consolidated Suit
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: October Hearing on Summary Judgment Bid
DELTA AUTO: Vargas Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
DR REDDY'S: Court Narrows Claims in NJ Suit
DXC TECHNOLOGY: Securities Class Suit in Virginia Ongoing

EUROSTAR INC: Escobedo Seeks Unpaid Wages, Benefits
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Judgment of Dismissal
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Consolidated Suit in Missouri Ongoing
FISHER-PRICE: Cuddy Sues over Safety Risks of Infant Sleepers
FISHER-PRICE: Nadel et al Sue over Sale of Rock 'n Play Sleepers

FIVE STAR REALTY: Benson Sues over Unlawful Housing Discrimination
FLOWERS FOODS: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Ruling in Carr FLSA Suit
GENESCO INC: Settlement Reached in Chen & Salas Suit
GILEAD SCIENCES: Pipe Trades Sues Over Clayton Act Breach
GRAND CIRCLE TRAVEL: Macaskill Seeks OT Premium Pay

GREIF INC: Suit over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
H&R BLOCK: Faces Olosoni and Snarr Putative Class Action
H&R BLOCK: Ramsey Files Appeal in Suit
HARBOR FREIGHT: Kaupelis Sues Over Defective Chainsaws
HD SUPPLY: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholders Class Suit in Georgia

IDT CORP: Faces Rosales Class Suit in California
IDT CORP: Faces Samara Class Suit in Louisiana
IDT CORP: JDS1 LLC Class Suit Ongoing
IDT CORP: Must Defend Against Dennis Class Action
IDT CORP: Parties in Sanchez Suit Agree to Dismissal

INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Harris-Carr Suit Consolidated to Tchatchou
INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Tchatchou to Lead Shareholder Class Suits
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Certifies Class in Slocum Suit
KIRKLAND'S INC: Still Defends Miles Class Action in California
KRAFT HEINZ: Walling Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed

LAMPASAS INC: Kelly Hits Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Wages
LAUNDRY DEPOT: Does not Pay Workers Overtime Wages, Says Suit
LGS INC: Reynoso Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
LOST DOG: Settlement in Diaz FLSA/CMWA Suit Has Final Approval
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit

LYFT INC: Faces Lewis Suit Over Misleading IPO-related Reports
MDL 2047: Court Denies Bid to Tax Court Reporter Fees as Costs
MDL 2591: Court Partly Vacates Dismissal Order and Judgment
MDL 2804: Opiate Litigation vs. Costco Ongoing
MESA LABORATORIES: Orrington Settlement Receives Final Approval

MIDWEST TIME: Campos Files Suit Asserting BIPA Violation
MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Discovery in Freedman Class Suit Ongoing
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Settlement in Horton Suit Has Prelim Approval
MYCLEAN INC: Johnson Sues Over Improper Wage Practices
NATIONAL CAR WASHES: Martinez Seeks Damages and Penalties

NEIMAN MARCUS: Remijas Suit Related to Cyber-Attack Ongoing
NELNET: Claims in Olsen Suit Over Student Loans Servicing Narrowed
NEW YORK: Court Adds Plaintiff S. Harper in Bagley Suit
NIO INC: Jeon's Securities Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
NIO INC: Joen Securities Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y.

NIO INC: Sidoli Securities Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y.
NORDSON CORP: Faces Ortiz Class Action in California
NUTANIX INC: Faces Several Securities Class Suits in California
OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Notice of Appeal Filed in DEXTENZA(R) Suit
OOMA INC: Dolemba Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed

OOMA INC: Reid Class Action in New York Ongoing
OOMA INC: Stipulation of Settlement Filed in Barnett Class Suit
P & G TRADING: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Hunt Suit Says
PARKER DRILLING: State Law Not Adopted as Federal Law on OCS
PERSPECTA INC: Additional Mediation in Forsyth Case Underway

PHOENIX, AZ: Summary Judgment in Suit Over Retirement Plan Affirmed
PHYSICIAN COMPASSIONATE: Teblum Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing
PNC FINANCIAL: Herbin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PURDUE PHARMA: Ellis Sues Over S.O.D.'s Addiction to Opioids
PURDUE PHARMA: Flach Sues Over A.B.'s & G.B.'s Addiction to Opioids

PURDUE PHARMA: Hamawi Sues Over K.L.H. and N.A.W's Opioid Addiction
PURDUE PHARMA: Hampel Sues Over A.M.H.'s Opioid Addiction
PURDUE PHARMA: Ivie Sues Over A.I.'s Opioid Addiction
PURDUE PHARMA: Lechuga Sues Over Q.H.L., A.G.L.'s Opioid Addiction
PURDUE PHARMA: Martinez et al Sue over Sale of Opioid Drugs

PURDUE PHARMA: Means Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
PURDUE PHARMA: Meinecke Sues Over J.B's Addiction to Opioids
PURDUE PHARMA: Ortiz Sues Over A.O.'s Addiction to Opioids
PURDUE PHARMA: Peterson Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
PURDUE PHARMA: Rodriguez Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs

PURDUE PHARMA: Shewmake Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
PURDUE PHARMA: Simonson Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
PURDUE PHARMA: Stewart Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
PURDUE PHARMA: Sued Over D.L.D., M.A.S., N.S.'s Opioid Addiction
PURDUE PHARMA: Tuttle Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs

PURDUE PHARMA: Warren Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
PURDUE PHARMA: Weatherwax Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
PURDUE PHARMA: Whittaker Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
PURDUE PHARMA: Williams Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
REOZOM REAL ESTATE: Duarte Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing

RESORTCOM INTERNATIONAL: Shelton Sues over Telemarketing Campaigns
RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for July 11
RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Jilek Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
RH: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement
SAKS FIFTH AVENUE: Kang Suit Asserts ADA Violation

SANTA ROSA CONSULTING: Vallone et al Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages
SCI DIRECT: $1.65MM Deal in Romano Labor Suit Has Prelim Approval
SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Abstral(R) Related Suit Still Pending
SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT: Shannon's Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
SIGNET JEWELERS: Claimants' Appeal in Suit vs. SJI Still Pending

SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery Underway in Consolidated NY Suit
SOUTH FLORIDA NURSING: Ovilmar Files Wage and Hour Suit in Fla.
STATE COLLECTION: $80K Attys' Fees Awarded in Spuhler FDCA Suit
STITCH FIX: Appointment of Lead Counsel & Plaintiff Pending
SUNDANCE DELI: Molina Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff

SUSHI GAMA: Workers Seek Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
TAILORED BRANDS: Oliver Class Action Concluded
TAILORED BRANDS: Subsidiary Still Faces Twin Hill Class Action
TILLY'S INC: Mediation in Gonzalez Class Suit Set for Oct. 31
TILLY'S INC: Ward Class Action Remanded to Trial Court

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action in Australia Ongoing
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Final Approval Hearing Set for July 18
UNITED NATURAL: Appeal in Class Suit v. Supervalu Still Pending
UNITED NATURAL: Dismissal of Data Breach Suit v. Supervalu Upheld
VERINT SYSTEMS: Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Tel Aviv

VERSUM MATERIALS: Robert Class Action Ongoing
VIRGINA PHYSICIANS: Gust Seeks Proper Wages
VIRGINIA: Court Grants Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of Burch Suit
WALMART INC: Settlement in City of Pontiac Suit Wins Final Okay
WATCHUNG GROUP: Diaz Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Premium Pay

WELLS FARGO: Loughran Files Fraud Class Suit in Illinois
WELLS FARGO: Settlement in Nakamura Suit Has Final Approval
WORKMAN INDUSTRIAL: Grodecki Seeks OT Pay for Laborers
ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Asks Court to Reconsider Dismissal Order
ZUMIEZ INC: Continues to Defend Herrera Class Action

ZUORA INC: Roberts Sues over Misleading Reports, Share Price Drop

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Asbestos Filed in Alameda Court on June 7
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Air Force Landlord Exposed Families to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Faces Retrial in Floor Tile Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in $13MM Lopez Verdict Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ark. DEQ Seeks No Action Assurance from EPA

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 118 Pending Talc Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $146MM Non-PCC Reserves at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $185MM PCC Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duncan Refinery Workers With Cancer Could Get Pay
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Jury Awards $70MM Verdict to Thornton Couple

ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had $844.9MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $541MM Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: M. Floyd Sues BP America in St. Louis Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man with Terminal Cancer Set to Sue Council
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 40 Cases at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Contractor Cited for Asbestos Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Still Defends 571 Lawsuits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Strikes Down $7MM Talc Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Defends PI Suits at March. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rankin Couple Sues AW Chesterton in St. Louis Ct.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. Betty Sues Armstrong, et al., in St. Louis Cour
ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. Weber Files Asbestos Suit in Calif. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Faces 745 Active Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 800 PI Suits at March 31


                            *********

ABM INDUSTRIES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that a hearing to consider
final approval of the settlement in the case, Castro and Marmolejo
v. ABM Industries, Inc., et al., filed on October 24, 2014, pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, is scheduled to be held on September 3, 2019.

On October 24, 2014, Plaintiff Marley Castro filed a class action
lawsuit alleging that ABM did not reimburse janitorial employees in
California for using their personal cell phones for work-related
purposes, in violation of California Labor Code section 2802.

On January 23, 2015, Plaintiff Lucia Marmolejo was added to the
case as a named plaintiff.

On October 27, 2017, plaintiffs moved for class certification
seeking to represent a class of all employees who were, are, or
will be employed by ABM in the State of California with the
Employee Master Job Description Code "Cleaner" (hereafter referred
to as "Cleaner Employees") beginning from October 24, 2010.

ABM filed its opposition to class certification on November 27,
2017. On January 26, 2018, the district court granted plaintiffs’
motion for class certification.

The court rejected plaintiffs' proposed class, instead certifying
three classes that the court formulated on its own: (1) all
employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in the State of
California as Cleaner Employees who used a personal cell phone to
punch in and out of the EPAY system and who (a) worked at an ABM
facility that did not provide a biometric clock and (b) were not
offered an ABM-provided cell phone during the period beginning on
January 1, 2012, through the date of notice to the Class Members
that a class has been certified in this action; (2) all employees
who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in the State of
California as Cleaner Employees who used a personal cell phone to
report unusual or suspicious circumstances to supervisors and were
not offered (a) an ABM-provided cell phone or (b) a two-way radio
during the period beginning four years prior to the filing of the
original complaint, October 24, 2014, through the date of notice to
the Class Members that a class has been certified in this action;
and (3) all employees who were, are, or will be employed by ABM in
the State of California as Cleaner Employees who used a personal
cell phone to respond to communications from supervisors and were
not offered (a) an ABM-provided cell phone or (b) a two-way radio
during the period beginning four years prior to the filing of the
original complaint, October 24, 2014, through the date of notice to
the Class Members that a class has been certified in this action.

On February 9, 2018, ABM filed a petition for permission to appeal
the district court's order granting class certification with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was
denied on April 30, 2018.

On March 20, 2018, ABM moved to compel arbitration of the claims of
certain class members pursuant to the terms of three collective
bargaining agreements.

In response to that motion, on May 14, 2018, the district court
modified the class definition to exclude all claims arising after
the operative date(s) of the applicable collective bargaining
agreements (which is June 1, 2016 for one agreement and May 1, 2016
for the other two agreements).

However, the district court denied the motion to compel arbitration
as to claims that arose prior to the operative date(s) of the
applicable collective bargaining agreements.

ABM has appealed to the Ninth Circuit the district court's order
denying the motion to compel arbitration with respect to the
periods preceding the operative dates of the collective bargaining
agreements.

After a court-ordered mediation held on October 15, 2018, the
parties agreed to a class action settlement of $5.4 million,
subject to court approval.

The plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
was filed on January 4, 2019, and the court held a hearing on the
motion on February 12, 2019.

On February 14, 2019, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. In connection with the settlement, the company modified
its existing written policies for California to expressly confirm
that ABM service workers are not required to use personal cell
phones for work purposes and began centralizing the process and
implementing technology for such employees to request reimbursement
for personal cell phone use due to work.

A hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled to be
held on September 3, 2019.

ABM Industries Incorporated provides integrated facility solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates through
Business & Industry, Aviation, Technology & Manufacturing,
Education, Technical Solutions, and Healthcare segments. The
company was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Hussein and Isse Class Suits Concluded
------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that the class action suits
entitled, Hussein and Hirsi v. Air Serv Corporation filed on
January 20, 2016, pending in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington at Seattle (the "Hussein case");
and Isse et al. v. Air Serv Corporation filed on February 7, 2017
in the Superior Court of Washington for King County (the "Isse
case"), have been concluded.

The Hussein case was a certified class action involving a class of
certain hourly Air Serv employees at Seattle-Tacoma International
Airport in SeaTac, Washington.

The plaintiffs alleged that Air Serv violated a minimum wage
requirement in an ordinance applicable to certain employers in the
local city of SeaTac (the "Ordinance").

Plaintiffs sought retroactive wages, double damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees. This matter was removed to federal court.

In a separate lawsuit brought by Filo Foods, LLC, Alaska Airlines,
and several other employers at SeaTac Airport, the King County
Superior Court (the "Superior Court") issued a decision that
invalidated the Ordinance as it applied to workers at SeaTac
Airport.

Subsequently, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the Superior
Court's decision.

On February 7, 2017, the Isse case was filed against Air Serv on
behalf of 60 individual plaintiffs (who would otherwise be members
of the Hussein class), who alleged failure to comply with both the
minimum wage provision and the sick and safe time provision of the
Ordinance.

The Isse plaintiffs sought retroactive wages and sick benefits,
double damages for wages and sick benefits, interest, and
attorneys' fees. The Isse case later expanded to approximately 220
individual plaintiffs.

In mediations on November 2 and 3, 2017, and without admitting
liability in either matter, the company agreed to settle the
Hussein and Isse cases for a combined total of $8.3 million,
inclusive of damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and employer
payroll taxes.

On December 8, 2017, the Superior Court approved the settlement
agreement for the 220 Isse plaintiffs, and the company subsequently
made a settlement payment of $4.5 million to the Isse plaintiffs in
January 2018.

On July 30, 2018, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington at Seattle preliminarily approved the
settlement in the Hussein case.

At the final approval hearing on December 4, 2018, the court (i)
accepted opt-out notices from 78 Hussein class members (the
"opt-out members") indicating their intent to participate in
separate lawsuits (leaving 386 class members in the Hussein class),
(ii) directed the parties to recalculate the settlement amount by
deducting the settlement funds attributable to the 78 opt-out
members, and (iii) requested other minor changes, but indicated
that the court intended to grant final approval of the settlement
with these changes.

On December 20, 2018, the court issued its order granting final
approval of the Hussein class action settlement in the amount of
$2.1 million. The Hussein settlement funds were distributed to the
class on March 6, 2019.

In January 2019, the company reached a tentative agreement to
resolve the claims of the opt-out members for $1.2 million. On
March 22, 2019, the court approved the settlement for the opt-out
members, and the company subsequently made a settlement payment of
$1.2 million to the opt-out members in May 2019.

These matters are now concluded.

ABM Industries Incorporated provides integrated facility solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates through
Business & Industry, Aviation, Technology & Manufacturing,
Education, Technical Solutions, and Healthcare segments. The
company was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Mediation Expected in Bucio Suit in July 2019
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that the company expects to
engage in one or more such activities in the third quarter of 2019,
including but not limited to mediation currently scheduled for July
2019, in the the consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM
Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Francisco (the "Bucio case").

The Bucio case is a class action pending in San Francisco Superior
Court that alleges we failed to provide legally required meal
periods and make additional premium payments for such meal periods,
pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse janitors for
travel expenses.

There is also a claim for penalties under the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").

On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May
11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was
denied. The plaintiffs appealed the class certification issues. The
trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in
the appeal.

The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate
District (the "Court of Appeal"), heard oral arguments on November
7, 2017. On December 11, 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the
trial court's order denying class certification and remanded the
matter for certification of a meal period, travel expense
reimbursement, and split shift class.

The case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings on
class certification, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial.

On September 20, 2018, the trial court entered an order defining
four certified subclasses of janitors who were employed by the
legacy ABM janitorial companies in California at any time between
April 7, 2002 and April 30, 2013, on claims based on previous
automatic deduction practices for meal breaks, unpaid meal
premiums, unpaid split shift premiums, and unreimbursed business
expenses, such as mileage reimbursement for use of personal
vehicles to travel between worksites.

On February 1, 2019, the Superior Court held that the discovery
related to PAGA claims allegedly arising after April 30, 2013 would
be stayed until after the class and PAGA claims accruing prior to
April 30, 2013 had been tried. This matter has not been set for
trial.

Prior to trial, the company will have the opportunity to move for
summary judgment, seek decertification of the classes, or mediate,
if we deem such actions appropriate.

ABM Industries said, "We expect to engage in one or more such
activities in the third quarter of 2019, including but not limited
to mediation currently scheduled for July 2019."

ABM Industries Incorporated provides integrated facility solutions
in the United States and internationally. It operates through
Business & Industry, Aviation, Technology & Manufacturing,
Education, Technical Solutions, and Healthcare segments. The
company was founded in 1909 and is headquartered in New York, New
York.



ADP INC: Rozwood Seeks Wages & OT Premiums for Service Reps
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH ROZWOOD, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. ADP INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-13765 (D.N.J., June 14, 2019), seeks a declaration
that Plaintiff's rights, and the rights of the putative Fair Labor
Standards Act Collective Class and the putative Rule 23 Class, were
violated; and seeks to recover an award of unpaid wages and
overtime premiums, liquidated damages, penalties, injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, and any other remedies to which they may be
entitled.

The case is a class and collective action brought by Plaintiff on
his own behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated current
and/or former Customer Service Representative employees of
Defendant to recover for Defendant's willful violation of the FLSA
, the New York Payment of Wages Act, and the New York Minimum Wage
Age.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff, and those similarly
situated, were subjected to Defendant's policy and practice of
failing to compensate its call center employees for their necessary
pre-shift activities, which resulted in the failure to properly
compensate them as required under applicable federal and state
laws.

Automatic Data Processing, Inc., commonly known as ADP, is an
American provider of human resources management software and
services. Until 2014, ADP was one of four American companies in the
S&P 500 to have a AAA credit rating from both Standard & Poor's and
Moody's.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Thomas Anapol, Esq.
          ANAPOL WEISS
          1040 N. Kings Highway, Suite 304
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: 215-735-1130
          Facsimile: 215-875-7707
          E-mail: tanapol@anapolweiss.com

AIX SPECIALTY: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss MSP Recovery Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, SERIES 16-05-456 and
SERIES 16-11-509, Plaintiffs, v. AIX SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 6:18-cv-1456-Orl-40DCI (M.D. Fla.), Judge Paul
G. Byron of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, denied the Defendant's Combined Motion
to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint and Alternative Motion to
Dismiss Class Allegations.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against the
Defendant under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act.  The Plaintiffs
were assigned recovery rights against tje Defendant from various
MAOs stemming from Medicare reimbursement claims that the Defendant
wrongfully failed to pay.  They allege two exemplar cases to
support their claims.

On Jan. 3, 2015, J.W. was injured in an accident in Florida, with
such accident being covered under a no-fault insurance policy
issued by the Defendant.  At the time of the accident, J.W. was
also enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan issued and administered
by Health First Health Plans, Inc. ("HFHP"), a MAO.  J.W. sustained
numerous injuries from the accident and was treated by several
medical care providers between Jan. 3, 2015, and April 30, 2015.
The providers turned to J.W.'s MAO, HFHP, for payment of J.W.'s
medical expenses.  HFHP was charged $27,831.05 from the providers
and ultimately paid $3,614.62.  The Plaintiffs aver the Defendant
is a primary payer with an obligation to reimburse HFHP because its
insurance policy covered injuries stemming from the accident.  The
Defendant failed to reimburse HFHP despite its obligation.

On April 28, 2016, HFHP assigned all rights to recover conditional
payments made on behalf of its enrollees -- including rights to
recover against the Defendant for J.W.'s medical expenses -- and
associated claims data to MSP Recovery. MSP Recovery thereafter
assigned the rights it received from HFHP to Series 16-05-456—a
separate legal entity created under Delaware law and MSP Recovery's
LLC agreement.

In another example of Defendant failing to reimburse a MAO, the
Amended Complaint offers the example of V.T., who was injured in an
accident in Florida that was covered by the Defendant's insurance
policy.  V.T. received medical care from providers; those providers
billed V.T.'s MAO, Summacare, Inc, which paid a portion of V.T.'s
accident-related medical expenses.  Again, the Defendant failed to
reimburse Summacare despite its legal obligation.  Thereafter,
Summacare assigned its recovery rights to MSP Recovery, which in
turn assigned its rights acquired from Summacare to a series
subsidiary, Series 16-11-509.

The Plaintiffs bring the action to recover on the claims they have
been assigned from MAOs to which the Defendant owed Medicare
reimbursements.  In addition to recovery on the claims the
Plaintiffs acquired through assignment, the Plaintiffs seek to
recover on behalf of a Rule 23(b)(3) class of MAOs (and their
assignees) that made conditional payments to a Medicare beneficiary
where: (1) Defendant was a primary payer by virtue of a contractual
obligation to pay for services covered by the Defendant's insurance
policies and also a Medicare Advantage plan; and (2) the Defendant
improperly failed to reimburse the MAOs.

The Defendant moves to dismiss.  It advances a handful of arguments
for dismissal of both the Amended Complaint in its entirety and of
the class action allegations specifically.  

Judge Byron finds that the Motion misses the mark as the Amended
Complaint is adequately pled.  He finds that (i) the Plaintiffs
have plausibly alleged valid assignments; (ii) the allegations
plausibly demonstrate that the Plaintiffs' claims stem from
reasonable, necessary, and related medical treatment; and (iii) he
does not reach the Amended Complaint's class action allegations as
they are premature.  For these reasons, he denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.  The Defendant will answer the Amended Complaint
no later than June 5, 2019.

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

MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, a Delaware entity, Series
16-05-456, a series of MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC & Series
16-11-509, Plaintiffs, represented by Frank Carlos Quesada --
fquesada@msprecovery.com -- MSP Recovery Law Firm & Steve I.
Silverman -- ssilverman@klugerkaplan.com -- Kluger, Kaplan,
Silverman, Katzen & Levine, PL.

AIX Specialty Insurance Company, a Delaware entity, Defendant,
represented by Angel A. Cortinas -- acortinas@gunster.com --
Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, PA & Jonathan H. Kaskel --
jkaskel@gunster.com -- Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, PA.


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Keryx Merger Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. remains a defendant in a class action
lawsuit related to its merger deal with Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., Akebia said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 9, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019.

On June 28, 2018, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, and Alpha
Therapeutics Merger Sub, Inc., or the Merger Sub, pursuant to which
the Merger Sub would merge with and into Keryx, with Keryx becoming
a wholly owned subsidiary of ours, or the Merger. On December 12,
2018, the company completed the Merger.

In October and November 2018, four purported shareholders of Keryx
filed four separate putative class actions against Keryx, a former
officer and director of Keryx (Jodie P. Morrison, who is now a
director of Akebia), former directors of Keryx (Kevin J. Cameron,
Mark J. Enyedy, Steven C. Gilman, Michael T. Heffernan, Daniel P.
Regan and Michael Rogers, some of whom are current members of
Akebia's Board of Directors), and, with respect to one action, the
Merger Sub and Akebia, challenging the disclosures made in
connection with the Merger.

The complaints in the Merger Securities Actions generally allege
that the registration statement filed in connection with the Merger
failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in
violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder.

The alleged omissions relate to (i) certain financial projections
for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by
our advisors; (ii) certain terms relating to the engagement of one
of Keryx's advisors; and (iii) any alleged negotiations that may
have taken place regarding which individuals would serve on the
company's Board of Directors after consummation of the Merger as
well as future employment of officers.

Each of the complaints seeks to enjoin the defendants from
proceeding with the Merger; however, none of the plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking such relief before the Merger was consummated.

The complaints also seek rescission of the Merger or rescissory
damages, a declaration that that the defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and
an award of plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

Three of the Merger Securities Actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, or the Delaware
District Court: Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(filed October 16, 2018); Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. (filed October 24, 2018); and Andreula v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed November 1, 2018).

On January 4, 2019, plaintiff John Andreula filed a motion to
consolidate the three actions pending in the Delaware District
Court and appoint himself as lead plaintiff.

On March 27, 2019, the plaintiff in the Van Hulst action filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.

On April 2, 2019, the Delaware District Court granted plaintiff
Andreula's motion, consolidated the Corwin and Andreula cases under
the caption In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the
Consolidated Action, and appointed plaintiff Andreula as lead
plaintiff.

Under the scheduling order applicable to the Consolidated Action,
lead plaintiff Andreula has until June 3, 2019 to file a
consolidated amended complaint.

The fourth Merger Securities Action was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, or the
Massachusetts District Court: Rosenblatt v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed October 23, 2018). The
plaintiff in the Rosenblatt action filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice, on February 19, 2019.  

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Pa. Cmmw. Affirms Dismissal of Martel Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Joseph Nissim Martel and Ester Martel, husband and
wife, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Appellants, v. Allegheny County, City of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh
Public Schools, and Allegheny County Board of Assessment Appeals
and Review, Case No. 568 C.D. 2018 (Pa. Cmmw.), Judge Christine
Fizzano Cannon of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed
the the March 29, 2018 order of the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County dismissing the Martels' class action complaint.

The Martels, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated (Property Owners), appeal from the trial court's order
dismissing their class action complaint in equity, seeking relief
from property reassessments ordered by the Allegheny County Board
of Assessment Appeals and Review.  The Board ordered the
reassessments based on assessment appeals brought by the Pittsburgh
Public Schools, Allegheny County, and the City of Pittsburgh
("Taxing Authorities"), where they introduced evidence of current
market values to support their request for increased assessments.

The Property Owners contested the Taxing Authorities' power to
bring the appeals and to rely on current market values, arguing
that this conduct violated, in relevant part, laws enacted pursuant
to the Allegheny County Home Rule Charter and the Uniformity Clause
of the Pennsylvania Constitution.  The Taxing Authorities and the
Board raised several preliminary objections to the complaint and
the trial court dismissed it for lack of legal sufficiency.  

On July 28, 2017, Property Owners filed a one-count class action
complaint with the trial court.  The Property Owners are
individuals who own real estate in County and include the Martels.
The County, which is a home rule municipality, has been under a
base year assessment system since 2002.  The last countywide
reassessment was in 2012, which is the current established base
year for the County.

On Nov. 13, 2015, the Martels purchased their property located at
6340 Darlington Road, Pittsburgh, for the sum of $750,000.  At the
time, the Martels' property had a base year (2012) assessed value
of $464,700.  On May 10, 2016, the School District initiated an
appeal with the Board of the assessed value of the Martels'
property for the 2016 tax year; though, at the time, there had been
no material additions or removal of improvements to the Martels'
property or physical changes in the land.  After taking evidence,
the hearing examiner recommended to the Board an order to change
the assessed value of the Martels' property from $464,700 to
$690,000, which the Board adopted.  The Property Owners contended
that the Board erred by increasing the assessment on the Martels'
property based solely upon improperly submitted evidence of the
sales price of the subject property and other property sales that
all took place after the base year.  They appealed the Board's
decision to the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Board of
Viewers.

The Property Owners allege that the matter is appropriately brought
as a class action because the Taxing Authorities have initiated
assessment appeals similar to the Martels' appeal on "approximately
200 or more" properties recently sold in Allegheny County, and have
accepted the increased tax revenues associated with the same.  They
assert that the Taxing Authorities do not have the right to appeal
the assessed values on the basis of current market value pursuant
to Section 5-207.06(B)(7) of the Allegheny County Administrative
Code (Administrative Code) and Board Rule IV, Section 3A.

In their request for relief, the Property Owners asked the trial
court to: (1) enjoin the Taxing Authorities and the Board from
appealing property tax assessments based on current fair market
values and/or increasing the assessments where the appeal has not
been initiated by taxpayers; (2) order the Board to "roll back" the
assessed values of all affected properties to the 2012 base year
valuation to provide prospective tax relief for "taxpayers" per the
Act known as the Refund Act; (3) declare that the increased tax
revenues collected have been "unlawfully obtained" and direct the
Board to provide "written notice" to all affected taxpayers of
their right to seek a refund within the applicable three-year
period provided in 72 P.S. Section 5566b; (4) direct the Board to
promulgate reasonable rules and regulations regarding the tax
refund procedure; (5) declare that the Taxing Authorities and the
Board's improper conduct violates the Uniformity Clause,
Administrative Code, Board Rule, and other pertinent law; (6) award
Property Owners attorneys' fees and costs; and (7) provide any
further relief as is "just and proper" under the circumstances.

The Taxing Authorities and the Board responded to the Property
Owners' complaint by each filing preliminary objections in the
nature of a demurrer.  Following briefing and oral argument on the
preliminary objections, the trial court sustained, in part, and
overruled, in part, the objections and dismissed the complaint.  It
dismissed the complaint by sustaining the Board and School
District's objection that the Administrative Code and Board Rule
relied upon by Property Owners, as written, violate state law and
therefore their complaint is "legally insufficient."   In
sustaining the Board and School District's objection, the trial
court concluded that the Administrative Code and Board Rule violate
Section 3107-C of the act known as the Second Class County Charter
Law.  The trial court overruled the remaining objections, and the
Property Owners brought the appeal.

Judge Cannon finds that the Property Owners allege that the Board
failed to apply the Administrative Code and Board Rule by allowing
Taxing Authorities to rely on evidence of current market value,
rather than using the base year assessment system, to seek
reassessments on recently purchased properties in the County.  They
allege that this conduct outsources the obligation of the County
and its Appeals Board to conduct regular countywide reassessments,
results in de facto spot reassessments, and violates the uniformity
clause and due process clauses of the federal and state
constitutions.  Property Owners, however, are not raising a frontal
attack to the Administrative Code and Board Rule; rather, as the
trial court observed, they seek application of these laws.

In their request for relief, the Property Owners seek an order to
prohibit the Taxing Authorities from bringing assessment appeals on
the basis of properties' current market values and to require the
Board to issue rules and regulations pertaining to tax refunds, and
seek attorneys' fees and costs.  They allege that the Taxing
Authorities' conduct of bringing assessment appeals on recently
sold properties violates, in relevant part, the plain language of
the Administrative Code and Board Rule and seek a declaration to
that effect.  Because Property Owners' challenge is to the manner
in which the Taxing Authorities apply (or in the case refuse to
apply) the Administrative Code and Board Rule, the Judge holds that
the Board is the proper authority to hear the assessment appeal as
provided in the Assessment Law.

For the aforementioned reasons, Judge Cannon concludes that the
trial court properly dismissed the Property Owners' complaint.
Accordingly, she affirmed on other grounds the trial court's order
to dismiss the complaint as set forth in her Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 22, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/1p0YkD from Leagle.com.

Edward B. Friedman -- EBF@friedman-law.com -- Friedman & Friedman,
Adam Thomas Petrun -- atp@friedman-law.com -- Friedman & Friedman,
P.C., Mallory Olivia Peterson, Friedman & Friedman, P.C., for
Appellants, Joseph Nissim Martel and Ester Martel.

Ira Weiss --  iweiss@wbklegal.com -- Weiss Burkardt Kramer, LLC,
Megan Margaret Ott, Weiss Burkardt Kramer, LLC, for Appellee,
Pittsburgh Public Schools.

Lourdes M. Ridge , City of Pittsburgh Law Department, Lawrence
Henry Baumiller, City of Pittsburgh Law Department, for Appellee,
City of Pittsburgh.

David J. Montgomery, Allegheny County Board of Property Assessment
Appeals and Review, for Appellee, Allegheny County Board of
Property Assessment Appeals and Review.

Andrew Francis Szefi, Allegheny County Law Department, Lee Mauro
Dellecker, Allegheny County Law Department, for Appellee, Allegheny
County.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Worthey Removes Own Suit to S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case of PAULA WORTHEY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN
MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC.; OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC.; QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, filed a motion
for transfer and centralization of the lawsuit from the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (Case No. MDL No. 2904)
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
June 4, 2019. The clerk of court for the Southern District of New
York assigned Case No. 7:19-cv-05210. The case is assigned to
Nelson Stephen Roman.

American Medical Collection Agency, Inc. provides financial
services. The Company operates as a recovery agency for consumer
collections. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Brad King, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          45 Main Street, Suite 528
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (917) 336-0171
          Facsimile: (917) 336-0177
          E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Russell Yankwitt, Esq.
          Michael H. Reed, Esq.
          YANKWITT LLP
          140 Grand Street, Suite 705
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 686-1500
          Facsimile: (914) 487-5000
          E-mail: russell@yankwitt.com
                  michael@yankwitt.com


AMERICAN POWER: Settlement in Evans Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAREN EVANS, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN POWER & GAS, LLC, CONSUMER SALES
SOLUTIONS, LLC Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-515 (S.D. Ohio.), Judge
Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern District, granted the Plaintiffs' (i)
Motion for Attorney Fees, and (ii) Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The matter came before the Court on May 21, 2019 upon the Motion of
Representative Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of
persons, for final approval of a settlement reached between the
Parties.  Upon review and consideration of the Settlement Agreement
dated Dec. 10, 2018, the exhibits to the Settlement Agreement, the
evidence and arguments of the counsel presented at the Court
Approval Hearing, and any other submissions filed with the Court in
connection with the Court Approval Hearing, Judge Sargus granted
the Motion for Final Approval.

For purposes of settlement only, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and (b)(3), the Judge finally certified the Settlement
Class.

He appointed (i) the Representative Plaintiff as the representative
of the Settlement Class; and (ii) JB Hadden, Brian K. Murphy and
Jonathan P. Misny (of Murray Murphy Moul Basil LLP), Anthony
Paronich and Edward A. Broderick (of Broderick and Paronich, P.C.),
and Samuel J. Strauss (of Turke and Strauss LLP) as the class
counsel.

Upon consideration of the application for attorneys' fees and
litigation costs by the Plaintiffs' Counsel, the Judge fixed the
aggregate amount of the Attorney Fee/Litigation Cost Award at
$2,037,059.65.  This aggregate award covers, without limitation,
any and all claims for attorneys' fees and litigation costs
incurred by (a) the Plaintiffs' Counsel, (b) any other counsel
representing (or purporting to represent) Representative Plaintiff
or Class Members (or any of them) with respect to all matters
within the scope of the Release, and (c) Representative Plaintiff
or the Class Members (or any of them) in connection with or related
to any matter in the Action, the Settlement, the administration of
the Settlement, and any of the matters or claims within the scope
of the Release.  He also fixed the award to the Representative
Plaintiff at $10,000.

The Action and all claims against the Defendants are dismissed on
the merits and with prejudice, and the Clerk is directed to enter
the Judgment in favor of the Defendants in the Action.  The
Judgment will be without costs to any Party.

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

Karen Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Brian K. Murphy --
murphy@mmmb.com -- Murray Murphy Moul Basil LLP, Anthony Paronich
-- anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, P.C., pro hac
vice, Edward A. Broderick, Broderick Law, P.C., pro hac vice, James
B. Hadden -- hadden@mmmb.com -- Murray Murphy Moul Basil LLP,
Jonathan P. Misny -- misny@mmmb.com -- Murray Murphy Moul + Basil &
Samuel J. Strauss -- sam@turkestrauss.com -- Turke and Strauss LLP,
pro hac vice.

American Power & Gas, LLC & Consumer Sales Solutions, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Christy A. Prince --
christy.prince@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP, Brooks R. Brown
-- bbrown@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Proctor LLP, pro hac vice,
Elliot A. Hallak, Harris Beach PLCC, pro hac vice, Matthew P.
McCue, Law Office of Matthew P. McCue, pro hac vice, Ross B.
Hofherr -- RHofherr@HarrisBeach.com -- Harris Beach PLCC, pro hac
vice & W. Kyle Tayman -- ktayman@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Proctor
LLP, pro hac vice.


ART OF ALEX: San Martin Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
---------------------------------------------------
LUIS SAN MARTIN, JOSE ORDONES, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. THE ART OF ALEX LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, and ALESSANDRO TURCO, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 91173300 (11th Judicial Circuit Ct., Miami Dade Cty.,
Fla., June 17, 2019) is an action by the Plaintiffs for damages
exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs for damages
resulting from breach of agreement; unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); and for unlawful, retaliatory
discharge pursuant to Florida's private sector Whistleblower's Act,
("FWA") and under Section 440.205 of the Florida Statutes.

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was not paid at all for many
hours worked for Defendants. Specifically, during Plaintiff's
employment with Defendants, Plaintiff cashed a check he received
from Defendants, however, the check bounced and Plaintiff was
charged back the amount of the check. Plaintiff has made demands
for the missing wages he is owed, but Defendants have refused to
pay Plaintiff these wages as prescribed by the laws of the United
Sates and Florida Law, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs performed work for Defendants from August 2016 to August
2018.

THE ART OF ALEX LLC, a Florida Profit Corporation, having its
principal place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida and was
and is engaged in interstate commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     Max L. Horowitz, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Phone: (305) 416-5000
     Facsimile: (3 05) 416-5005
     Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com
            mhorowitz@rgpattorneys.com


BANACO II LLC: Gonzalez Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------
ANA ELIZABETH GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANACO II LLC (D/B/A LAUNDROMAT)
and ISSA AMINI BANACO, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05602 (S.D.
N.Y., June 14, 2019) is an action on behalf of herself, and other
similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants own, operate, or control a laundromat, located at 2035
Third Avenue, New York, New York 10029 under the name "Laundromat".
Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed as a general assistant by
Defendants at the laundry service from approximately September 21,
2015 until on or about April 26, 2019.

The complaint says Plaintiff Gonzalez worked for Defendants without
appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that she
worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff
Gonzalez appropriately for any hours worked. Defendants' conduct
extended beyond Plaintiff Gonzalez to all other similarly situated
employees, the complaint says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEST BUY: IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund Suit Concluded
---------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that all appeal periods in the
consolidated class action led by IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund have
been exhausted and the matter is closed.

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed against
the company and certain of its executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

This federal court action alleges, among other things, that the
company and the officers named in the complaint violated Sections
10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange
Act in connection with press releases and other statements relating
to our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available
to the public.

Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against the company
and certain of the company's executive officers in the same court.
In July 2011, after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund
and Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and
served.

Following discovery and motion practice Plaintiffs moved to certify
the purported class. By Order filed August 6, 2014, the court
certified a class of persons or entities who acquired Best Buy
common stock between 10:00 a.m. EDT on September 14, 2010, and
December 13, 2010, and who were damaged by the alleged violations
of law. The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the company's
request for interlocutory appeal.

On April 12, 2016, the 8th Circuit held the trial court misapplied
the law and reversed the class certification order. IBEW petitioned
the 8th Circuit for a rehearing en banc, which was denied on June
1, 2016. On June 23, 2017, the trial court denied plaintiff's
request to file a new Motion for Class Certification. On October
30, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second
amended class action complaint which the Magistrate Judge denied on
July 11, 2018.

On August 24, 2018, the District Court Judge overruled plaintiff's
objections to that ruling, affirming the Magistrate Judge's denial
of leave to amend.

On March 8, 2019, the District Court Judge granted Best Buy's
motion for summary judgment dismissing the remaining claims with
prejudice. All appeal periods in IBEW have been exhausted and the
matter is closed.

Best Buy Co., Inc. operates as a retailer of technology products,
services, and solutions in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
The company operates in two segments, Domestic and International.
The company was formerly known as Sound of Music, Inc. Best Buy
Co., Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Richfield,
Minnesota.


BLC LEXINGTON: Bid to Remand Johnson to Fayette Circuit Court Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Danny C. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, denied Plaintiff
Johnson's Motion to Remand the case, CARRIE JOHNSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BLC LEXINGTON SNF, LLC, d/b/a Brookdale Richmond
Place SNF, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:19-064-DCR (E.D.
Ky.), to the Fayette Circuit Court.

Johnson resided at a skilled nursing facility, BLC Lexington, from
Nov. 20, 2017, until Nov. 9, 2018.  She alleges that, while at
Brookdale Richmond Place: (i) she dealt with poor hygiene; (ii) she
contracted infections (including MRSA); (iii) she was hospitalized;
(iv) staff failed to clean her surgical wound; and (v) she
experienced unnecessary pain and suffering.  Johnson alleges that
she was lured to Brookdale Richmond Place as a result of a
fraudulently-inflated Five Star Rating.

The Defendants were required to obtain annual certifications and
undergo health inspections by the Commonwealth of Kentucky to
operate Brookdale Richmond Place.  Additionally, they were required
to complete and submit to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid
Services ("CMS") CMS Forms 671 and 672.  CMS used this information
to calculate ratings for skilled nursing homes.  Brookdale Richmond
Place had an overall Five Star Rating as well as a Five Star Rating
for direct care staffing, and for RN staffing.  This rating allows
comparisons of nursing homes and their staff.

Johnson alleges that Benita Dickenson (the Administrator at
Brookdale Richmond Place) and Ann Phillips (the Executive Director
at Brookdale Richmond Place) intentionally inflated hours worked by
direct care staff on CMS Form 671 from 2014 to April 2018.  She
alleges that this action resulted in an improperly high facility
rating.  And she contends that staffing levels fell below the
standard of care required and the purported class did not receive
staffing services for which they paid.

Johnson further asserts that the Defendants overreported the amount
spent on direct care staffing "by millions of dollars per year."
She contends that the Defendants from whom she is seeking relief
failed to: (i) ensure that rules and regulations were enforced;
(ii) ensure compliance; (iii) take appropriate corrective measures;
(iv) keep the facility sufficiently staffed; (v) follow her written
care plan; (vi) notify doctors or family members when the
plaintiff's condition changed; and (vii) maintain adequate
records.

Johnson filed the lawsuit in Fayette Circuit Court on Oct. 16,
2018.  She later amended her complaint to assert a class action.
Johnson's individual causes of action and damage claims include:
(i) negligence (Count 1); (ii) medical negligence (Count 2); (iii)
corporate negligence (Count 3); (iv) violation of long-term care
residents' rights under KRS 216.510 (Count 4); (v) negligence by
Ann Phillips (Count V); (vi) breach of contract (Count VI); (vii)
punitive damages (Count VII); and (viii) causation and damages
(Count VIII). Johnson asserts on behalf of the purported class the
following causes of action and damage claims: (i) fraud in the
inducement (Count IX); (ii) fraudulent misrepresentation,
concealment, and nondisclosure (Count X); (iii) negligent
misrepresentation (Count XI); (iv) negligence (Count XII); (v)
breach of contract (Count XIII); (vi) contractual breach of
fiduciary duty (Count XIV); (vii) breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing (Count XV); (viii) unjust enrichment
(Count XVI); (ix) violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act
(Count XVII); (x) violation of a "special relationship" (Count
XVIII); (xi) civil conspiracy (Count XIX); (xii) joint enterprise
(Count XX); (xiii) concert of action (Count XXI); (xiv) punitive
damages (Count XXII); (xv) attorney's fees (Count XXIII); and (xvi)
causation and damages for Counts IX to XXIII (Count XXIV).

Johnson has moved to remand this action to the Fayette Circuit
Court.  She argues that the Defendants have not established the
requisite amount in controversy under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").  Alternatively, she contends that the matter should be
remanded because the local controversy exception to CAFA applies.

Judge Reeves finds that in addition to the request for the money
received based on alleged overreporting, the amount in controversy
more likely than not exceeds $5 million, taking into account
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.

The Judge also finds that Johnson cannot show that the case meets
all of the elements of the local controversy exception.  He finds
that (i) greater than two-thirds of the proposed class are citizens
of Kentucky; (ii) Johnson fails to establish that the conduct of
the in-state Defendants formed a significant basis of the action;
(iii) the principal injuries occurred in Kentucky; and (iv) there
are cases that were filed within the last three years asserting
similar factual allegations against at least one of the Defendants.


Based on the foregoing, the Judge concludes that the Defendants
have shown that the amount in controversy more likely than not
exceeds $5 million.  Additionally, the matter does not fall within
the local controversy exception to the CAFA.  Accordingly, he
denied the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand.

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

Carrie Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Peterson --
jpeterson@goldenlawoffice.com -- Golden Law Office, PLLC, Laraclay
Drake Parker -- lparker@goldenlawoffice.com -- Golden Law Office,
PLLC & Kellie Marie Collins, Golden Law Office, PLLC.

BLC Lexington SNF, LLC, doing business as Brookdale Richmond Place
SNF (KY), ARC Richmond Place, Inc., doing business as Brookdale
Home Health, American Retirement Corporation, Brookdale Senior
Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., Ann
Phillips, in her Capacity as Executive Director and Administrator
of Brookdale Richmond Place, Emeritus Corporation, Park Place
Investments, LLC, BKD Personal Assistance Services, LLC, Horizon
Bay Management, LLC, Emericare Inc, BKD Richmond Place Propco, LLC,
Brookdale Employee Services - Corporate LLC, Brookdale Employee
Services, LLC, BKD Twenty One Management Company, Inc. & Benita
Dickenson, in her Capacity as Managing Employee of Brookdale
Richmond Place, SNF, Defendants, represented by Donald L. Miller,
II -- dmiller@qpwblaw.com -- Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer,
P.A., J. Peter Cassidy, III -- pcassidy@qpwblaw.com -- Quintaros,
Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. & Matthew Coleman Cocanougher --
mcocanougher@qpwblaw.com -- Quintaros, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A.

BRE Knight SH KY Owner, LLC, ARC Therapy Services, LLC, Brookdale
Associate Fund, Inc., Lucinda Baier, in her capacity as Owner of
and Manager of various defendants, Chad C. White, in his capacity
as Owner of and Manager of various defendants, Mary Sue Patchett,
in her capacity as Owner of and Manager of various defendants,
Joanne Leskowicz, in her capacity as Owner of and Manager of
various defendants, George T. Hicks, in his capacity as Owner of
and Manager of various defendants, Labeed Diab, in his capacity as
Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF, Geraldine Gordon-Krupp, in
her capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place, SNF, Bryan
Richardson, in his capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond Place,
SNF & Thomas Smith, in his capacity as Owner of Brookdale Richmond
Place, SNF, Defendants, represented by Matthew Coleman Cocanougher,
Quintaros, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A..


BRITAX CHILD SAFETY: Perez Files Suit Over Defective Stroller
-------------------------------------------------------------
KARRY PEREZ, JOHN FITZGERALD, KATHY CAPRON, MARK WADE, JESSICA
SHROPSHALL, and HADEL TOMA on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRITAX CHILD SAFETY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-01735-JMC (S.D. Fla., June 17, 2019)
demands judgment against Defendant seeking compensatory damages,
including a complete refund of the purchase price of the BOB
Strollers, pre- and post-judgment interest, injunctive and
declaratory relief, and costs incurred.

The Defendant markets itself and its products as "high-quality,"
"innovative," "revolutionary," "beyond 'good enough,'" "pushing
boundaries," and "driving safety standards" to ensure children have
never been better protected on the move." In 2011, Defendant
acquired BOB Gear, a company which also designed, manufactured, and
sold car seats and stroller. Defendant assumed all assets and
liabilities of BOB Gear and is the successor to BOB Gear. Defendant
continued to design, manufacture, and sell BOB Strollers since
their acquisition in 2011. BOB Strollers are designed and marketed
to be suitable for jogging and for use in rough terrain. BOB
Strollers are notable for their large front wheel. The front of the
stroller has a "fork" which holds the front wheel with an axle. The
axle is attached to the fork with a "quick release" mechanism that
allows the user to easily remove the front wheel.

The complaint asserts that the axle, axle fork, and/or axle quick
release ("front wheel assembly") of the BOB Strollers are
defectively designed and/or manufactured, allowing use of the
stroller without the front wheel being properly secured. Because of
the defect, the wheel may detach unexpectedly. When the front wheel
detaches, the stroller may tip over or the fork may dig into the
ground in front of the stroller, causing injuries to children in
the stroller and/or the person pushing the stroller. At high speeds
or in rough terrain--conditions in which the stroller is designed
and marketed to be used--injuries may be more serious.

At least 200 reports of the defect, accounting for approximately
100 injuries to children and adults, have been submitted to the
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) since 2012. Injuries to
children have included "a concussion, injuries to the head and face
requiring stitches, dental injuries, contusions and abrasions."
Injuries to adults have included "torn labrum, fractured bones and
torn ligaments, contusions and abrasions." The CPSC filed an
administrative complaint against Defendant in February 2018 after
Defendant was made aware of the injuries but declined to recall or
repair the defective Stroller. The Defendant has made and continues
to make misleading and false statements in advertising and
marketing materials concerning the quality, safety, and reliability
of BOB Strollers.

The Defendant's statements concerning the stroller are intended to
and do induce customers into believing that BOB Stroller are
high-quality, safe, and reliable, that the strollers are free of
defects, and that the stroller conform to Defendant's
representations. Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably relied on
Defendant's statements when purchasing BOB Strollers. Customers are
therefore willing to and do pay a premium for the quality, safety,
and reliability that Defendant advertises. The BOB Strollers'
defective front wheel assembly, by failing to work properly, failed
to conform to Defendant's representations. Plaintiffs and Class
members sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of
Defendant's conduct and BOB Strollers' defects, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs purchased the Ironman Stroller and experienced the
defect.

Defendant designs, manufactures, and sells "child safety
technology," including car seats and stroller.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Harper Segui, Esq.
     WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON LLP
     900 W. Morgan Street
     Raleigh, NC 27603
     Phone: 919-600-5000
     Fax: 919-600-5035
     Email: harper@wbmllp.com

          - and -

     Gary E. Mason, Esq.
     WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON LLP
     5101 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 305
     Washington, DC 20016
     Phone: 202-429-2290
     Fax: 202-429-2294
     Email: gmason@wbmllp.com

          - and -

     Daniel Levin, Esq.
     Charles S. Schaffer, Esq.
     Nicholas Elia, Esq.
     LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
     510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Phone: 215-592-1500
     Fax: 215-592-4663
     Email: DLevin@lfsblaw.com
            CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com
            Nelia@lfsblaw.com

          - and -

     D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
     ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: 512-214-7477
     Email: arihn@peircelaw.com

          - and -

     Jeff Goldenberg, Esq.
     GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
     One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Phone: 513-345-8291
     Fax: 513-345-8294
     Email: JGoldenberg@gs-legal.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated New Jersey Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 28, 2019, that the defendants are
seeking dismissal of the class action suit entitled, In re Campbell
Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS.

On January 7, 2019, three purported shareholder class action
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey were consolidated under the caption, In re
Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ. No.
1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS (the Action).

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was appointed
lead plaintiff in the Action and, on March 1, 2019, filed an
amended consolidated complaint.

The company, Denise Morrison (the company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) are defendants
in the Action.

The consolidated complaint alleges that, in public statements
between July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material
information about the company's business, operations, customer
relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to the
Campbell Fresh segment.

The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

On April 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

Campbell said, "We are vigorously defending against the Action."

Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures
and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through
three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global
Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh. Campbell Soup Company was
founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey.


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Turner Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry A. Turner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff,vs. Capital Management Services,
LP, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00788 (W.D.N.Y., June 14,
2019), seeks to recover damages for the Defendant's violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices.

In its efforts to collect an alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter. The Defendant contacted Plaintiff by telephone
at least on two occasions, including August 20 and 28, 2018.  On
each occasion Defendant left a message on Plaintiff's voicemail.
The messages conveyed information regarding the alleged Debt. The
Letter was the initial written communication Plaintiff received
from Defendant concerning the alleged Debt, the lawsuit says.

Congress enacted the FDCPA upon finding that debt collection abuse
by third party debt collectors was a widespread and serious
national problem. The purpose of the FDCPA is to protect consumers
from deceptive or harassing actions taken by debt collectors, with
the aim of limiting the suffering and anguish often inflicted by
independent debt collectors.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com

CAPITAL ONE: Petruzzi Seeks Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Karen Petruzzi and Kathy Packett, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Capital One Financial
Corporation and Capital One, National Association, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00443 (E.D. Va., June 14, 2019), seeks unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs arising
out of the Defendants' Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 violation.


The Plaintiffs regularly work or worked more than 40 hours per
workweek for the Defendant without receiving overtime compensation
as required under the FLSA. Capital One wrongly classified
Plaintiffs and other process managers as exempt from overtime under
the FLSA.

Petruzzi was hired by a predecessor company of Capital One in 1994,
and worked continuously for the same employer until her termination
from Capital One on January 16, 2018. Petruzzi worked as a Senior
Process Manager for Capital One. Petruzzi worked mainly from
Capital One's West Creek office complex in Goochland County,
Virginia, and the Knolls complex in the Innsbrook office park in
Henrico County, Virginia. She also worked overseas for weeks at a
time on Capital One business, and also worked remotely from home.

Petruzzi's duties involved working with overseas vendors of Capital
One to ensure compliance and performance standards set by Capital
One were being met. Petruzzi's primary duties involved
communicating Capital One's policies, procedures, and standards of
performance to vendors; evaluating vendor performance metrics to
determine whether they were complying with Capital One's policies,
procedures, and standards; gathering metrics on vendor performance,
and comparing vendor performance to Capital One's vendor standards.
In performing these primary duties, Petruzzi sent or received over
a hundred emails per day, participated in numerous meetings, and
often traveled overseas to work at the vendor's worksite for spans
of a week or more.

Petruzzi did not supervise two or more full-time employees during
the time she worked as a Senior Process Manager for Capital One in
2017. Other than periods of leave, Petruzzi regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

Capital One Financial Corporation is a bank holding company
specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking and savings
accounts headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Capital One is ranked
10th on the list of largest banks in the United States by
assets.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          CURWOOD LAW FIRM
          530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 788-0808
          Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
          E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com

CAPSTONE TURBINE: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Turbine Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2019,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the parties in the
consolidated class action suit in California are awaiting the
court's decision on the motion for preliminary approval of
settlement.

Two putative securities class action complaints were filed against
the company and certain of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
under the following captions:  David Kinney, etc. v. Capstone
Turbine, et al., No. 2:15-CV-08914 on November 16, 2015 (the
"Kinney Complaint") and Kevin M. Grooms, etc. v. Capstone Turbine,
et al., No. 2:15-CV-09155 on November 25, 2015 (the "Grooms
Complaint").

The putative class in the Kinney Complaint was comprised of all
purchasers of the company's securities between November 7, 2013 and
November 5, 2015. The Kinney Complaint alleges material
misrepresentations and omissions in public statements regarding BPC
Engineering (BPC) and the likelihood that BPC would not be able to
fulfill many legal and financial obligations to the company.  

The Kinney Complaint also alleges that the company's financial
statements were not appropriately adjusted in light of this
situation and were not maintained in accordance with Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and that the company lacked
adequate internal controls over accounting.  

The Kinney Complaint alleges that these public statements and
accounting irregularities constituted violations by all named
defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by the individual defendants.  

The Grooms Complaint makes allegations and claims that are
substantially identical to those in the Kinney Complaint, and both
complaints seek compensatory damages of an undisclosed amount.  

On January 16, 2016, several shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the Kinney and Grooms actions and for appointment as
lead plaintiff.  

On February 29, 2016, the Court granted the motions to consolidate,
and appointed a lead plaintiff.  

On May 6, 2016, a Consolidated Amended Complaint with allegations
and claims substantially identical to those of the Kinney Complaint
was filed in the consolidated action.  

The putative class period in the Consolidated Amended Complaint is
June 12, 2014 to November 5, 2015.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on June 17, 2016. On March 10, 2017, the Court issued an
order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety with
leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 28, 2017.
Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed June 2, 2017. Plaintiffs
filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 7, 2017,
and Defendants filed their reply in support of the motion to
dismiss on July 28, 2017.

The court vacated the hearing that was scheduled for August 18,
2017. On February 9, 2018, the Court issued an Order denying
Defendants' motion to dismiss. On March 30, 2018, Defendants filed
an answer to the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On May 17, 2018,
the Court issued a scheduling order setting a trial date of March
17, 2020.

On June 26, 2018, the Court entered an order vacating all deadlines
through the end of October 2018 and temporarily staying formal
discovery and other proceedings to allow the parties time to
conduct a mediation.

The parties participated in mediation on September 24, 2018, which
did not result in a settlement. On November 16, 2018, after further
settlement discussions, the parties advised the Court that they had
reached an agreement in principle to settle the action in its
entirety.

The agreement in principle is subject to several conditions,
including the execution of a stipulation of settlement that is
satisfactory to all parties, and preliminary and final approval
from the court, among other things. Plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on April
12, 2019, and filed supplementary declarations in support of the
motion on May 2, 2019.

A hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement
is scheduled for May 17, 2019.

Capstone said, "If the settlement is finalized and approved by the
Court, the Company's insurance carrier will fund the settlement
amount. We have not recorded any liability as of March 31, 2019
since any potential loss is not considered material as our
insurance carrier will fund the settlement amount."

Capstone Turbine Corporation develops, manufactures, markets, and
services microturbine technology solutions for use in stationary
distributed power generation applications worldwide. Capstone
Turbine Corporation was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Van
Nuys, California.


CHICO'S FAS: Altman Class Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., has been
stayed.

In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. ("WHBM") was named as
a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia ("District Court").

The complaint alleges that WHBM, in violation of federal law,
willfully published more than the last five digits of a credit or
debit card number on customers’ point-of-sale receipts. The
plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for
each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as attorneys'
fees, costs and punitive damages.

WHBM denies the material allegations of the complaint and believes
the case is without merit.

On February 12, 2018, the District Court issued an order certifying
the class.

On April 9, 2018, the District Court, sua sponte, issued an order
granting WHBM's earlier 2016 request to appeal, to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals ("Eleventh Circuit"), the District Court's
ruling that the plaintiff has standing to maintain the lawsuit.

On April 19, 2018, WHBM filed a petition for review in the Eleventh
Circuit. In the meantime, the District Court stayed all further
proceedings in the case pending the outcome of the appeal in the
Eleventh Circuit.

On July 12, 2018, the plaintiff and WHBM notified the Eleventh
Circuit that the plaintiff and WHBM had reached a class settlement
on all claims and therefore voluntarily dismissed WHBM's appeal to
the Eleventh Circuit. On August 2, 2018, the District Court
reopened the case for purposes of reviewing/approving the proposed
settlement.

On October 22, 2018, the plaintiff filed the settlement papers with
the District Court, along with a motion to stay the District
Court's consideration of the settlement pending the Eleventh
Circuit's final disposition of Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier,
Inc., in which the Eleventh Circuit held, in an opinion issued
October 3, 2018, that the display of the first five and last four
digits of a credit or debit card number on a customer's receipt
given at the point of sale establishes a "concrete injury"
sufficient to confer Article III standing, enabling the customer to
maintain a lawsuit.

The motion to stay was granted on November 15, 2018.

A petition for rehearing was filed in the Muransky case on October
24, 2018 and is currently pending before the Eleventh Circuit.

The Muransky opinion, if not altered on the petition for rehearing,
would bind the District Court in the Altman case and likely
establish that the plaintiff has standing to maintain her lawsuit
against WHBM. In such event, the stay will be lifted and the
proposed settlement will be reviewed by the District Court. If the
Eleventh Circuit does not find standing in the Muransky case, the
parties have agreed to submit the proposed settlement to the
Superior Court for Cobb County, Georgia for approval. The proposed
settlement would not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition or results of
operations.

Chico's FAS said, "However, no assurance can be given that the
proposed settlement will be approved. If the proposed settlement is
rejected and the case were to proceed as a class action and WHBM
were to be unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, then the
ultimate resolution of the case could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results
of operations."

Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of
women’s private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and
complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White
House Black Market (WHBM), and Soma brand names. The company also
sells its products through catalogs and its Websites. Chico's FAS,
Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers,
Florida.


CHICO'S FAS: Continues to Defend Fisher Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Fisher v. Chico's FAS, Inc.

In May 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in Fisher v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.

The complaint alleges that the Company advertised fictitious prices
and corresponding phantom discounts on its made-for-outlet products
in its Chico's outlets in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Laws, California's False Advertising Laws and the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the Company's profits and
alleged unjust enrichment resulting from such advertising
practices, injunctive relief, a corrective advertising campaign, as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company was served on May 10, 2019 and its response is due May
31, 2019.

The Company is currently investigating the underlying allegations
and will vigorously defend the case.

Chico's FAS said, "At this time, it is not possible to predict
whether this matter ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a
class action, and no assurance can be given as to the ultimate
outcome of this matter. However, if the matter were to proceed as a
class action and the Company were to be unsuccessful in its defense
on the merits, then the ultimate resolution of the case could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
condition or results of operations."

Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of
women’s private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and
complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White
House Black Market (WHBM), and Soma brand names. The company also
sells its products through catalogs and its Websites. Chico's FAS,
Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers,
Florida.


CHINACACHE INTERNATIONAL: Sun Sues over Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against ChinaCache
International Holdings Ltd., Song Wang, Guangsheng Meng, Fengye
Gao, and Jing An for violations Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The case is captioned YI SUN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CHINACACHE INTERNATIONAL
HOLDINGS LTD., SONG WANG, GUANGSHENG MENG, FENGYE GAO, and JING AN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05485 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2019).

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants allegedly made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) ChinaCache and Defendant Song Wang, the company's Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors were
engaged in enterprise bribery; (ii) the foregoing conduct placed
ChinaCache and Wang at a heightened risk of criminal investigation
and enforcement action by government authorities, which would
foreseeably disrupt the company's operations; and (iii) as a
result, the company's public statements were materially false and
misleading.

ChinaCache was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Beijing, the
People's Republic of China. ChinaCache's American depositary
receipts trade on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol CCIH.
ChinaCache is an investment holding company that provides content
and application delivery services in the PRC. It purports to offer
a portfolio of services and solutions to businesses, government
agencies, and other enterprises to enhance the reliability and
scalability of their online services and applications. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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


CIENA CORP: Settlement Reached in Employee Retirement Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 12, 2019, for the quarterly period ended April
30, 2019, that the parties in the case, Beaver County Employees
Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., have agreed to terms
of settlement of the action.

As a result of the acquisition of Cyan in August 2015, Ciena became
a defendant in a securities class action lawsuit.

On April 1, 2014, the first of two purported stockholder class
action lawsuits was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco, against Cyan, the members of Cyan's board
of directors, Cyan's former Chief Financial Officer, and the
underwriters of Cyan's initial public offering.

The cases were consolidated as Beaver County Employees Retirement
Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-14-538355.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of
Cyan's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus for Cyan's initial public offering in
April 2013, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other
relief.

On May 19, 2015, the proposed class was certified. During the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2018, the parties agreed to the terms of a
settlement of the action, which settlement is subject to notice to
class members and approval by the court.

The terms of the proposed settlement, which include a release and
dismissal of all claims against all defendants without any
liability or wrongdoing attributed to them, are not material to the
Ciena's financial results.

Ciena said, "There is no assurance that the court will ultimately
approve the settlement."

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

Ciena Corporation provides network hardware, software, and services
that support the transport, switching, aggregation, service
delivery, and management of video, data, and voice traffic on
communications networks worldwide. Ciena Corporation was founded in
1992 and is headquartered in Hanover, Maryland.


CIRCLE K: Halawani Sues over Automated Marketing Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Circle K Stores,
Inc. for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). The case is captioned SHLOMY HALAWANI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CIRCLE K
STORES INC, Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61479 (S.D. Fla., June 13,
2019).

Plaintiff Shlomy Halawani alleges that the Defendant hired a
third-party company to send marketing text messages using
mass-automated technology. The Defendant repeatedly sent the
marketing 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. Accordingly, Plaintiff Halawani seeks injunctive
relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct. Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
the illegal actions of Defendant.

Circle K Stores, Inc. is a Canadian-owned American multinational
chain of convenience stores with thousands of stores across the
United States. The company's principal office is located at 1130 W.
Warner Road, Building B, Tempe, Arizona.  [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


CLIENT SERVICES: Han Says Collection Letter Violates FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
Alice J. Han, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Client Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03514-ENV-LB (E.D. N.Y., June 14, 2019) seeks to recover
for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").

In its efforts to collect the alleged Debt, Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter dated dated July 13, 2018. To comply with the
FDCPA, a statement of "the amount of the debt" must contain an
explanation, understandable by the least sophisticated consumer, of
any fees or interest that may cause the amount of the debt to
increase. The failure to include the foregoing information renders
an otherwise accurate statement of the "amount of the debt"
violative of the FDCPA.

According to the complaint, the July 13 Letter states, "MINIMUM
PAYMENT DUE" and "NEW BALANCE" along with a line asserting, "As of
the date of this letter, the balance due is $6,797.22." There is no
clear indication as to what is the amount that would satisfy the
debt. The Letter does not explain what the "MINIMUM PAYMENT DUE"
designation represents. The Letter fails to clarify as to, by when
such payment is due or how such amount gets impacted if it is not
paid by a certain date. The "MINIMUM PAYMENT DUE" could be
interpreted as the minimum payment required to satisfy the debt.
Alternatively, "MINIMUM PAYMENT DUE" could represent the amount due
by a certain date and the rest to be owed and paid by another date.


As a result, Defendant did not clearly convey, from the perspective
of the least sophisticated consumer, that the amount of the alleged
Debt or the "MINIMUM PAYMENT DUE." The Letter fails to state that
the Creditor will accept payment of the amount set forth in full
satisfaction of the debt if payment is made by a specified date,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Alice J. Han is an individual who is a citizen of the
State of New York and is a natural person allegedly obligated to
pay a debt.

Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLIENT SERVICES: Park Sues over Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
Eun K Park, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff,  vs. Client Services, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-03519-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y., June 14, 2019), seeks to
recover damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices.

In its efforts to collect an alleged debt, the Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter dated July 9, 2018. The Letter conveyed
information regarding the alleged Debt. The Letter is a
"communication" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(2).  The
Letter fails to identify by name and label any entity as
"creditor," "original creditor," "current creditor," "account
owner," or "creditor to whom the debt is owed."

Congress enacted the FDCPA upon finding that debt collection abuse
by third party debt collectors was a widespread and serious
national problem. The purpose of the FDCPA is to protect consumers
from deceptive or harassing actions taken by debt collectors, with
the aim of limiting the suffering and anguish often inflicted by
independent debt collectors.

The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect debts
asserted to be owed to Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit,
in the collection of debts allegedly others.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGIES: Denies Call Center Agents Wages, Says Luker
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW LUKER, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGIES SOLUTIONS
U.S. CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01448 (M.D. Fla.,
June 16, 2019) is a lawsuit brought as a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover unpaid wages owed
to Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated workers employed in
Defendant's call centers nationwide.

The Defendant's policy and practice is to deny earned wages and
overtime pay to its telephone-dedicated hourly employees at its
call center facilities which violates the FLSA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiffs work as call center employees at Defendant's call center
located in Orlando, Florida.

Defendants operate call centers in numerous states across the
country.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     BRANDON J. HILL, ESQ.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Main Number: 813-224-0431
     Direct Dial: 813-337-7992
     Facsimile: 813-229-8712
     Email: bhill@wfclaw.com
            twells@wfclaw.com

          - and -

     CHAD A. JUSTICE, ESQ.
     JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
     1205 N Franklin St, Suite 326
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: 813-566-0550
     Facsimile: 813-566-0770
     Email: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Consolidated Johnson & Chen Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended May 12, 2019, that a consolidated
amended complaint has been filed in the Johnson & Chen lawsuit.

The Company and its CEO and CFO are defendants in putative class
actions brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company
stock between June 6 and October 25, 2018. Johnson v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed Nov. 5, 2018); Chen v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash. filed Dec. 11, 2018).  


The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws
stemming from the Company's disclosures concerning internal control
over financial reporting.  

They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest, and
costs and attorneys' fees.  

On January 30, 2019, an order was entered consolidating the actions
and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2019.

The Company expects the consolidated action to be vigorously
defended.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Numerous Employees' Class Suits Filed in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended May 12, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in numerous class action suits in California.


The Company is a defendant in a class action alleging violation of
California Wage Order 7-2001 for failing to provide seating to
member service assistants who act as greeters in the Company's
California warehouses. Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al.
(Case No. 5:13-CV-03598, N.D. Cal. filed July 1, 2013). The
complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code, including
civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The Company filed an answer
denying the material allegations of the complaint. The action in
the district court has been stayed pending review by the Ninth
Circuit of the order certifying a class.

In January 2019, an employee brought similar claims for relief
concerning Costco employees engaged at member services counters in
California. Rodriguez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No.
RG19001310, Alameda Superior Court filed Jan. 4, 2019).

In December 2018, a depot employee raised similar claims, alleging
that employees in California did not receive suitable seating or
appropriate workplace temperature conditions. Lane v. Costco
Wholesale Corp. (Dec. 6, 2018 Notice to California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency).

In January 2019, a former seasonal employee filed a class action,
alleging failure to provide California seasonal employees meal and
rest breaks, proper wage statements, and appropriate wages. Jadan
v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 19-CV-340438 Santa Clara
Superior Court filed Jan. 3, 2019). The complaint seeks relief
under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and
attorneys' fees.

On March 25, 2019, employees filed a class action against the
Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay
overtime, to provide itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages
due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair
business practices. Relief is sought under the California Labor
Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Nevarez, et
ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (Case No. 19ST-CV-10017 Los
Angeles County Superior Court filed Mar. 25, 2019).

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


DAKINE INC: Website not Accessible to Blind Person, Reid Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
VALENTIN REID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. DAKINE, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05555 (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2019), seeks permanent injunction
to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.  Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report,
approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually
impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the
American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately
400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

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

Dakine is an American outdoor clothing company specializing in
sportswear and sports equipment for alternative sports based in
Hood River Oregon. Founded in Hawaii, the name comes from the
Hawaiian Pidgin word "da kine".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David Force, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          285 Passaic Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

DART CONTAINER: Pretrial Scheduling Order Issued in Flores
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA FLORES, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff, v. DART
CONTAINER CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation; DART CONTAINER
CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, a Michigan corporation; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00083-WBS-EFB (E.D. Cal.),
Judge Wiliam B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California has issued a Status (Pretrial Scheduling)
Order (i) vacating the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference
scheduled for May 28, 2019; and (ii) making findings and orders
without needing to consult with the parties any further.

The parties agree to serve the initial disclosures required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) on June 7, 2019.  They
will disclose experts and produce reports in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than March 26,
2020.  With regard to expert testimony intended solely for
rebuttal, those experts will be disclosed and reports produced in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) on or
before April 27, 2020.

All discovery, including depositions for preservation of testimony,
is left open, save and except that it will be so conducted as to be
completed by May 26, 2020.  The word "completed" means that all
discovery will have been conducted so that all depositions have
been taken and any disputes relevant to discovery will have been
resolved by appropriate order if necessary and, where discovery has
been ordered, the order has been obeyed.  All motions to compel
discovery must be noticed on the magistrate judge's calendar in
accordance with the local rules of this court and so that such
motions may be heard (and any resulting orders obeyed) not later
than May 26, 2020.

All motions, except motions for continuances, temporary restraining
orders, or other emergency applications, will be filed on or before
July 14, 2020.  All motions will be noticed for the next available
hearing date.  The counsel is cautioned to refer to the local rules
regarding the requirements for noticing and opposing such motions
on the Court's regularly scheduled law and motion calendar.

The Final Pretrial Conference is set for Sept. 28, 2020, at 1:30
p.m. in Courtroom No. 5.  The conference will be attended by at
least one of the attorneys who will conduct the trial for each of
the parties and by any unrepresented parties.

The counsel for all parties are to be fully prepared for trial at
the time of the Pretrial Conference, with no matters remaining to
be accomplished except production of witnesses for oral testimony.
Counsel will file separate pretrial statements, and are referred to
Local Rules 281 and 282 relating to the contents of and time for
filing those statements.  In addition to those subjects listed in
Local Rule 281(b), the parties are to provide the court with: (1) a
plain, concise statement which identifies every non-discovery
motion which has been made to the court, and its resolution; (2) a
list of the remaining claims as against each defendant; and (3) the
estimated number of trial days.

In providing the plain, concise statements of undisputed facts and
disputed factual issues contemplated by Local Rule 281(b)(3)-(4),
the parties will emphasize the claims that remain at issue, and any
remaining affirmatively pled defenses thereto.  If the case is to
be tried to a jury, the parties will also prepare a succinct
statement of the case, which is appropriate for the Court to read
to the jury.

A jury trial is set for Nov. 17, 2020 at 9:00 a.m.  The parties
agree that it is premature to estimate the potential length of the
trial because they are unsure whether this will be a class action,
PAGA representative action, or individual action.

A Settlement Conference will be set at the time of the Pretrial
Conference.  All parties should be prepared to advise the Court
whether they will stipulate to the trial judge acting as settlement
judge and waive disqualification by virtue thereof.

The counsel is instructed to have a principal with full settlement
authority present at the Settlement Conference or to be fully
authorized to settle the matter on any terms.  At least seven
calendar days before the Settlement Conference counsel for each
party will submit a confidential Settlement Conference Statement
for review by the settlement judge.  If the settlement judge is not
the trial judge, the Settlement Conference Statements will not be
filed and will not otherwise be disclosed to the trial judge.

Any requests to modify the dates or terms of the Scheduling Order,
except requests to change the date of the trial, may be heard and
decided by the assigned Magistrate Judge.  All requests to change
the trial date will be heard and decided only by Judge Shubb.

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

Angela Flores, Plaintiff, represented by Jenny Dione Baysinger --
jbaysinger@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, PC.

Dart Container Corporation, a Nevada corporation & Dart Container
Corporation of California, a Michigan corporation, Defendants,
represented by Andrew W. Russell -- arussell@foxrothschild.com --
Fox Rothschild LLP & Yesenia M. Gallegos, Fox Rothschild LLP.


DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Intends to Dismiss Class V Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 3, 2019, that the defendants in the
consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re Dell Class V
Litigation (Consol. C.A. No. 2018-0816-JTL), intends to file a
motion to dismiss the action.

Four purported stockholders brought putative class action
complaints arising out of the Class V transaction. The actions were
captioned Hallandale Beach Police and Fire Retirement Plan v.
Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2018-0816-JTL), Howard Karp
v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2019-0032-JTL), Miramar
Police Officers' Retirement Plan v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil
Action No. 2019-0049-JTL), and Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan
v. Michael Dell et al. (Civil Action No. 2019-0115-JTL).

The four actions were consolidated into In Re Dell Class V
Litigation (Consol. C.A. No. 2018-0816-JTL), which names as
defendants the Company's board of directors and certain
stockholders of the Company, including Michael S. Dell and entities
through which Mr. Dell allegedly holds a portion of his and/or his
family's stock.

The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the former holders of Class V Common Stock in
connection with the Class V transaction by allegedly causing the
Company to enter into a transaction that favored the interests of
the controlling stockholders at the expense of such former
stockholders.

The Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss the action.

Dell Technologies Inc. provides computer products. The Company
offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers, monitors,
printers, gateways, software, storage, and net working products.
Dell Technologies serves customers worldwide. Dell Technologies
Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round Rock, Texas.



DELL TECHNOLOGIES: October Hearing on Summary Judgment Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 3, 2019, that a trial on the company's
motion for summary judgment in the case, City of Pontiac General
Employees' Retirement System v. Dell Inc., et. al., is currently
set for October 2019.

On May 21, 2014, a securities class action seeking compensatory
damages was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned City of Pontiac General
Employees' Retirement System v. Dell Inc., et. al. (Case No.
1:14-cv-03644).

The action names as defendants Dell Inc. and certain current and
former executive officers, and alleges that Dell made false and
misleading statements about Dell's financial results and future
prospects between February 21, 2012 and May 22, 2012, which
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas under the same caption (Case No.
1:15-cv-00374), where the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On
September 16, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.

On March 29, 2018, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, and certified a class consisting of all
purchasers of Dell common stock between February 22, 2012 and May
22, 2012.

Fact and expert discovery is now closed.

Dell filed a motion for summary judgment on February 18, 2019,
which is now fully-briefed and pending before the Court. If the
matter is not dismissed, a trial is currently set for October
2019.

Dell Technologies Inc. provides computer products. The Company
offers laptops, desktops, tablets, workstations, servers, monitors,
printers, gateways, software, storage, and net working products.
Dell Technologies serves customers worldwide. Dell Technologies
Inc. was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Round Rock, Texas.



DELTA AUTO: Vargas Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO VARGAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DELTA AUTO PROTECT; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-01193 (C.D. Cal., June 14, 2019), seeks to recover damages
and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from
the illegal actions of the Defendants, in negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related
regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions,
thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around April of 2019,
Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in -3593, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to
purchase Defendants' services. The Defendants used an "automatic
telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1)
to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services.

The Defendants contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from
telephone number (682) 207–2023, (866) 598-5429, and (786)
530-5866, confirmed to be Defendants' number. Defendants' calls
constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined
by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). Defendants' calls were placed to
telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which
Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
section 227(b)(1).

The Defendants did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent"
to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant
to 47 U.S.C. section 7 227(b)(1)(A).

Further, Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -3593 has
been on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since at least June 29,
2010. The Defendants placed multiple calls soliciting its business
to Plaintiff on his cellular telephone ending in -3593 in or around
April of 2019. Such calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant to
47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote or
sell Defendants' services, the lawsuit says. [BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

DR REDDY'S: Court Narrows Claims in NJ Suit
-------------------------------------------
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 Court has
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims with respect to 17 out of the 22
alleged misstatements and omissions.

On August 25, 2017, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The Company's Co-Chairman, its Chief Operating Officer, and Dr.
Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., were also subsequently named as
defendants in the case. The operative complaint alleges that the
Company made false or misleading statements or omissions in its
public filings, in violation of U.S. federal securities laws, and
that the Company's share price dropped and its investors were
affected.

On May 9, 2018, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

On June 25, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion
to dismiss and, on July 25, 2018, a further reply in support of the
motion to dismiss was filed by the Company. In August 2018, oral
argument on the motion to dismiss was heard by the Court.

On March 21, 2019, the District Court issued its decision granting
in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss.

Pursuant to that decision, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs
claims with respect to seventeen out of the twenty two alleged
misstatements and omissions.

The Company believes that the asserted claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations.

Dr. Reddy's said, "Any liability that may arise on account of this
claim 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.


DXC TECHNOLOGY: Securities Class Suit in Virginia Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
DXC Technology Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 13, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a securities class action suit in Virginia entitled, In re
DXC Technology Company Securities Litigation.

On December 27, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia against the Company and two of its current officers.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and alleged
non-disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class
period of February 8, 2018 to November 6, 2018.

In March 2019, three related shareholder derivative lawsuits were
filed in the District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for
Clark County, against two of the Company's current officers and the
members of the Company's board of directors, asserting claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust
enrichment.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend all claims asserted.

DXC Technology Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
information technology services and solutions primarily in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. It operates through three
segments: Global Business Services (GBS), Global Infrastructure
Services (GIS), and United States Public Sector (USPS). The company
was formerly known as Computer Sciences Corporation and changed its
name to DXC Technology Company in April 2017 as a result of its
merger with the Enterprise Services business of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Company. DXC Technology Company was founded in 1959 and
is headquartered in Tysons, Virginia.


EUROSTAR INC: Escobedo Seeks Unpaid Wages, Benefits
---------------------------------------------------
MARYCARMEN ESCOBEDO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EUROSTAR, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV20902 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 17, 2019)
seeks monetary relief against Defendants on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated in California to recover, among other
things, unpaid wages and benefits, interest, attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses.

Through this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a
systematic pattern of wage and hour violations unfair the
California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC")
Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants' deliberate
unfair competition. In violation of the Labor Code and IWC Wage
Orders, Plaintiff and Class Members were not paid all wages
(including minimum wages and overtime wages) for all hours worked,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in California during the
relevant time period.

Defendants own and operate retail stores throughout California,
including Los Angeles County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     SAMUELA. WONG, ESQ.
     KASHIF HAQUE, ESQ.
     JESSICA L. CAMPBELL, ESQ.
     AEGIS LAWFIRM, PC
     9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: (949) 379-6250
     Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Judgment of Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the judgment of the
Southern District Court dismissing the class action lawsuits with
prejudice.

Ferrellgas has been named, along with several former officers, in
several class action lawsuits alleging violations of certain
securities laws based on alleged materially false and misleading
statements in certain of our public disclosures.

The lawsuits, the first of which was filed on October 6, 2016 in
the Southern District of New York, seek unspecified compensatory
damages.

Derivative lawsuits with similar allegations have been filed naming
Ferrellgas and several current and former officers and directors as
defendants.

On April 2, 2018, the securities class action lawsuits were
dismissed with prejudice. On April 30, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

On April 24, 2019 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Southern District Court
dismissing the class action lawsuits with prejudice.

At this time the derivative lawsuits remain stayed by agreement.

Ferrellgas believes that it has defenses and will vigorously defend
these cases. Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or
reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class
action lawsuits or the derivative actions.

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. distributes and sells propane and related
equipment and supplies. The company transports propane to propane
distribution locations, tanks on customers' premises, or to
portable propane tanks delivered to retailers. Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Overland Park,
Kansas.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Consolidated Suit in Missouri Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated class action suit pending before the
Western District of Missouri.

Ferrellgas has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor,
in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions.


The lawsuits, which were consolidated in the Western District of
Missouri on October 16, 2014, allege that Ferrellgas and a
competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque
cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that
fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct
customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws.

The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive
relief and costs on behalf of the putative class.

These lawsuits have been consolidated into one case by a
multidistrict litigation panel. The Federal Court for the Western
District of Missouri initially dismissed all claims brought by
direct and indirect customers other than state law claims of
indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. The
direct customer plaintiffs filed an appeal, which resulted in a
reversal of the district court's dismissal.

The company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which was
denied. An appeal by the indirect customer plaintiffs resulted in
the court of appeals affirming the dismissal of the federal claims
and remanding the case to the district court to decide whether to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims.

Ferrellgas believes it has strong defenses to the claims and
intends to vigorously defend against the consolidated case.
Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time related to the putative class action
lawsuit.

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

Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. distributes and sells propane and related
equipment and supplies. The company transports propane to propane
distribution locations, tanks on customers' premises, or to
portable propane tanks delivered to retailers. Ferrellgas Partners,
L.P. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Overland Park,
Kansas.


FISHER-PRICE: Cuddy Sues over Safety Risks of Infant Sleepers
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Fisher-Price, Inc.
and its corporate parent Mattel, Inc. for unjust enrichment,
negligence, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty
of merchantability, and for violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act. The
case is captioned LUKE CUDDY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FISHER-PRICE, INC. and
MATTEL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00787 (W.D.N.Y., June
13, 2019). Plaintiff Luke Cuddy alleges that the Defendants'
marketing of the infant sleeper, Fisher-Price Rock 'n Play Sleeper,
is dangerously false and misleading.  Defendants have advertised
that this product is safe for all-night or prolonged sleep for
infants.  However, the product's use poses a number of serious
safety risks that have led to many documented instances of infant
deaths and injuries.  Fisher-Price, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in East Aurora, Erie County,
New York. Defendant Fisher-Price manufactures and markets products
for the care of infants and preschool children to consumers
throughout the United States, including in the State of New York
and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Fisher-Price is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Mattel, Inc., a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in El Segundo,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Terrence M. Connors, Esq.
     CAITLIN M. HIGGINS, ESQ
     KATHERINE G. HOWARD, ESQ.
     CONNORS LLP
     1000 Liberty Building
     Buffalo, NY 14202
     Telephone: (716) 852-5533
     E-mail: tmc@connorsllp.com
             cmh@connorsllp.com
             kgh@connorsllp.com

             - and -

     Demet Basar, Esq.
     Daniel Tepper, Esq.
     Kate McGuire, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 545-4600
     E-mail: basar@whafh.com
             tepper@whafh.com
             mcguire@whafh.com

             - and -

     Carl V. Malmstrom, ESQ.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
     111 West Jackson, Suite 1700
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Telephone: (312) 984-0000
     E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com


FISHER-PRICE: Nadel et al Sue over Sale of Rock 'n Play Sleepers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA NADEL and SAMANTHA JACOBY individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FISHER-PRICE, INC.
and MATTEL, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00791 (W.D.N.Y.,
June 14, 2019), targets the Defendants' sales of Rock 'n Play
Sleepers, which has caused about 32 infant deaths to date.

According to the complaint, from 2009 to present, Fisher-Price sold
over $4.7 million Rock 'n Play Sleepers at $50 to $80 equaling
gross revenues of between $235 and $376 million. The revenues
resulted from an invention developed by a small group of engineers
at the Fisher–Price toy company located outside of Buffalo, New
York. This invention addressed a basic gap in the market, a product
that helped parents get their infant children to sleep. The box the
Sleepers came in stated "Baby can sleep at a comfortable incline
all night long!"

On April 12, 2019, the Rock 'n Play was recalled by Fisher-Price
after a series of infant deaths.  The Consumer Product Safety
Commission ("CPSC"), which helped coordinate the Recall, stated
that more than 30 babies died in the product after they turned over
while unrestrained or "under other circumstances." On April 8,
Consumer Reports published an article documenting the concerns
about the product's development and pushed for the recall after it
obtained agency records concerning the deaths.

Fisher-Price continued to sell and aggressively market the Sleepers
even while it was aware of fatalities of infants who sleep in the
Sleepers and while the American Academy of Pediatrics ("AAP") and
consumer groups repeatedly warned of the dangers of the Sleepers.
In fact, of the 32 fatalities more than half occurred after
September 2016, it was not until April 2019 that Defendants
acknowledged at least 32 infant deaths attributed to the Sleeper
since 2009.

Fisher-Price's owner, Mattel, declined to respond to a detailed
list of questions about the Rock 'n Play and its creation and
instead stuck its head in the sand and stated that "Safety is
priority number 1 for Fisher-Price" and the company "has a long,
proud tradition of prioritizing safety as our mission."

The Plaintiffs, like other Class members, purchased and/or owned
the Sleepers unwittingly and unaware of its dangers and suffered
damages in that they had to purchase an alternative to the Sleeper
and/or lost the benefit of their bargain because they would not
have purchased and/or owned the Sleeper had they known they were
not safe, the lawsuit says.

The Rock 'n Play was designed as a flexible folding frame with a
fabric hammock suspended between the legs. The product has high
sides and sits at an incline, causing the infant placed in it to
also sit at an incline. The Rock 'n Play comes with padded inserts
that go behind and up to the sides of the infant's head and body.
The shape of the Rock 'n Play's hammock includes an additional
angle that pushes up the legs where the infant's torso meets the
legs, causing the infant to lay in a semi-seated position. The Rock
'n Play was designed to rock forward and back and was advertised
for both sleep and playtime.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for children and infants, headquartered in East Aurora, New York.
Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: 845-356-2570
          Facsimile: 845-356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street, 5th floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-687-7230
          Facsimile: 212-490-2022
          E-mail: memert@ssbny.com
                  hlongman@ssbny.com

FIVE STAR REALTY: Benson Sues over Unlawful Housing Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Five Star Realty
Services, Inc. for violations of the Cook County Human Rights
Ordinance and the Fair Housing Act. The case is captioned MARTHA
BENSON, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. FIVE STAR REALTY SERVICES, INC., an
Illinois corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH06369 (Ill. Cir.,
Cook Cty., May 23, 2019).

Plaintiff Martha Benson alleges four causes of action: terms and
conditions discrimination, refusal of listing inspection,
discriminatory representation, and disparate impact.

Plaintiff is an African American woman and a recipient of a Housing
Authority of Cook County Housing Choice Voucher for a two-bedroom
apartment.

On Feb. 26, 2019, Plaintiff called Defendant Five Star Realty
Services at 773-961-7962 to inquire about renting the subject
matter property advertised in Facebook, Zillow and Defendant's
website www.fivestarchicagoapartments.com. However, the Defendant's
agent/employee told Plaintiff that this unit does not accept
housing choice vouchers for rent. On March 2, 2019, Open
Communities, a non-profit organization tasked with investigating
housing discrimination and enforcing the Fair Housing Act and its
related laws, discovered that the apartment is not set up for
vouchers and that there were no other units available that did
accept vouchers. Moreover, the Defendant discriminated against
Plaintiff by deciding to not engage in a real estate transaction
with Plaintiff on the basis of Plaintiff's source of income.

Five Star Realty Services, Inc. is an Illinois corporation whose
principal place of business is located at 3703 N. Kedzie Ave,
Chicago, Cook County, Illinois. The company provides various real
estate services throughout the Chicago area, including rental
listing services, real estate sales representation, and property
management. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sheryl Ring, Esq.
     OPEN COMMUNITIES LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
     990 Grove Street, Suite 500
     Evanston, IL 60201
     Telephone: (847) 501-5760
     E-mail: sheryl@open-communities.org


FLOWERS FOODS: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Ruling in Carr FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford Inc. and Flowers Foods Inc.
filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Matthew
Carr, et al. v. Flowers Foods Inc., et al., Case Nos.
2-15-cv-06391, 2-16-cv-02581, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 18,
2019, Judge Wendy Beetlestone granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify the Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey classes with
respect to the Rule 23(b)(3) class, and denied with respect to the
Rule 23(b)(2).

Defendant Flowers Foods is a Georgia corporation that develops and
markets bakery products on a national scale through its network of
subsidiaries.  Defendant Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc. is one
such subsidiary, which operates as the local sales and distribution
manager in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and
Virginia.  The Plaintiffs are individual distributors who collect
baked goods from Oxford warehouses and deliver them to
customers--mainly stores and restaurants.

The Plaintiffs have provided testimony and documentary evidence
detailing their work experience as distributors with Flowers.  In
short, they earn money by purchasing product from Flowers at a
discount rate which is fixed unilaterally by Flowers, and selling
it at a higher price to customers within a designated geographic
area.

The Plaintiffs assert that they have been improperly categorized as
independent contractors rather than employees under federal and
state law, and thereby deprived of overtime pay, other wages, and
records.  Named Plaintiffs Matthew Carr, Terry Carr, Tumblin,
Brown, and Boulange bring suit on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated against Defendants Flowers Foods, Inc. and its
subsidiary, Flowers Baking Co. of Oxford, Inc., for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law; the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act; the
Maryland Wage and Payment Collection Law; the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law; the New Jersey Wage and Payment Law; and the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Carr, et al. v. Flowers
Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 19-8018, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents MATTHEW CARR, TERRY CARR, DAVID TUMBLIN,
GREGORY BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED
INDIVIDUALS, and LUKE BOULANGE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, are represented by:

          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          J. Gordon Rudd, Jr., Esq.
          Behdad C. Sadeghi, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          80 South 8th Street
          1100 IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          E-mail: David.Cialkowski@Zimmreed.com
                  Gordon.Rudd@zimmreed.com
                  behdad.sadeghi@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Brian D. Clark, Esq.
          Rachel K. Collins, Esq.
          Susan E. Ellingstad, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: bdclark@locklaw.com
                  rakitzecollins@locklaw.com
                  seellingstad@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq.
          Scott A. Moriarity, Esq.
          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 South Fifth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          Facsimile: (612) 252-3571
          E-mail: cdjozwiak@baillonthome.com
                  samoriarity@baillonthome.com
                  sjwanta@baillonthome.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twinning Road
          Suite 211, Twinning Office Center
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners FLOWERS FOODS INC. and FLOWERS BAKING CO OF
OXFORD INC. are represented by:

          Mark Diana, Esq.
          Robin Koshy, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          10 Madison Avenue, Suite 400
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 656-1600
          E-mail: mark.diana@ogletreedeakins.com
                  robin.koshy@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Julie A. Donahue, Esq.
          K. Clark Whitney, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3000
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 995-2800
          E-mail: julie.donahue@ogletreedeakins.com
                  clark.whitney@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Margaret S. Hanrahan, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          201 South College Street, Suite 2300
          Charlotte, NC 28244
          Telephone: (704) 342-3119
          E-mail: maggie.hanrahan@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Christopher E. Humber, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1909 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 887-0855
          E-mail: chris.humber@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Aaron Warshaw, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          1745 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 492-2500
          E-mail: aaron.warshaw@ogletreedeakins.com


GENESCO INC: Settlement Reached in Chen & Salas Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 13, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended May 4, 2019, that the Company has reached an agreement in
principle to settle the so-called Chen and Salas, and Massachusetts
lawsuits.

On May 19, 2017, two former employees of the Company's former Hat
World subsidiary filed a putative class and collective action, Chen
and Salas v. Genesco Inc., et al., in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and certain Illinois and New York wages
and hours laws, including, among others, failure to pay overtime to
store managers, and also seeking back pay, damages, statutory
penalties, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On March 8, 2018, the court granted the Company's motion to
transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana.

On March 9, 2018, a former employee of the Company's former Hat
World subsidiary filed a putative class action in the Superior
Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts claiming violations of
the Massachusetts Overtime Law, M.G.L.C. 151 Section 1A, by failing
to pay overtime to employees classified as store managers, and
seeking restitution, an incentive award, treble damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the
Chen and Salas and Massachusetts matters for payment of attorneys'
fees and administrative costs totaling $0.4 million plus total
payments to members of the plaintiff class who opt to participate
in the settlement of up to $0.8 million.

The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the court. The
Company does not expect that the proposed settlement will have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition or results of
operations.

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

Genesco Inc. sell shoes and hats. It operates Journeys, Journeys
Kidz, and Shi by Journeys stores that offer footwear for young men,
women, and children. It also operates Underground Station, Jarman,
Hat World, Lids, Hat Shack, Hat Zone, Head Quarters, Cap
Connection, Lids Kids, and Johnston & Murphy. The company was
founded in 1925 and is based in Nashville.


GILEAD SCIENCES: Pipe Trades Sues Over Clayton Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
PIPE TRADES SERVICES MN WELFARE FUND, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.;
GILEAD HOLDINGS, LLC; GILEAD SCIENCES, LLC; GILEAD SCIENCES IRELAND
UC; BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY; E.R. SQUIBB & SONS, L.L.C.; JAPAN
TOBACCO, INC.; JAPAN TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL U.S.A., INC.; AKROS
PHARMA INC.; JANSSEN R&D IRELAND; and JOHNSON & JOHNSON, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03311-LB (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2019) is
a class action complaint against Defendants for damages, injunctive
relief, and other relief pursuant to the federal antitrust laws and
state antitrust and consumer protection laws.

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

Gilead dominates the class of drugs that target HIV known as
"antiretrovirals," which are essential to effective HIV therapy.
Modern antiretroviral drug regimens comprise a combination or
"cocktail" of drugs, most often consisting of two
nucleotide/nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors
("NRTIs") taken with at least one antiretroviral drug of another
class, such as an integrase inhibitor, commonly referred to as
"third agents." These antiretroviral cocktails are known as cART
regimens. Gilead and its coconspirators coformulated TDF with the
coconspirators' third agents into single pills known as
fixed-dose-combination drugs ("FDCs"). Part of the unlawful
scheme's quid pro quo, Gilead also agreed to shield BMS and
Janssen's HIV drugs from imminent generic competition by allowing
them to coformulate FDCs that combined their vulnerable products
with a Gilead booster drug, Cobicistat, which enjoyed much longer
patent protection.

The unlawful restraints also prohibited competing manufacturers
from gaining access to the pharmaceutical compounds needed to
formulate new, innovative, superior, and substantially less
expensive treatments—precluding the development and marketing of
more than two dozen specifically identifiable HIV treatments. To
remedy these and the other devastating effects of Defendants'
anticompetitive conduct set forth in detail below, Plaintiff seeks
nationwide injunctive relief pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton
Act, because, unless enjoined, the Defendants' unlawful conduct
will continue unchecked and Plaintiff and those similarly situated
will continue to suffer. Plaintiff also asserts claims for damages
for Defendants' continuing violations of state antitrust and
consumer protection laws, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Pipe Trades Services MN Welfare Fund is a Taft-Hartley
fund authorized under the National Labor Relations Act.

Gilead Sciences, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
     Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
     Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
     PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
     180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (415) 692-0772
     Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
     Email: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
            jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
            bc@pritzkerlevine.com

          - and -

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


GRAND CIRCLE TRAVEL: Macaskill Seeks OT Premium Pay
---------------------------------------------------
A wage and hour class action complaint has been filed against Grand
Circle Travel, Inc. (GCT), Mark C. Frevert, and Alan E. Lewis for
alleged violations of the Chapter 149 Sections 148, 150 of the
Massachusetts General Laws. The case is captioned ALEXANDRA
MACASKILL; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated;
Plaintiffs, v. GRAND CIRCLE TRAVEL, INC.; MARK C. FREVERT,
individually; ALAN E. LEWIS, individually; Defendants, Case No.
19-1698A (Mass. Cmmw., May 28, 2019).

Plaintiff Alexandra Macaskill alleges that GCT improperly paid
overtimes wages to her and the class members at an hourly rate
equal to one and one-half times the base hourly rate that the
company paid them for non-overtime hours. Instead, GCT was required
to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and the class members using
their regular hourly rate, which is determined by dividing the
total remuneration that Plaintiff and the class members received in
any workweek, including any incentive pay or shift differentials,
by the total number of hours actually worked by them in that
workweek for which such compensation was paid.By paying overtime
wages to Plaintiff and the class members using their base hourly
rate that did not account for any incentive pay or shift
differentials that they earned during a workweek in which such
compensation was paid, GCT failed to pay Plaintiff and the class
members all of the overtime wages that they were entitled to
receive.

Grand Circle Travel; Inc. is a corporation with a principal office
located at 347 Congress Street, Boston, Massachusetts. It is a
travel agency that sells travel packages to residents of
Massachusetts and other states. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREIF INC: Suit over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greif, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended May 4, 2019, that the company, together with Container Life
Cycle Management (CLCM), continues to defend a putative class
action suit in Wisconsin concerning one of CLCM's Milwaukee
reconditioning facilities.

On November 8, 2017, the Company, CLCM and other parties were named
as defendants in a punitive class action lawsuit filed in Wisconsin
state court concerning one of CLCM's Milwaukee reconditioning
facilities.

The plaintiffs are alleging that odors from this facility have
invaded their property and are interfering with the use and
enjoyment of their property and causing damage to the value of
their property.  

Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, along
with their legal fees.

The Company and CLCM are vigorously defending themselves in this
lawsuit.  

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.

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

Greif, Inc. produces and sells industrial packaging products and
services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Rigid
Industrial Packaging & Services; Paper Packaging & Services;
Flexible Products & Services; and Land Management.  The company was
formerly known as Greif Bros. Corporation and changed its name to
Greif, Inc. in 2001. Greif, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is
headquartered in Delaware, Ohio.


H&R BLOCK: Faces Olosoni and Snarr Putative Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2019, that the company has been named as a
defendant in a putative class action suit entitled, Pelanatita
Olosoni and Derek Snarr v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.

On May 17, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the company in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco (Case No. CGC-19576093) styled
Pelanatita Olosoni and Derek Snarr v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs seek to represent both nationwide classes and
California subclasses of all persons who paid to file one or more
federal tax returns through H&R Block's internet-based filing
system even though they were eligible to file those tax returns for
free under IRS Free File or H&R Block Free File between May 17,
2015 and the present.

The plaintiffs generally allege unlawful, unfair, fraudulent or
deceptive business practices or acts in violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750,
et seq., False Advertising, Business and Professions Code Sections
17500, et seq., and Unfair Competition Law, Business and
Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., in addition to breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief,
disgorgement, restitution, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees
and costs.

H&R Block said, "We have not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this
matter."

H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted income
tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax solutions,
and other services and products related to income tax return
preparation to the general public primarily in the United States,
Canada, and Australia. H&R Block, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.


H&R BLOCK: Ramsey Files Appeal in Suit
--------------------------------------
A notice of appeal has been filed in the class action styled as
MELISSA RAMSEY, individually and o/b/o similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. H&R BLOCK INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
18-00933-CV-W-ODS (W.D. Mo., June 13, 2019).

From October 2010 to June 2011, Plaintiff Melissa Ramsey was a
branch manager at H&R Block's Fairway, Kansas location. In November
2018, Plaintiff filed this putative class action against Defendants
H&R Block, Inc. and H&R Block Tax Services LLC, alleging
Defendants, along with other entities and persons, "enacted a
scheme related to the recruitment of employees and potential
employees, which included policies and agreements not to solicit or
recruit without prior approval from each other's personnel." Among
other things, Plaintiff alleges the "purpose and effect of this
scheme was to limit
and suppress mobility and compensation for class members."
Plaintiff alleges Defendants violated the Sherman Act.

The Defendants move to compel arbitration on an individual basis.
They argue Plaintiff, in 2017, agreed to arbitrate all claims
against Defendants when she applied for a seasonal position (for
which she was not hired) at H&R Block's corporate offices in Kansas
City, Missouri.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ashlea Schwarz, Esq.
     Laura Catherine Fellows, Esq.
     Sean Cooper, Esq.
     Richard M. Paul, III, Esq.
     Paul LLP
     601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
     Kansas City, MO 64106
     Phone: 816-984-8100
     Fax: 816-984-8101
     Email: ashlea@paulllp.com
            Laura@PaulLLP.com
            Sean@PaulLLP.com
            Rick@PaulLLP.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     David J Lender, Esq.
     Eric Shaun Hochstadt, Esq.
     Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
     767 Fifth Avenue
     New York, NY 10153
     Phone: 212-833-8153
     Email: david.lender@weil.com
            eric.hochstadt@weil.com

          - and -

     Stacey R. Gilman, Esq.
     Berkowitz Oliver LLP-KCMO
     2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Phone: (816) 561-7007
     Fax: (816) 561-1888
     Email: sgilman@berkowitzoliver.com


HARBOR FREIGHT: Kaupelis Sues Over Defective Chainsaws
------------------------------------------------------
WILL KAUPELIS and FRANK ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01203 (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2019)
is a class action against Defendant for the manufacture and sale of
Portland, One Stop Gardens, and Chicago Electric 14-inch Electric
Chainsaws (collectively, the "Products"), all of which suffered
from an identical defect in design.

Specifically, the power switch was prone to malfunction, causing
the chainsaw blade to continue operating after the operator moves
the power switch to the "off" position, notes the complaint. A
chainsaw that takes on a life of its own by not turning off when
necessary is extraordinarily dangerous. This defect rendered the
Products unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose.

Plaintiffs bring their claims against Defendant individually and on
behalf of a class of all other similarly situated purchasers of the
Products for violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"); violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; fraud;
unjust enrichment; breach of implied warranty; and violations of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Plaintiffs purchased a Portland brand 14-inch Electronic Chainsaw
from a Harbor Freight store located in California in approximately
the fall of 2016 and 2017.

Harbor Freight Tools USA. Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 26541 Agoura Rd., Calabasas,
California. Defendant manufactures, markets, and distributes the
Products throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HD SUPPLY: Discovery Ongoing in Shareholders Class Suit in Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------------
HD Supply, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that discovery is underway in
the class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

On July 10, 2017 and August 8, 2017, shareholders filed putative
class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, alleging that HD Supply and certain senior
members of its management (collectively, the "securities litigation
defendants") made certain false or misleading public statements in
violation of the federal securities laws between November 9, 2016
and June 5, 2017, inclusive (the "original securities complaints").


Subsequently, the two securities cases were consolidated, and, on
November 16, 2017, the lead plaintiffs appointed by the Court filed
a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") against the securities litigation defendants on behalf
of all persons other than the securities litigation defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive.  

The Amended Complaint alleges that the securities litigation
defendants made certain false or misleading public statements,
primarily relating to the Company's progress in addressing certain
supply chain disruption issues encountered in the Company's
Facilities Maintenance business unit.  

The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the securities
litigation defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks class certification
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as unspecified
monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and other costs.

On September 19, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the securities litigation defendants' motion to dismiss. The matter
is now in discovery.

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

HD Supply, Inc. operates as an industrial distribution company in
North America. The company operates in two segments, Facilities
Maintenance and Construction & Industrial. The company was formerly
known as The Home Depot Supply, Inc. and changed its name to HD
Supply, Inc. in December 2006. HD Supply, Inc. is headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia. HD Supply, Inc. is a subsidiary of HD Supply
Holdings, Inc.


IDT CORP: Faces Rosales Class Suit in California
------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that IDT America, IDT
Domestic Telecom and IDT International, have been named as a
defendant in a putative class action suit initiated by Jose
Rosales.

On January 22, 2019, Jose Rosales filed a putative class action
against IDT America, IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT International in
California state court alleging certain violations of employment
law.

Plaintiff alleges that these companies failed to compensate members
of the putative class in accordance with California law.

IDT said, "The Company is evaluating the claims, and at this stage,
is unable to estimate its potential liability, if any. The Company
intends to vigorously defend the claims."

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


IDT CORP: Faces Samara Class Suit in Louisiana
----------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that IDT Telecom has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit initiated by
Scarleth Samara.

On April 12, 2019, Scarleth Samara filed a putative class action
against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana alleging certain violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Plaintiff alleges that in October of 2017, IDT Telecom sent
unauthorized marketing messages to her cellphone.

The Company is reviewing the factual predicates of the claim.

IDT said, "At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its
potential liability, if any. The Company intends to vigorously
defend the claim."

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


IDT CORP: JDS1 LLC Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit initiated by JDS1, LLC.

On July 31, 2013, the Company completed a pro rata distribution of
the common stock of the Company's subsidiary Straight Path
Communications Inc. ("Straight Path") to the Company's stockholders
of record as of the close of business on July 25, 2013 (the
"Straight Path Spin-Off").

On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and
derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed
a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick
Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and
beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly
held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors.

The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight
Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi
Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling
stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties
to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims
between Straight Path and the Company related to potential
indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under
the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC"), as well as the sale of Straight Path's
subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the Company in
connection with that settlement.

That action was consolidated with a similar action that was
initiated by The Arbitrage Fund.

The Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, (i) a declaration
that the action may be maintained as a class action or in the
alternative, that demand on the Straight Path Board is excused;
(ii) that the term sheet is invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the
unfair price stockholders received in the merger between Straight
Path and Verizon Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight
Path's Class B common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas,
Davidi Jonas, and the Company to disgorge any profits for the
benefit of the class Plaintiffs.

On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. Following closing of the transaction, the
Delaware Chancery Court denied the motion to dismiss.

On February 22, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the
denial of the motion to dismiss.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

In the three months ended April 30, 2019 and 2018, the Company
incurred legal fees of $0.1 million and $0.3 million, respectively,
and in the nine months ended April 30, 2019 and 2018, the Company
incurred legal fees of $0.6 million and $1.3 million, respectively,
related to this putative class action, which is included in "Other
operating expense, net" in the accompanying consolidated statements
of operations. At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its
potential liability, if any.

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

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


IDT CORP: Must Defend Against Dennis Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the class action suit initiated by Erik Dennis has been denied.

On May 21, 2018, Erik Dennis filed a putative class action against
IDT Telecom and the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia alleging violations of Do Not Call
Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

The Company is evaluating the claim, and at this stage, is unable
to estimate its potential liability, if any.

On August 13, 2018, IDT Telecom and the Company filed a motion to
dismiss or in the alternative to strike class allegations. The
plaintiff opposed the motion. The motion to dismiss was denied.

IDT Telecom and the Company intend to vigorously defend this
matter.

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


IDT CORP: Parties in Sanchez Suit Agree to Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that IDT Telecom and Jean
Carlos Sanchez have filed a stipulation of dismissal in the
putative class action lawsuit initiated by Jean Carlos Sanchez.

On May 2, 2018, Jean Carlos Sanchez filed a putative class action
against IDT Telecom in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleging that the Company sent unauthorized
marketing messages to cellphones in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

On July 26, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal.

The Company is evaluating the claim, and at this stage, is unable
to estimate its potential liability, if any.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

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

IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT Corporation was
founded in 1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.


INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Harris-Carr Suit Consolidated to Tchatchou
---------------------------------------------------------------
India Globalization Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14,
2019, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the class
action suit, Harris-Carr v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., et
al., has been consolidated in the class action suit entitled,
Tchatchou v. India Globalization Capital, Inc., et al.

On November 2, 2018, IGC shareholder Gabe Harris-Carr instituted a
shareholder class action complaint on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland entitled, Harris-Carr v. India
Globalization Capital, Inc., et al., 8:18-cv-03408 (U.S. District
Court for the District of Maryland).  

IGC, Ram Mukunda, and Claudia Grimaldi were named as defendants. On
February 28, 2019, all pending shareholder class actions, including
the Harris-Carr litigation, were consolidated, and the Tchatchou
litigation, described above, was designated as the lead case.  

On May 13, 2019, the plaintiff in the Tchatchou litigation filed an
amended complaint, which becomes the operative complaint for the
consolidated matter and supersedes the Harris-Carr complaint.

India Globalization Capital, Inc. engages in the development and
commercialization of cannabis-based therapies to treat Alzheimer's,
pain, nausea, eating disorders, several end points of Parkinson's,
and epilepsy in humans, dogs, and cats. The company operates
through two segments, Legacy Infrastructure and Medical Cannabis
Based Alternative Therapies. The company was founded in 2005 and is
based in Bethesda, Maryland.


INDIA GLOBALIZATION: Tchatchou to Lead Shareholder Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
India Globalization Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14,
2019, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that all pending
shareholder class actions against the company have been
consolidated, and the Tchatchou litigation has been designated as
the lead case.

On November 2, 2018, the company's (IGC) shareholder Alde-Binet
Tchatchou instituted a shareholder class action complaint on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.  

IGC, Ram Mukunda, Richard Prins, and Sudhakar Shenoy were named as
defendants.  

On May 13, 2019, the plaintiff in the Tchatchou litigation filed an
amended complaint against IGC, Mukunda, and Claudia Grimaldi,
thereby removing Prins and Shenoy as defendants.  

The plaintiff in Tchatchou alleges that IGC, Mukunda, and Grimaldi
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and made false and misleading
statements to the public by issuing a September 25, 2018 press
release entitled "IGC to Enter the Hemp/CBD-Infused Energy Drink
Space," in which IGC announced it had "executed a distribution and
partnership agreement" for the sugar-free energy drink named Nitro
G.  The plaintiff in Tchatchou seeks an unspecified amount of
damages.  

On February 28, 2019, all pending shareholder class actions were
consolidated, and the Tchatchou litigation was designated as the
lead case.

India Globalization Capital, Inc. engages in the development and
commercialization of cannabis-based therapies to treat Alzheimer's,
pain, nausea, eating disorders, several end points of Parkinson's,
and epilepsy in humans, dogs, and cats. The company operates
through two segments, Legacy Infrastructure and Medical Cannabis
Based Alternative Therapies. The company was founded in 2005 and is
based in Bethesda, Maryland.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Court Certifies Class in Slocum Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHIRLEY SLOCUM, ET AL. v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY,
ET AL., DERRICK SANDERS, ET AL., v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET
AL., BRENT JARRELL, ET AL., v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL.,
SECTION "L" (1), Civil Action No. 16-12563, No. 16-12567., 16-13793
(E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
certify a class.

The series of class action cases arise out of injuries allegedly
sustained by the Plaintiffs as a result of a discharge of "black
liquor" at the Bogalusa Paper Mill on June 10, 2015.  The
Plaintiffs assert claims against Defendant International Paper for
failure to provide complete and accurate information about the
chemical composition and known risks presented by the black liquor
that was allegedly discharged from a ruptured evaporator tank at
the Bogalusa Paper Mill.  Their' theories of liability sound in
negligence, strict liability, and nuisance.

Black liquor is a by-product of the paper making process.  It is
typically recycled in evaporator tanks for repeated use in the
pulping process.  On June 10, 2015, the sight glass on an
evaporator tank containing black liquor ruptured at the Bogalusa
Paper Mill, resulting in a stream of black liquor erupting several
feet into the air and dispersing into the atmosphere.  The next
day, the Defendants advised the media that there was a "slight
leak" in a process unit that led to the dispersal of diluted black
liquor, but that the Defendants were confident that there is no
risk to human health or the environment.

The Plaintiffs disagree.  They contend the dispersal of black
liquor caused personal injury, property damage and/or emotional
distress, and argue the Defendants are liable for them.  For
example, the Welch Plaintiffs claim the dispersal caused a black
mist to descend on their house, and that the mist stuck to the
exposed skin of themselves and their children.  For a few days
after, the Welches experienced itchy, burning, watery eyes, and
headaches with throat and upper respiratory irritation.  The
Welches concede that their physical symptoms cleared "in a short
period of time," but argue they continue to suffer emotional
distress and fear about a reoccurrence of the event.  Other
Plaintiffs claim similar damages.

On April 30, 2019, the Plaintiffs moved to certify an issue class
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4), contending
that the determination of the Defendant's liability for the June
10, 2015 explosion is most efficiently done on a class-wide basis.
If the Defendant is found liable, the Plaintiffs propose the
remaining, the Plaintiff-specific issues be tried in flights.  The
Plaintiffs seek certification of their claims as a class action
under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Defendant opposes the motion in part, stating it does not
oppose class certification of those issues that are truly
class-wide issues in the litigation.  Specifically, the Defendants
take issue with whether general causation" may be tried on a
class-wise basis.  The Defendant also proposes the Court certify an
issue class.  It proposes the trial be bifurcated into two phases:
liability and damages.

Judge Fallon finds that the Plaintiffs met the requirements of Rule
23(a) and 23(b)(3).  Therefore, he granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
to certify a class.  He appointed Shawn C. Reed and Jonathan C.
Pedersen as the Co-Lead Class Counsel and the Co-Lead Liaison
Counsel.  A Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, comprised of Shawn C.
Reed; Jonathan C. Pedersen; D. Douglas Howard, Jr.; William H.
Arata; and Thomas M. Discon is established.  The Plaintiffs'
provide the Court with a proposed notice by no later than May 27,
2019.  The Defendant may file its objection thereto, if any, by no
later than Monday, June 3, 2019.

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

Brent Jarrell, Individually and on behalf of/ and as Tutrix for his
minor child, LJ, Junior Lydonis Rowell, Carl M. Spicer, Spouse
of/and, Iantha Spicer & Joyce Spicer, Individually and on behalf of
/and as Tutrix for her minor child, Plaintiffs, represented by
Shawn C. Reed, Esq. -- sreed@howardandreed.com -- D. Douglas
Howard, Jr., Esq. -- dhoward@howardandreed.com -- Jonathan C.
Pedersen, Esq. -- jpedersen@howardandreed.com -- and Kyle T. Del
Hierro, Esq. -- kdelhierro@howardandreed.com -- HOWARD & REED.

Percy Payne, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Reed, Howard &
Reed.

International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by Tim Gray,
Esq. Erin Wedge Latuso, Esq. -- erin.latuso@formanwatkins.com --
and Thomas Peyton Smith, Esq. -- peyton.smith@formanwatkins.com --
FORMAN, WATKINS, & KRUTZ, LLP.


KIRKLAND'S INC: Still Defends Miles Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkland's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit in California entitled, Miles v.
Kirkland's Stores, Inc.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a putative class
action filed in May 2018 in the Superior Court of California, Miles
v. Kirkland's Stores, Inc.

The case has been removed to Federal Court, Central District of
California, and trial is not yet set.

The complaint alleges, on behalf of Miles and all other hourly
Kirkland's employees in California, various wage and hour
violations. Kirkland's denies the material allegations in the
complaint and believes that its employment policies are generally
compliant with California law.

Kirkland's said, "To date, the parties have exchanged the court
mandated initial disclosures. The Company believes the case is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations."

Kirkland's, Inc. operates as a specialty retailer of home décor in
the United States. The company's stores provide various
merchandise, including holiday decor, furniture, art, fragrance and
accessories, ornamental wall decor, decorative accessories,
mirrors, lamps, textiles, artificial floral products, gifts,
housewares, outdoor living items, frames, and clocks. Kirkland's,
Inc. was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Brentwood,
Tennessee.


KRAFT HEINZ: Walling Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended  December 29, 2018, that the class action suit
entitled, Walling v. Kraft Heinz Company, has been voluntarily
dismissed.

The company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors are currently defendants in three securities class action
lawsuits filed in February, March, and April 2019.

The first filed action, Hedick v. The Kraft Heinz Company, was
filed on February 24, 2019 against the Company and three of its
officers (the "Hedick Action").

The second filed action, Iron Workers District Council
(Philadelphia and Vicinity) Retirement and Pension Plan v. The
Kraft Heinz Company, was filed on March 15, 2019 against, among
others, the Company and six of its current and former officers (the
"Iron Workers Action").

The third filed action, Timber Hill LLC v. The Kraft Heinz Company,
was filed on April 25, 2019 against, among others, the Company and
six of its current and former officers and one of its directors.

All of these securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


Another securities class action lawsuit, Walling v. Kraft Heinz
Company, was filed on February 26, 2019 in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against,
among others, the Company and six of its current and former
officers (the "Walling Action"). Plaintiff in the Walling Action
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his complaint, without
prejudice, on April 26, 2019.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits purport to represent a class of all
individuals and entities who purchased, sold, or otherwise acquired
or disposed of publicly traded securities of the Company (including
in the Timber Hill Action, the purchase of call options on Company
common stock, the sale of put options on Company common stock, and
the purchase of futures on the Company's common stock) from May 4,
2017 through February 21, 2019, in the case of the Hedick Action
and the Walling Action, and from July 6, 2015 through February 21,
2019, in the case of the Iron Workers Action and the Timber Hill
Action.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on allegedly
materially false or misleading statements and omissions in public
statements, press releases, investor presentations, earnings calls,
and SEC filings regarding the Company's business, financial
results, and internal controls. The plaintiffs seek damages in an
unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and other relief.

The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


LAMPASAS INC: Kelly Hits Misclassification, Seeks Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUA KELLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LAMPASAS, INC. d/b/a EMERALD ELITE SENIOR
HOME CARE and ERNEST OLIVAS, Defendants, Case No.
0:19-cv-61502-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 17, 2019) seeks unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended.

Plaintiff (and other similarly situated employees) has worked as a
non-exempt employee for Defendants but has been misclassified by
Defendants as an independent contractor. During certain work weeks
in 2017, 2018, and 2019, Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per work
week but Defendants did not pay Plaintiff a half time rate per
overtime hour Plaintiff worked for Defendant as required by the
FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff has worked for Defendants from September 2017 through the
present.

Defendant Company has and continues to operate as a home care
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Diane P. Perez, Esq.
     DIANE PEREZ, P.A.
     201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Phone: (305) 985-5676
     Facsimile: (305) 985-5677
     Email: diane@dianeperezlaw.com


LAUNDRY DEPOT: Does not Pay Workers Overtime Wages, Says Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
NYOK MOY LEONG, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. LAUNDRY DEPOT, LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot Four;
LAUNDRY DEPOT #IV, LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot; LAUNDRY DEPOT #V, LLC
d/b/a Laundry Depot; FA SUPER LAUNDROMAT CORP. d/b/a Laundry Depot
Fifth Avenue; LAUNDRY DEPOT II LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot Fifth Avenue
and d/b/a Laundry Depot; EAST ISLIP SUPER LAUNDROMAT CORP. d/b/a
Laundry Depot; ITP LAUNDROMAT CORP d/b/a I.T.P Laundromat; LAUNDRY
DEPOT, III LLC d/b/a Laundry Depot; and BAYSHORE LAUNDRY, LLC.
d/b/a Laundry Depot and d/b/a South Shore Laundromat; TOMMY NGAI
LAU a/k/a Tommy Lau a/k/a Ngai Lau, JENNY QIANJUN LAU a/k/a Jenny
Lau a/k/a Qianjun Lau, EILEEN ZHANG, and SING OI LAU a/k/a Oi Sing
Lau Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03545 (E.D. N.Y., June 17, 2019)
is an action brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of herself as well
as other employees similarly situated, against the Defendants for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law (NYLL), arising from Defendants' various willfully
and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

Plaintiff NYOK MOY LEONG was employed by Defendants to work as a
laundromat worker at Defendants' various laundromat locations, in
2008 and again from August 8, 2011 to May 23, 2019.

LAUNDRY DEPOT #IV d/b/a Laundry Depot is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with
a principal address at 1549-65 Brentwood Rd., Bayshore, NY
11706.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324


LGS INC: Reynoso Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------
Servando Reynoso, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated as class representative under Illinois Law
and/or as Class representative for the members of the Collective as
permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs, vs.
LGS INC., d/b/a ISA Experts, AND Aleta Sarno Individually Under
FLSA and IWPCA As Employers, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04025
(N.D. Ill., June 16, 2019), seeks minimum wages, overtime wages,
and/or all owed wages due under the FLSA and/or Illinois Wage
Laws.

The Plaintiffs were employees who worked for Defendant at its
suburban Chicago Illinois location during the relevant time period,
and who was denied their clearly-established rights under
applicable federal and state statutes in that Defendants paid no
overtime wages whatsoever.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately
compensate Plaintiffs, as well as those persons similarly-situated
to Plaintiff and who Plaintiff seeks to represent -- including
minimum and overtime wages as required by the FLSA and IMWL.

The Plaintiff also brings a claim for payment of his last check.
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff's final paycheck, thus Plaintiff
also presents a demand for that paycheck and a claim for failure to
pay minimum wages as Plaintiff worked 62 hours in his last pay
period, and receive zero dollars for those 62 hours of work in
February of 2019. Plaintiff should have received a check for 62
hours times his rate of pay of $15.00 per hour or $930.00, but
Plaintiff received no check in violation of the FLSA, IMWL, and
IWPCA.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          John C. Ireland, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
          636 Spruce Street South Elgin, IL 60177
          Telephone: 630 464-9675
          Facsimile: 630-206-0889
          E-mail: Attorneyireland@gmail.com

LOST DOG: Settlement in Diaz FLSA/CMWA Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VICTOR DIAZ, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOST DOG PIZZA, LLC,
DANIEL WARREN LYNCH, and JEFF SMOKEVITCH, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 17-cv-2228-WJM-NYW (D. Colo.), Judge William J. Martinez of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted (i) the
parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective
Action Settlement, and (ii) the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney
Fee.

On Sep. 14, 2017, Plaintiff Diaz filed the lawsuit as a putative
collective and class action against the Defendant, on behalf of
himself and others pizza workers who are all hourly employees at
the Defendants' pizzeria from 2014 onward, alleging that the
Defendants failed to properly compensate pizza workers for overtime
hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA").

For example, the Plaintiff alleges that he worked 107.67 hours from
July 16-31, 2015, and 99.61 hours from Sept. 5 to 18, 2016, and
that the Defendants failed to pay him overtime as required during
those periods.  He also alleges that the Defendants subjected all
pizza workers to a common policy of refusing to pay overtime wages
for hours worked beyond 40 each workweek and beyond 12 each
workday.

On June 19, 2018, the Court certified a Rule 23 class for the CMWA
claims, and conditionally certified a collective action under the
FLSA.  The difference between the class definition and the
collective action definition is simply the respective timeframe.
The Rule 23 class includes employees from Sept. 14, 2015, onward,
whereas the FLSA action covers pizza workers as of Sept. 14, 2014.

The FLSA collective action class is defined as all hourly employees
who worked at Brown Dog Pizza on or after Sept. 14, 2014 and who
were not paid overtime wages for overtime hours worked.  The Rule
23 Class is defined as all hourly employees who worked at Brown Dog
Pizza on or after Sept. 14, 2015 and who were not paid overtime
wages for overtime hours worked.

At that time, the Court approved a revised version of the proposed
FLSA Notice and Consent to Join and directed notice to potential
collective action members.  However, it denied, without prejudice
to refiling, the parties' proposal to notify class members of a
settlement because the full details of the proposed settlement were
not before the Court.

The Plaintiff filed a Notice of Completion of Mailing of the FLSA
opt-in notices on July 2, 2018.  According to the parties, three
potential FLSA Plaintiffs returned consent to join forms.  

After the opt-in period closed in August 2018, the parties
concluded settlement negotiations and moved for preliminary
approval of a class and collective action settlement.  This time,
the Court granted preliminary approval, ordered notice to the class
members, set deadlines for opt-out forms and objections, and
scheduled the Settlement Hearing for May 15, 2019.  On Jan. 2,
2019, the Defendants filed a Notice of Completion of Mailing of the
class settlement notice.

On April 10, 2019, the parties filed the Joint Motion and the
Plaintiff filed the Fee Motion.  The Court held the Settlement
Hearing on May 15, 2019.

The Settlement Agreement provides that any settlement checks not
negotiated within 90 days of issuance are "Unclaimed Funds."  The
Class Administrator will forward Unclaimed Funds to the Tri County
Health Network, a Section 501(c)(3) organization that advocates for
labor rights of immigrant workers in Telluride, Colorado.  The
parties propose that Mr. Diaz receive $5,000 as an incentive
payment.  The Plaintiff's counsel seeks an attorneys' fee award
totaling 33% of the common settlement fund, or $58,942.21.

Judge Martinez finds that (i) the cy pres award directing Unclaimed
Funds to the Tri County Health Network is fair and reasonable, and
the next best use of fund to provide an indirect class benefit;
(ii) the incentive payment of $5,000 very reasonable, given Mr.
Diaz's participation in the case and the overall recovery in the
case; and (iii) the $58,942.21 attorneys' fees and costs fair and
reasonable.

For the foregoing reasons, the Judge (i) granted the parties' Joint
Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective Action
Settlement; (ii) granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fee;
and (iii) approved the parties' Settlement Agreement.

He awarded Plaintiff Diaz is an incentive award for serving as the
class representative in the amount of $5,000; and the Plaintiff's
counsel attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $58,942.21.

No later than May 31, 2019, the Defendants will depsit the
settlement payment of $178,612.75 into a fund to be administered by
the Class Administrator.  No later than June 10, 2019, the Class
Administrator will mail settlement checks to the Plaintiff, the
opt-in plaintiffs, and Rule 23 class members identified in the
Settlement Agreement; a check for the incentive award to recipient
Victor Diaz; and a check for attorneys' fees and costs to the
Plaintiff's Counsel.

Consistent with the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants will pay
all settlement administration costs.  The Clerk of the Court will
terminate the case.  The parties will bear their own costs except
as provided.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/c9RsO4 from Leagle.com.

Victor Diaz, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brandt Powers
Milstein -- brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com -- Milstein Law Office.

Lost Dog Pizza, LLC, Daniel Warren Lynch & Jeff Smokevitch,
Defendants, represented by Juli Elizabeth Lapin -- juli@rwolaw.com
-- Robinson Waters & O'Dorisio, P.C..


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Continues to Defend Gathmann-Landini Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 5, 2019, that the company remains a
defendant in a class action suit entitled, Rebecca Gathmann-Landini
et al v. lululemon USA inc.

On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of
the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of
New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA
inc.

On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated various New York
labor codes by failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime
compensation. The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of
damages.

The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.  

lululemon athletica inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
distributes, and retails athletic apparel and accessories for
women, men, and female youth. It operates through two segments,
Company-Operated Stores and Direct to Consumer. lululemon athletica
inc. was founded in 1998 and is based in Vancouver, Canada.


LYFT INC: Faces Lewis Suit Over Misleading IPO-related Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN LEWIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. LYFT, INC., LOGAN GREEN, JOHN ZIMMER, BRIAN ROBERTS,
PRASHANT (SEAN) AGGARWAL, BEN HOROWITZ, VALERIE JARRETT, DAVID
LAWEE, HIROSHI MIKITANI, ANN MIURA-KO, and MARY AGNES (MAGGIE)
WILDEROTTER, Case No. 4:19-cv-03003-YGR (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2019),
is brought under the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other shareholders, who acquired the Company's shares
pursuant or traceable to its initial public offering.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement (declared
effective on March 28, 2019) and accompanying prospectus for the
IPO, contained materially incorrect or misleading statements and/or
omitted material information that was required by law to be
disclosed.

Unbeknownst to investors, the Plaintiff contends, the IPO
Registration Statement's representations were materially
inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to
disclose, inter alia, that: (1) more than 1,000 of the bicycles in
Lyft's rideshare program suffered from safety issues that would
lead to their recall; (2) Lyft's claimed ridesharing market
position was overstated; (3) Lyft's drivers were losing their
incentivize to drive for Lyft; and (4) Lyft failed to warn
investors that a labor disruption could affect its operations.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts, the price of the Company's
shares was artificially and materially inflated at the time of the
Offering.

Lyft is a transportation network company based in San Francisco,
California, which operates throughout the United States and in
parts of Canada.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

Lyft is a ridesharing company.  Beginning in 2012, Lyft sought to
change transportation by launching its peer-to-peer marketplace for
on-demand ridesharing.  Today, through its technology platform,
Lyft operates a scaled network of drivers and riders, affording
riders the ability to select the mode of transportation suited to
their specific needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532-6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


MDL 2047: Court Denies Bid to Tax Court Reporter Fees as Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL CASES, SECTION L(5),
Civil Action MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied
the Motion to Tax Court Reporter Fees as Costs filed by Parker
Waichman LLP; Baron & Budd, P.C.; Milstein, Jackson, Fairchild &
Wade, LLP; and Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse.

From 2004 through 2006, the housing boom in Florida and rebuilding
efforts necessitated by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina led to a
shortage of construction materials in the United States, including
drywall.  As a result, drywall manufactured in China was brought
into the United States and used in the construction and
refurbishing of homes in coastal areas of the country, notably the
Gulf Coast and East Coast.  Sometime after the installation of the
Chinese drywall, homeowners began to complain of emissions of
foul-smelling gasses, the corrosion and blackening of metal wiring,
surfaces, and objects, and the breaking down of appliances and
electrical devices in their homes.  Many of these homeowners also
began to report various physical afflictions allegedly caused by
the Chinese drywall.

These homeowners began to file suit in various state and federal
courts against homebuilders, developers, installers, realtors,
brokers, suppliers, importers, exporters, distributors, and
manufacturers who were involved with the Chinese drywall.  Because
of the commonality of facts in the various cases, the litigation
was designated as multidistrict litigation.  Pursuant to a June 15,
2009 transfer order from the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, all federal cases involving Chinese-manufactured
drywall were consolidated for pretrial proceedings in MDL 2047 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The Chinese drywall at issue was largely manufactured by two groups
of the Defendants: (1) the Knauf entities and (2) the Taishan
entities.  Because the Taishan entities contested jurisdiction at
the outset and refused to accept service of process, it was
necessary to conduct the litigation along two tracks.  The first
track involved the Knauf entities.

The Knauf entities are German-based, international manufacturers of
building products, including drywall, whose Chinese subsidiary,
Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. ("KPT"), advertised and sold
its Chinese drywall in the United States.  They are named
Defendants in numerous cases consolidated with the MDL litigation
as well as litigation in state courts.  The Knauf entities did not
contest jurisdiction and first entered their appearance in the MDL
litigation on July 2, 2009.

On Nov. 2, 2009, in Pretrial Order No. 17, KPT agreed to a limited
waiver of service.  After a period of intense discovery, the court
set various bellwether trials.  From March 15, to March 19, 2010,
the Court presided over a bellwether trial in Hernandez v. Knauf
Gips KG, Case No. 09-6050, involving a homeowner's claims against
KPT for defective drywall.  For purposes of the trial, Knauf
stipulated that KPT Chinese drywall "emits certain reduced sulfur
gases and the drywall emits an odor.

The Court, based on the evidence presented, found the KPT Drywall
was a defective product and issued a detailed Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law in favor of Plaintiff Hernendez, and entered a
Judgment in the amount of $164,049.64, including remediation
damages in the amount of $136,940.46, which represented a cost of
$81.13 per square foot based on the footprint square footage of the
house.

On Oct. 14, 2010, Knauf agreed to participate in a pilot program to
remediate a number of homes using the remediation protocol
formulated by the Court in the Hernandez case.  The Knauf pilot
remediation program has remediated over 2,800 homes containing KPT
Chinese drywall using essentially the same protocol.  At the
Court's urging, after a number of homes had been remediated, the
parties began working together to monetize this program and make it
available to a broader class of plaintiffs.

Thereafter, the PSC and Knauf entered into settlement discussions,
and on Dec. 20, 2011, some two years after the formation of the
MDL.  The PSC reached a global remediation settlement with Knauf,
which is designed to resolve all Knauf-related Chinese drywall
claims.  After a bellwether trial involving the downstream Knauf
distributor, North River, numerous other settlement agreements were
also reached with other downstream entities in the chain of
commerce with the Knauf. These entities included various
distributers, builders, and installers (and their insurers) of the
Knauf-manufactured Chinese drywall.

On Aug. 12, 2013, the Plaintiffs' and the Defendants' Liaison
counsel entered into a second settlement agreement addressing
claims filed after Dec. 9, 2011.  Under the New Claims Settlement
Agreement, the Claimants who gave notice prior to Oct. 25, 2013 and
qualified under the terms of the New Claims Agreement were eligible
to seek benefits under the Knauf Class Settlement Agreement,
subject to the requirements set forth in both agreements.

Under the terms of the settlements, the claimants with KPT Chinese
drywall (drywall manufactured by Knauf's Chinese subsidiary) were
offered several options.  Under Option 1, the claimants were
offered the opportunity to receive a complete, environmentally
certified remediation of their properties.  Under Option 2, the
claimants were offered cash reimbursement in the event the home was
already remediated.  Finally, under Option 3, claimants were
offered a cash payment instead of remediation as well as the
opportunity to receive monetary benefits from the Knauf downstream
chain of commerce entities to compensate them for other
specifically designated losses.

As part of the Knauf remediation settlement, the Defendants also
agreed to pay reasonable costs, including the cost of administering
the program and an additional amount for attorneys' fees, which
includes both the fees for contract counsel and those for common
benefit counsel.  The payment relieves every claimant of all
contingency fee and cost reimbursement obligations to both retained
contract counsel and common benefit counsel (with exception of the
Virginia litigants), and thus represents an amount which otherwise
would have been payable by the claimants out of their settlement
recovery.

The claimants having received their appropriate portion of the
settlement funds, the Court endeavored to allocate attorneys' fees
to contract counsel and common benefit counsel pursuant to
Pre-Trial Order 28.  PTO 28 lays out the multi-step process by
which the Court disbursed attorneys' fees: (1) a review of time and
expenses, (2) the submission of an initial affidavit for
compensation for common benefit work and reimbursement of expenses,
(3) the filing of a joint fee petition, (4) the filing of a request
for common benefit assessment for any Chinese Drywall case or claim
not participating as a Class Member or claimant in any of the
various Class Action Settlement Agreements, (5) establishing common
benefit and individual fees, and finally (6) allocating the common
benefit fees.  Throughout this process, the Court was aided by
Special Master Daniel Balhoff, Court-Appointed CPA Philip Garrett,
and Court-Appointed Settlement Administrator BrownGreer.

After completing steps one through four, the Court proceeded to
step five to determine the total amount of the common benefit fund
and the amount of funds for individual counsel for claimants.  In
its Jan. 31, 2018 order, the Court found the appropriate split
between contract counsel and common benefit counsel was 52% for
common benefit counsel and 48% for contract counsel. Thereafter, on
Feb. 4, 2019, the Court proceeded to step six, allotting the common
benefit fund to various firms in differing amounts.  The next day,
the Court issued its final judgment regarding common benefit
attorneys' fees.

In the instant motion, the Movers contend that under Step Five, the
Court-appointed Fee Committee made an allocation recommendation to
which several firms objected necessitating the appointment of
Special Master Balhoff.  They submit the parties thereafter
retained Golkow Litigation Services to provide court reporting
services for the depositions and Professional Shorthand Reporters,
Inc. ("PSR") to provide court reporting for the hearing before the
Special Master.  Following the proceeding, the Movers contend the
Court charged 80% of the Step Five hearing to the contract counsel
and 20% to the common benefit counsel.  They now seek an order
taxing these fees as costs.

Judge Fallon notes at the outset that the process by which each
lawyer or entity recovered held costs and were awarded attorneys'
fees required strict compliance with mandatory expense reporting
procedures with the court-appointed CPA.  The Movers have not
complied with that process.  Moreover, in their motion, the Movers
stat that the parties agreed upon retaining Golkow and PSR, but no
agreement was made with respect to what entity would pay the fees.
Apparently, the Movers took it upon themselves to do so.  Although
the Court appreciates the Movants' request, the Judge holds the
Court lacks the authority to order the other parties, especially
the non-objectors, to contribute to the payment of Golkow and PSR.
In the Court's opinion, the issue of recouping payment is a private
matter to be resolved among the parties.  Accordingly, Judge Fallon
denied the Motion to Tax Court Reporter Fees as Costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/zkm5Rk from Leagle.com.

Lynn C Greer, Special Master, pro se.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Russ M. Herman --
rherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Leonard A.
Davis -- ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC.

Homebuilders and Installers Steering Committee, Defendant,
represented by Phillip A. Wittmann -- pwittmann@stonepigman.com --
Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC.

Insurer Steering Committee, Defendant, represented by Judy Y.
Barrasso -- JBarrasso@BarrassoUsdin.com -- Barrasso, Usdin,
Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC.

Defendant, Defendant, represented by Kerry J. Miller --
kmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz & Andrew J Brien -- brien@carverdarden.com -- Carver,
Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux.

Defendant, Liaison Counsel for Taishan, BNMB entities, and CNBM
entities, Defendant, represented by Harry Rosenberg --
harry.rosenberg@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.


MDL 2591: Court Partly Vacates Dismissal Order and Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION, This
Document Relates To: Kellogg, et al. v. Watts Guerra, LLP, et al.,
No. 18-2408-JWL, MDL No. 2591, Case No. 14-md-2591-JWL (D. Kan.),
Judge John W. Lungstrum of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion
to vacate the Court's dismissal order and judgment in favor of the
Defendants.

In the case, the Plaintiffs asserted claims against the Defendants,
their counsel in the MDL's underlying litigation against Syngenta.
In general, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to maximize attorney fees, in which they pursued
individual lawsuits on behalf of their clients while
misrepresenting or failing to disclose the possibility and benefits
of participating in class actions.

By Memorandum and Order of March 1, 2019, the Court dismissed the
action, ruling that the Plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the
constitutional requirement of standing.  The Plaintiffs now move
essentially for reconsideration of that ruling.

Judge Lungstrum finds that the Plaintiffs have alleged facts to
support a claim that the Defendants breached their duty of loyalty
to them by placing their own interests ahead of the Plaintiffs'
interests.  Therefore, he concludes that the Plaintiffs have
demonstrated standing at this stage with respect to their claims
arising under state law.

He rejects the Plaintiffs' argument that the same injury provides
standing for their federal RICO claims.  Thus, the Judge does not
vacate its judgment in favor of the Defendants with respect to the
Plaintiffs' federal RICO claims on this basis.

The Plaintiffs argue that the Court's fee award was based in part
on submissions and applications by these Defendants, but the Court
assures the Plaintiffs that it would have awarded one third as
attorney fees even without those submissions.  Thus, the
Plaintiffs' recovery is not affected -- and they are not injured in
fact -- by any fee awards received by the Defendants from the
Court's pools.

The Plaintiffs also make reference to the Defendants' applications
for awards of expenses, although they have not made any specific
argument based on an injury from expense awards as opposed to fee
awards.  The Judge holds that it is true that if the Defendants
were denied awards of expenses, more would remain for claimants to
recover.  Again, however, the Plaintiffs have not alleged any such
harm.  Nor have they plausibly explained how they will receive less
for their claims, traceable to expense awards to these Defendants,
specifically because of the alleged misconduct by these Defendants.
Therefore, the Plaintiffs' new theory of injury does not provide a
basis for the Court to reverse its prior dismissal.  Accordingly,
because the Plaintiffs have demonstrated standing for their claims
based on Minnesota law, those claims remain in the case.

In its prior order, in which it dismissed the entire case for lack
of standing, the Court did not address the Defendants' other
arguments in support of dismissal. Thus, the Judge will rule on the
remainder of the Defendants' motions to dismiss, which remain
pending to the extent they address the Plaintiffs' state-law
claims, based on the briefing already submitted.

In addition, in the prior order the Court granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief in opposition to the
motions to dismiss, and in ruling on the remainder of the
Defendants' motions, theJduge will consider the arguments in that
sur-reply (including the exhibit that the Court originally declined
to consider because it did not relate to standing).  So that the
Defendants may have the last word, however, in accordance with the
Court's customary practice, he granted them leave to file a
sur-sur-reply brief, limited to 15 total pages, addressing only
arguments (not related to standing) contained in the Plaintiffs'
sur-reply brief.  Any such brief will be filed by May 31, 2019.

Finally, the Plaintiffs also request that the Court suggest to the
JPML that the case be remanded to the District of Minnesota, from
whence it came to the MDL.  The Judge denies that request.  The
Plaintiffs appear to base this request on their argument that the
case never should have been transferred into the MDL in the first
place.  That issue has been fully litigated before the JPML,
however, and it is not appropriate for the Court to question the
JPML's decision.  

The Plaintiffs also note that pretrial proceedings are complete
with respect to the cases subject to the settlement with Syngenta.
Four other cases that were excepted from the settlement remain in
the MDL, however, and pretrial proceedings have not been completed
in three of those cases.  The MDL has not been dissolved, and the
case has not completed pretrial proceedings.  Accordingly, the
Judge holds there is no basis for a suggestion of remand at this
time.

Judge Luungstrum concludes that the Plaintiffs have alleged an
injury recognized under Minnesota law, and therefore the Defendants
are not entitled to dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Minnesota
state-law claims for lack of standing.  Accordingly, he granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion.  He vacated the
judgment as it pertains to the Plaintiffs' claims under Minnesota
law, and the Plaintiffs' motion is granted to that extent.  The
motion is denied with respect to the Plaintiffs' federal claims,
which remain dismissed.

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

All Plaintiffs, represented by Don M. Downing --
ddowning@grgpc.com
-- Gray, Ritter & Graham, PC, pro hac vice, Patrick J. Stueve --
stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Richard L.
Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm, Scott A. Powell -- scott@hwnn.com
--
Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, pro hac vice & William B. Chaney --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Gray Reed & McGraw, LLP, pro hac vice.

All Defendants, represented by Michael D. Jones --
michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice &
Thomas P. Schult -- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Berkowitz
Oliver
Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP.

Ellen K. Reisman, Special Master, represented by Ellen K. Reisman
-- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Reisman Karron Greene LLP.

Stracener Farming Company, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W.
Mason
-- clark@clarkmason.com -- Clark Mason Attorneys, pro hac vice,
James J. Thompson, Jr. -- JT@JimThompsonLaw.com -- pro hac vice,
Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul Byrd
-- wwinfo@paulbyrdlawfirm.com -- Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac
vice, Martin J. Phipps -- mphipps@phippscavazos.com -- Phipps
Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts -- mcwatts@wattsguerra.com --
Watts Guerra, LLP & Nolan E. Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac
vice.

David Stracener, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason, Clark
Mason Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J. Thompson, Jr., pro hac
vice, Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul
Byrd, Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps,
Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP &
Nolan E. Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice.

Larry Petit, Plaintiff, represented by Clark W. Mason, Clark Mason
Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J. Thompson, Jr., pro hac vice,
Jerry Obe Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, PA, pro hac vice, John Paul Byrd,
Paul Byrd Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps
Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & Nolan E.
Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice.

Trans Coastal Supply Company Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jayne
Conroy -- JConroy@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy, Martin
J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts
Guerra, LLP, Patrick J. Stueve, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Paul J.
Hanly -- phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- Jr., Simmons Hanly Conroy,
Sarah
Burns, Simmons Hanly Conroy & William B. Chaney --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Gray Reed & McGraw, LLP.

Luke Claas, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
wchaney@grayreed.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice,
Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, J.
Brett
Milbourn -- BMILBOURN@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters Bender Strohbehn &
Vaughan, PC, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice,
Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts,
Watts
Guerra, LLP, Paul D. Lundberg -- paul@lundberglawfirm.com --
Lundberg Law Firm, PLC, pro hac vice & Thomas V. Bender --
TBENDER@WBSVLAW.COM -- Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC.

Meinke Farms, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, Grant &
Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant &
Eisenhofer, PA, pro hac vice, J. Brett Milbourn, Walters Bender
Strohbehn & Vaughan, PC, James J. Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP, pro
hac
vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C.
Watts,
Watts Guerra, LLP, Paul D. Lundberg, Lundberg Law Firm, PLC, pro
hac vice & Thomas V. Bender, Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan,
PC.

Cargill International SA, Defendant, represented by Clifford M.
Greene -- cgreene@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Erin
Sindberg Porter -- esindbergporter@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel
PLLP, Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, John W. Ursu --
jursu@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP, Martin J. Phipps,
Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts, Watts Guerra, LLP & X.
Kevin Zhao -- kzhao@greeneespel.com -- Greene Espel PLLP.

Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented
by
D. Scott Aberson -- scott.aberson@maslon.com -- Maslon Edelman
Borman & Brand, LLP, David S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro
hac vice, Edwin J.U. -- edwin.u@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis,
Michael D. Jones -- michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis,
Patrick F. Philbin -- patrick.philbin@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis & Thomas P. Schult -- tschult@berkowitzoliver.com --
Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP.

Syngenta Corporation, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by David
S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro hac vice.

Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by David
S. Chipman, CASA of Shawnee County, pro hac vice.

Cargill International SA, Defendant, represented by Clifford M.
Greene, Greene Espel PLLP, Erin Sindberg Porter, Greene Espel
PLLP,
Janine W. Kimble, Greene Espel PLLP, John W. Ursu, Greene Espel
PLLP, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP, Mikal C.
Watts,
Watts Guerra, LLP & X. Kevin Zhao, Greene Espel PLLP.


MDL 2804: Opiate Litigation vs. Costco Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended May 12, 2019, that the company continues
to defend itself against the case, entitled, In re National
Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D. Ohio).

In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation consolidated numerous cases filed against various
defendants by counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes,
and third-party payors concerning the impacts of opioid abuse. In
re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D.
Ohio).

Included are federal cases that name the Company, including actions
filed by a number of counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey,
Oregon, a third-party payor in Ohio, and class actions filed on
behalf of infants born with opioid-related medical conditions in
New York, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia,
Ohio, and Missouri.

Similar claims against the Company in state courts in New Jersey
and Oklahoma have been dismissed.

The Company is defending all of these matters.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label
products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was
formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale
Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah,
Washington.


MESA LABORATORIES: Orrington Settlement Receives Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mesa Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K 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 has received
final approval of the settlement in the class action suit initiated
by  Dr. James L. Orrington II and in the process Rowan Family
Dentistry has dismissed their case against the company.

In February 2018, Dr. James L. Orrington II filed a putative civil
class action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that the company
sent unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines.  

The complaint includes counts alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
Conversion, Nuisance, and Trespass to Chattels.  

The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees.  

Additionally, in June 2018, Rowan Family Dentistry, Inc. filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado making substantially the same claims
as Dr. James L. Orrington II and seeking substantially the same
relief.

In January 2019, the company received preliminary court approval of
a class action settlement with Dr. James L. Orrington II and the
class in the amount of $3,300, and the company received final
approval on May 28, 2019.

As a result of the settlement of the matter with Dr. James L.
Orrington, Rowan Family Dentistry has dismissed their case against
the company.

Mesa Laboratories said, "We have recorded the final settlement
amount on our Consolidated Statements of Operations and a
corresponding liability is included as legal liability on our
Consolidated Balance Sheets."

Mesa Laboratories, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets quality
control instruments and disposable products. Mesa Laboratories,
Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Lakewood,
Colorado.


MIDWEST TIME: Campos Files Suit Asserting BIPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Jose Campos and Joseph Trottier, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDWEST TIME RECORDER,
INC, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH07229 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., June
14, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against the Defendant its
parents and subsidiaries, to redress and curtail Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs'
sensitive and proprietary biometric data.

Recognizing the need to protect its citizens from situations like
these, Illinois enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA"), specifically to regulate companies that collect, store
and use Illinois citizens' biometrics, such as fingerprints.
Notwithstanding the clear and unequivocal requirements of the law,
Defendant disregards its Biometric Data Readers users' statutorily
protected privacy rights and unlawfully collects, stores,
disseminates, and uses individuals' biometric data in violation of
BIPA, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated individuals are aggrieved
because they were not: (1) informed in writing of the purpose and
length of time for which their hand geometry was being collected,
stored, disseminated and used; (2) provided a publicly available
retention schedule or guidelines for permanent destruction of the
biometric data; and (3) provided (nor did they execute) a written
release, as required by BIPA, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are natural persons and citizens of the State of
lllinois.

Midwest Time Recorder, Inc. is a provider of automated time and
attendance solutions which provides software and data collection
time clocks to companies across an array of industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
     Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
     PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
     818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
     St. Louis, MO 63104
     Phone: 314-833-4825
     Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
            plesko@pwcklegal.com


MILLENDO THERAPEUTICS: Discovery in Freedman Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Millendo Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit led by Freedman Family Investments LLC.

On March 24, 2017, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Dahhan v. OvaScience, Inc., No. 1:17‑cv‑10511‑IT (D. Mass.))
against certain former officers and directors of OvaScience and one
current director of the Company (a former director of OvaScience)
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
(the "Dahhan Action").

On July 5, 2017, the court entered an order approving the
appointment of Freedman Family Investments LLC as lead plaintiff,
the firm of Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel and the
Law Office of Alan L. Kovacs as local counsel.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 25, 2017. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the
court denied on July 31, 2018. On August 14, 2018, the Company
answered the amended complaint.

The parties presently are engaged in discovery.

The Company believes that the amended complaint is without merit
and intends to defend against the litigation.

Millendo said, "There can be no assurance, however, that the
Company will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse to
the Company or the other defendants could have a material effect on
the Company's consolidated financial position and results of
operations. At present, the Company is unable to estimate potential
losses, if any, related to the lawsuit."

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

Millendo Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company, engages in the development of various treatments for
orphan endocrine diseases in the United States. The company is
based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.


MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Settlement in Horton Suit Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DR. SAM LEBARRE HORTON, on behalf of himself and all
other entities and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MOLINA
HEALTHCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-0266-CVE-JFJ (N.D.
Okla.), Judge Calire V. Eagan of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma granted the Class Plaintiff's motion
for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

The Settlement Agreement resolves all claims alleged in the Class
Action Complaint filed in the District Court of Rogers County,
Oklahoma on April 7, 2017, amended on April 12, 2017, thereafter
removed to the Court on May 11, 2017, and as amended finally on
Aug. 17, 2019.

Judge Eagan has conducted a preliminary evaluation of the proposed
Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement for fairness,
adequacy, and reasonableness.  Based on this preliminary
evaluation, he finds that: (a) the proposed Settlement Agreement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate, and within the range of possible
approval; (b) the Settlement Agreement has been negotiated in good
faith at arms'-length between experienced attorneys familiar with
the legal and factual issues of this case aided by an experienced
and neutral third-party mediator; and (c) with respect to the forms
of notice of the material terms of the Settlement Agreement to
persons in the Settlement Class for their consideration and
reaction (Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement, the notice is
appropriate and reasonable.  Therefore, he granted the preliminary
approval of the Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Judge conditionally certified, for purposes of
this Settlement only, the Settlement Class of all persons with
cases and claims against Molina arising out of the sending of
unsolicited facsimiles in connection with Molina's network builds
by Southwest Medical Consulting, LLC for the class period from
April 12, 2013 to the present.

He appointed (i) the Class Plaintiff to act as the representative
of the Settlement Class; and (ii) as the Class Counsel the
following Class Counsel: J. Gerard Stranch, IV Joe P. Leniski, Jr.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa
Parks Ave., Ste. 220 Nashville, TN 37203 James A. Streett STREETT
LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 West Main Russellville, AR 72801 Jason B.
Aamodt, OBA No. 16974 INDIAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP 204
Reunion Center Nine East Fourth Street Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103.

At 9:30 a.m. on Aug. 28, 2019, the Final Approval Hearing will be
held.  No later than July 28, 2019, the Class Plaintiff must file
papers in support of the Class Counsel's application for attorneys'
fees and expenses and the incentive awards to the Class
Representatives. No later than Aug. 14, 2019, the Class Plaintiff
must file papers in support of final approval of the Settlement and
respond to any written objections.  The Defendant may (but is not
required to) file papers in support of final approval of the
Settlement, so long as they do so no later than Aug. 21, 2019.

The Judge will appoint, within 14 days of his Opinion and Order, a
Claims Administrator based on the advice of the Plaintiff's
counsel.  The Claims Administrator will be required to perform all
the duties of the Claims Administrator as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and the Opinion and Order.

He approved the proposed plan for giving notice to the Settlement
Class directly (using mail) and through publication via
establishment of a Settlement Website, as more fully described in
Plaintiffs' Motion.  The Claims Administrator will file with the
Court by no later than Aug. 14, 2019, which is 14 days prior to the
Final Approval Hearing, proof that notice was provided in
accordance with the Settlement Agreement and the Opinion and
Order.

Persons in the Settlement Class who did not receive unsolicited
facsimiles but are listed as having received a facsimile, who
received a different number of unsolicited facsimiles than
reflected on the Claim Form, and/or whose mailing address needs to
be updated, must complete, sign, and return the Claim Form to the
Claims Administrator no later than Aug. 11, 2019.  Persons in the
Settlement Class who wish to either object to the Settlement or
request to optout/exclude themselves must do so by Aug. 11, 2019,
which is the first business date 60 calendar days after the
Settlement Notice Date.

The Claims Administrator will retain a copy of all opt-out
requests.  No later than Aug. 14, 2019, the Claims Administrator
will file under seal with the Court a declaration that lists all of
the opt-out requests received.

To object to the Settlement, the Settlement Class Members must
follow the directions in the Class Notice and file a written
objection with the Court by the objection deadline.  In order to be
heard, the Settlement Class Member must make any objection in
writing and file it with the Court no later than Aug. 11, 2019.

Pending the final determination of whether the Settlement should be
approved, all pre-trial proceedings and briefing schedules in the
Action are stayed.  If the Settlement is terminated or final
approval does not for any reason occur, the stay will be
immediately terminated.

Accordingly, the following are the deadlines by which certain
events must occur:

     a. June 11, 2019 - Deadline to Provide Class Notice

     b. July 28, 2019 - Deadline for Filing of Motion for Final
Approval and Class Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and
Incentive Awards

     c. Aug. 11, 2019 - Deadline for Settlement Class Members to
Submit Claim Form

     d. Aug. 11, 2019 - Deadline to File Objections or Submit
Requests for Opt-Out/Exclusion

     e. Aug. 14, 2019 - Deadline for Parties to File the Following:
(1) List of Persons Who Made Timely and Proper Requests to
Opt-Out/Be Excluded; (2) Proof of Class Notice; and (3) the
Plaintiff's Motion and Memorandum in Support of Final Approval,
including responses to any Objections.

     f. Aug. 21, 2019 - Deadline for Defendant to File a Motion and
Memorandum in Support of Final Approval (Optional)

     g. Aug. 28, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. - Final Approval Hearing

The Judge mooted the prior motion for class certification without
prejudice to reinstatement if the Class Settlement is not approved.
The plaintiff's counsel will notify the Court within 13 days of
the Opinion and Order, by written pleading, of the name and contact
information for the selected Claims Administrator.

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

Sam LeBarre Horton, Dr., on behalf of himself and all other
entities and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
James A. Streett -- James@StreettLaw.com -- Streett Law Firm, P.A.,
Jason Bjorn Aamodt -- khartnett@bsfllp.com -- Indian and
Environmental Law Group, PLLC & Joey Paul Leniski, Jr. --
joeyl@bsjfirm.com -- Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC.

Molina Healthcare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason Alan
McVicker -- jason.mcvicker@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft,
Kathleen R. Hartnett , Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Mary
Quinn-Cooper , McAfee & Taft & Michael Franklin Smith --
michael.smith@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft.


MYCLEAN INC: Johnson Sues Over Improper Wage Practices
------------------------------------------------------
RAMON JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MYCLEAN INC., Defendant, Case No.
155978/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. New York Cty., June 17, 2019) is an
action against Defendant pursuant to the New York Labor Law
("NYLL").

The complaint alleges that Defendant has engaged and continues to
engage in illegal and improper wage practices. These practices
include: (a) requiring Cleaners to perform work without
compensation outside of their scheduled shift; (b) not paying
Cleaners for all time spent traveling between jobs; (c) failing to
pay Cleaners at their straight or agreed upon rate for all hours
worked under 40 hours in a week; (d) failing to pay Cleaners
overtime of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked over 40 in a week; and (e) failing to provide accurate
wages statements.

Plaintiff Jagdesh Persaud was employed by Defendant as a Cleaner
from March 3, 2015 until June 8, 2015.

Defendant employed Plaintiff out of its facility located at 247
West 35lh Street, New York, New York 10001.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL CAR WASHES: Martinez Seeks Damages and Penalties
---------------------------------------------------------
JOVITO LEAL MARTINEZ, an individual; MIGUEL ANGEL VARELA, an
individual; BONIFACIO OXTE CANUL, an individual; on behalf of
themselves and others similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL
CAR WASHES, INC., a California corporation; SHAHRIAR SHOUHED, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV20801 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 17, 2019)
seeks collections of damages and penalties, both statutory and
civil, for Labor Code violations.

Specifically, the action seeks recovery of unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, premium wages for meal and rest break violations, waiting
time penalties, penalties for inaccurate wage statements, penalties
for failing to keep accurate employment records, unlawful business
practices, and civil penalties. The core violations PLAINTIFFS and
the putative class allege against DEFENDANTS are: 1) failure to pay
minimum wages: 2) failure to pay all overtime wages; 3) failure to
pay standby time wages owed: 4) failure to provide code compliant
meal and rest breaks; 5) waiting time penalties; 6) failure to
provide accurate wage statements; and 7) failure to maintain
accurate payroll records.

The DEFENDANTS have refused to pay the wages due and owed to
PLAINTIFFS and putative class members under the express provisions
of the California Labor Code, which in turn has resulted in
additional Labor Code violations entitling PLAINTIFFS and the
putative class to prompt payment of wages and penalties. DEFENDANTS
caused the violations at issue and benefited financially from these
violations, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were continuously employed by DEFENDANTS, from
approximately 2010, through the present time, as a non-exempt car
wash employee.

Defendants operate as car wash and lube facility in Los Angeles,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     KASEY DIB A, ESQ.
     AMIR T. ALAVI, ESQ.
     FINNEGAN & DIBA, A LAW CORPORATION
     3660 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 480-0292
     Facsimile: (213)480-0805


NEIMAN MARCUS: Remijas Suit Related to Cyber-Attack Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 27, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit related to a 2013 cyber-attack.

In January 2014, three class actions relating to a cyber-attack on
the company's computer systems in 2013 were filed and later
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs between February and April
2014.

The plaintiffs had alleged negligence and other claims in
connection with their purchases by payment cards and sought
monetary and injunctive relief.

Three additional putative class actions relating to the
Cyber-Attack were filed in March and April 2014, also alleging
negligence and other claims in connection with plaintiffs'
purchases by payment cards.

Two of the cases were voluntarily dismissed.

The third case, Hilary Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, was
filed on March 12, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

On June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in the Remijas case was
filed, which added three plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne
Kao, California residents; and Melissa Frank, a New York resident)
and asserted claims for negligence, implied contract, unjust
enrichment, violation of various consumer protection statutes,
invasion of privacy and violation of state data breach laws.

The Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint, and the
court granted the Company's motion on the grounds that the
plaintiffs lacked standing due to their failure to demonstrate an
actionable injury.

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's order dismissing the case
to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling, remanding
the case back to the district court. The Company filed a petition
for rehearing en banc, which the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
denied.

The Company filed a motion for dismissal on other grounds, which
the court denied. The parties jointly requested, and the court
granted, an extension of time for filing a responsive pleading,
which was due on December 28, 2016.

On February 9, 2017, the court denied the parties' request for
another extension of time, dismissed the case without prejudice,
and stated that plaintiffs could file a motion to reinstate. On
March 8, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion to reinstate, which the
court granted on March 16, 2017.

On March 17, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary
approval of a class action settlement resolving this action, which
the court granted on June 21, 2017.

On August 21, 2017, plaintiffs moved for final approval of the
proposed settlement. In September 2017, purported settlement class
members filed two objections to the settlement, and plaintiffs and
the Company filed responses to the objections on October 19, 2017.


At the fairness hearing on October 26, 2017, the Court ordered
supplemental briefing on the objections. Objectors filed a
supplemental brief in support of their objections on November 9,
2017, and plaintiffs and the Company filed their supplemental
responses to the objections on November 21, 2017.

On January 16, 2018, an order was issued by the District Court
reassigning the case to Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman due to the
prior judge's retirement.

On September 17, 2018, Judge Coleman denied final approval of the
proposed settlement and decertified the settlement class. Judge
Coleman has set a status conference for this matter for June 13,
2019.

Neiman Marcus said, "At this point, we are unable to predict the
developments in, outcome of or other consequences related to this
matter."

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC operates as a luxury omni-channel
retailer. The company is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Neiman
Marcus Group LTD LLC is a subsidiary of Mariposa Intermediate
Holdings Llc.


NELNET: Claims in Olsen Suit Over Student Loans Servicing Narrowed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John M. Gerrard of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the case, JESSICA OLSEN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, and TERI R. SMITH, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NELNET,
INC., a Nebraska Corporation, NELNET DIVERSIFIED SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
Nebraska limited liability company, and NELNET SERVICING LLC, a
Nebraska limited liability company, Defendants, Case No.
4:18-CV-3081 (D. Neb.).

The Defendants are Nebraska corporations.  They administer, service
and collect student loans throughout the United States.  The
Defendants and three other private businesses contract with the
federal Department of Education regarding the administration and
collection of student loans owned by the Department.  The two loan
programs involved in the matter are the Federal Direct Loan
Program, which are loans that originate directly with the
Department of Education, and loans purchased by the Department
pursuant to the Federal Family Education Loan Program.

Plaintiff Olsen is a citizen and resident of Oregon. Olsen
consolidated her several student loans into a single, federal
direct consolidation loan pursuant to a promissory note with the
Department of Education. On March 7, 2014, Olsen enrolled in an
income-driven repayment plan offered by the Department of
Education.  

On Dec. 5, 2014, the Defendants sent Olsen their standard renewal
notice advising her that her repayment plan would expire unless her
renewal documents were submitted within ten days of Jan. 31, 2015.
Olsen was advised that she could submit the required documents at
the Department of Education's website.

On Feb. 10, Olsen submitted her complete renewal application via
the Department's website.  However, around February 16, the
Defendants canceled Olsen's income-driven repayment plan and
imposed a standard repayment plan, billing her $968.10 per month.
The Defendants also capitalized $8,669.08 in accrued interest.
Olsen's income-driven repayment plan was not renewed for several
months.  Because she could not afford the standard repayment
amount, she was required to place her loan into forbearance.  At
the end of forbearance, the Defendants capitalized an additional
$1,061.90 of accrued interest to her loan balance.

Plaintiff Teri R. Smith is a citizen and resident of Florida.
Smith first enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan in 2009
with loan servicer ACS Educational Services.  In January 2017,
Smith's loan servicer changed to Conduent Educational Services, and
she again timely renewed her repayment plan with Conduent.  On
April 7, 2018, Smith timely submitted her renewal application and
proof of income to Conduent.  Conduent received Smith's renewal
documentation on April 9.  On April 20, Smith's federal loan was
reassigned to the Defendants.

On May 18, the Defendants began billing Smith for the standard
repayment amount of $903.34 and capitalized her accrued interest.
On July 20, 2018, the Defendants notified Smith that her
income-driven repayment plan would be approved, lowering her
monthly payment to $77.52, but the lower monthly payment would not
take effect until September 20. Being unable to afford the $903.34
monthly charge, Smith was forced into forbearance and the
Defendants again capitalized the interest that had accrued on her
loan.

A class action complaint was filed against the Defendants on June
8, 2018, identifying only Olsen as the class representative.  On
September 25, an amended complaint was filed identifying both Olsen
and Smith as class representatives.  In summary, the Plaintiffs
allege the Defendants; (1) breached their servicing contract with
the Department of Education, (2) breached the promissory notes
securing the Plaintiffs' consolidated loans, (3) tortiously
interfered with the promissory notes, (4) made negligent
isrepresentations regarding the Plaintiffs' promissory notes, and
(5) unjustly enriched themselves at the Plaintiffs' expense.

The Defendants move for dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) arguing that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim for
relief.

Judge Gerrard granted in part and denied in part the Defendants'
motion to dismiss.  He dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims for
tortious interference with a contract or business relationship and
unjust enrichment claims.

Among other things, the Judge finds that the plaintiffs' amended
complaint alleges that the Defendants were doing what they
contracted to do -- servicing student debt.  They just failed to
service the renewal applications consistent with the contract
requirements.  Negligence or bureaucratic incompetence does not
plausibly lead to a conclusion that the conduct was self-serving,
contrary to the principal's interests, or done for a personal
benefit.

Importantly, nowhere do the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants'
conduct was at odds with the general scope of its assigned
authority for the Department. The allegations concern the
competence of the Defendants' performance within the general scope
of its assigned authority.  The Plaintiffs' facts fail to allege a
plausible claim for relief regarding tortious interference with a
contract or business relationship.

He also finds that although the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants should provide an accounting, that claim for relief only
requires that the Defendants received money from the Plaintiffs,
not that the Defendants retained that money and should pay it back
to the Plaintiffs.  The Judge is mindful that the Plaintiffs'
allegations include two paragraphs that tracked the elements of a
cause of action for unjust enrichment.  But labels, conclusions and
a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action are not
sufficient to state a claim for relief.  He finds that the
Plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing a plausible claim for
unjust enrichment.

The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for case
progression.

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

Jessica Olsen, on behalf of themselves and the Class Members
described herein & Teri R. Smith, on behalf of themselves and the
Class Members described herein, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony
J. Fiorentino -- anthony@fiorentinolaw.com -- FIORENTINO LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice, Cassandra P. Miller, EDELMAN, COMBS LAW FIRM, pro hac
vice, Daniel A. Edelman -- dedelman@edcombs.com -- EDELMAN, COMBS
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & David A. Domina -- DAD@dominalaw.com --
DOMINA LAW GROUP.

Nelnet, Inc., a Nebraska Corporation, Nelnet Diversified Solutions,
LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company & Nelnet Servicing, LLC,
a Nebraska limited liability company, Defendants, represented by
Charles F. Kaplan -- ckaplan@perrylawfirm.com -- PERRY, GUTHERY LAW
FIRM.


NEW YORK: Court Adds Plaintiff S. Harper in Bagley Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHELLE BAGLEY, GARY MILLINE, HAMILTON SMITH,
MARCELLA URBAN and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, HOWARD
ZUCKER, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, in
his official capacity, and VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION HEALTH CARE
SERVICES, INC., d/b/a VNA of STATEN ISLAND, Defendants, Case No. 15
CV 4845 (FB) (CLP) (E.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their class complaint to
add an additional Plaintiff, Sharan Harper.

On Aug. 18, 2015, the Plaintiffs commenced the Section 1983 Civil
Rights class action against the Defendants, seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief based on alleged violations of the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the
Medicaid Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, in connection
with the Defendants' alleged failure to properly administer the
Nursing Home Transition and Diversion ("NHTD") waiver program.

The NHTD Medicaid waiver program was designed both to assist
individuals in nursing homes to successfully integrate into the
community by transitioning them out of nursing homes and to prevent
individuals from being institutionalized in the first place.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have failed to properly
administer the NHTD waiver program, forcing individuals to languish
in nursing homes while waiting to access the benefits to which they
are entitled.  They allege that applicants for NHTD benefits are
required to go through a complicated application process that
includes an interview with a Regional Resource Development Center
("RRDC") and the selection of a third-party service coordinator to
help in the preparation of the waiver application.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants: 1) fail to provide
notice to applicants that their applications have been denied and
that they have the right to appeal; 2) fail to give appropriate
notice to individuals whose eligibility has been revoked; 3) fail
to ensure that the waiver program has adequate resources to ensure
that applicants are able to complete the process and obtain
benefits in a timely manner; 4) provide applicants with outdated
service coordinator lists, fail to assist in locating service
coordinators, and allow coordinators to drop applicants at will.
As a result, applicants who are unable to engage a service
coordinator, which is a prerequisite to submitting a plan, struggle
to find suitable housing and services, and unnecessarily languish
in nursing homes.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to amend their
class complaint to add an additional Plaintiff, Harper, who uses a
wheelchair and walker to move around, but is currently confined to
a nursing home; and supplemental allegations based on information
learned during discovery and changes in circumstances.

The Plaintiffs allege that while Ms. Harper needs assistance with
certain activities, she would like to live in the community with
home-based support, but despite requesting an application for entry
into the NHTD waiver program in October 2016, she still has not
received assistance.  The Plaintiffs assert that Ms. Harper's
claims are similar to the allegations raised by the other four
Plaintiffs in that the Defendants violated Ms. Harper's due process
rights by failing to provide appropriate notice when her status
within the program changed, failing to ensure her right to receive
Medicaid services with reasonable promptness, and failing to
provide services in the most integrated appropriate setting.

Defendants Health Department and VNA do not oppose the addition of
Ms. Harper as a Plaintiff, or to the other factual changes to the
Complaint, but they both object to the filing of an amended
pleading that continues to include claims brought by Plaintiffs
Bagley and Milline.  The Defendants assert that both Bagley and
Milline have been moved into the community and are currently
receiving services under the NHTD Medicaid Waiver Program and thus
no longer have viable claims against the Defendants.

Since the Defendants' objections to the proposed Amended Complaint
have no impact on the claims sought to be raised by Ms. Harper or
even on the factual amendments based on information learned during
discovery, Judge Pollak granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend
insofar as it adds Ms. Harper as a Plaintiff and to the extent it
makes limited changes in the factual pleadings.  The Judge
expresses no view on the viability of the continued claims of Ms.
Bagley or Mr. Milline, nor is prepared to consider the other
arguments raised by the Defendants that relate to the claims in the
initial Complaint.

If the Defendants seek to dismiss the claims brought by Ms. Bagley
and Mr. Milline, or the Health Department Defendants seek to
dismiss the claims against Mr. Zucker in his official capacity,
they are directed to serve a letter requesting a pre-motion
conference, in accordance with the district judge's rules, by June
4, 2019.  The Plaintiffs may file a responsive letter by June 11,
2019.  Discovery will proceed as scheduled.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties
either electronically through the Electronic Case Filing system or
by mail.

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

Michelle Bagley, Gary Milline, Hamilton Smith & Marcella Urban, and
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jacqueline Lee Bonneau -- jbonneau@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap
Webb & Tyler LLP, Jesse A. Townsend -- jtownsend@pbwt.com --
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, Daniel Adam Ross, Mobilization
for Justice, Inc., Kevin M. Cremin, Mobilization for Justice, Inc.,
Orier Okumakpeyi, Mobilization for Justice, Inc., 100 William St,
6th Fl, New York, NY 10038-5039 & Michael F. Buchanan --
mfbuchanan@pbwt.com -- Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

The New York State Department of Health & Howard Zucker,
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health in his
official capacity, Defendants, represented by John Peter Gasior, NY
Office of the Attorney General.

Visiting Nurse Association Health Care Services, Inc., doing
business as VNA of Staten Island, Defendant, represented by Laura
Baldwin Juffa -- ljuffa@kbrlaw.com -- Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP,
Daniel Evan Clarkson -- clarksond@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig
LLP, Francis J. Serbaroli -- serbarolif@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig LLP, Lauren Beth Grassotti -- lgrassotti@msek.com --
Greenberg Traurig LLP & Stephanie L. Fox -- sfox@kbrlaw.com --
Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP.


NIO INC: Jeon's Securities Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, MARKUS JEON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NIO INC., BIN "WILLIAM" LI, and
LOUIS T. HSIEH a/k/a TUNG-JUNG HSIEH, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01644 (Filed on March 29, 2019), was transferred from the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on May 30, 2019. This securities class action is assigned to
Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie. The United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-03212-AMD-RER to the proceeding.

In the complaint, Plaintiff Markus Jeon alleges that the Defendants
have violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by their failure
to disclose to NIO's investors that the demand for NIO's vehicles
was materially declining and the company was experiencing adverse
trends that were negatively affecting the company's sales and
revenue. Plaintiff Jeon asserts that defendants' false
representations through the class period caused NIO's American
depositary shares to trade at artificially inflated prices.

NIO is based in Shanghai, China and its American depositary shares
trade on the NYSE under the symbol NIO. The company maintains its
U.S. office in this District in San Jose, California. It designs,
manufactures and sells electric vehicles in the People's Republic
of China, the U.S., Germany and the United Kingdom. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     1100 Glendon Avenue, Suite 1558
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Telephone: (310) 405-7190
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

             - and -

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

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

             - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Telephone: (212) 697-6484
     Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
     E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


NIO INC: Joen Securities Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California transferred the case, MARKUS JEON,
Plaintiff, v. NIO INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-01644-WHO (N.D. Cal.), to the Eastern District of New York.

The Defendants filed a motion to transfer the securities class
action case to the Eastern District of New York, where a similar
case was filed first.  Plaintiff Jeon did not oppose or otherwise
respond to the motion to transfer.  In the related action -- Sidoli
v. Nio. et al., Case No. 19-cv-1320 WHO -- the named plaintiff
filed a notice of non-opposition to transfer, as did one of the
proposed lead plaintiffs.  As in the related Sidoli action, Judge
Orrick granted the unopposed motion to transfer the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/51kAHM from Leagle.com.

Markus Jeon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood, II --
ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Jeremy A.
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice
& Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

NIO Inc., Defendant, represented by Peter Bradley Morrison --
peter.morrison@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Megher & Run, Raza
Rasheed -- raza.rasheed@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher and Flom LLP & Virginia Faye Milstead --
virginia.milstead@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP.


NIO INC: Sidoli Securities Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California transferred the case, MARK SIDOLI,
Plaintiff, v. NIO INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-01320-WHO (N.D. Cal.), to the Eastern District of New York.

The Defendants filed a motion to transfer the securities class
action case to the Eastern District of New York, where a similar
case was filed first.  Plaintiff Sidoli filed a notice of
non-opposition to the motion, as did one of the other proposed lead
plaintiffs.  No one has filed an opposition or notice otherwise
opposing transfer.  Therefore, Judge Orrick granted the motion to
transfer the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/G3eCW8 from Leagle.com.

Emily Chou & Xie Jian Feng, Movants, represented by Rachele R. Byrd
-- Byrd@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

The Nio Investor Group, Movant, represented by Laurence D. King --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox & Mario Man-Lung
Choi -- mchoi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Mark Mundy, Movant, represented by Laurence Matthew Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence Rosen, ESQ.

Babulal Tarapara, Movant, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy --
LPORTNOY@GLANCYLAW.COM -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Gary Leung, Stephen Pandur, David Ge, Erick De La Cruz & Mario
Castorena, Movants, represented by Melissa Ann Fortunato --
fortunato@bespc.com -- Bragar Eagel & Squire PC.

Bruce A. Bookbinder, Henri A. Malka & Raam Muthusamy, Movants,
represented by Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP.

Mark Sidoli, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence D. King, Kaplan
Kilsheimer & Fox & Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP.

NIO Inc., Defendant, represented by Peter Bradley Morrison --
peter.morrison@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Megher & Run, Raza
Rasheed -- raza.rasheed@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher and Flom LLP & Virginia Faye Milstead --
virginia.milstead@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP.


NORDSON CORP: Faces Ortiz Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------
Nordson Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that the company is
defending against a class action suit initiated by Mr. Ortiz, a
former employee.

On February 22, 2019, a former employee, a Mr. Ortiz, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior
Court, California, against Nordson Asymtek, Inc. and Nordson
Corporation, alleging various violations of the California Labor
Code.  

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an unspecified amount for
unpaid wages, actual, consequential and incidental losses,
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

Nordson said, "Management believes, based on currently available
information, that the ultimate outcome of the proceeding described
above will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition or results of operations."

Nordson Corporation engineers, manufactures, and markets products
and systems to dispense, apply, and control adhesives, coatings,
polymers, sealants, biomaterials, and other fluids worldwide.
Nordson Corporation was founded in 1935 and is headquartered in
Westlake, Ohio.


NUTANIX INC: Faces Several Securities Class Suits in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nutanix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in several purported securities class action
suits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Beginning on March 29, 2019, several purported securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the company and two of its
officers.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.

Although the definitions of the class vary slightly, the actions
are generally brought on behalf of those who purchased the
company's stock between March 2, 2018, and February 28, 2019,
inclusive. The complaints seek monetary damages in an unspecified
amount.

Nutanix said, "These cases are in the very early stages and we are
not able to determine what, if any, liabilities will attach to
these complaints."

Nutanix, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops and
provides an enterprise cloud platform in North America, Europe, the
Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa. The
company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.


OCULAR THERAPEUTIX: Notice of Appeal Filed in DEXTENZA(R) Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 3, 2019, that the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit regarding the District Court's
opinion and order of dismissal of the complaint related to the
company's product DEXTENZA(R).

By order dated April 30, 2019, the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (the "District Court") granted a
motion to dismiss a consolidated amended class action complaint
(the "Complaint") filed against Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. (the
"Company") and certain of its current and former executive officers
that alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder as a result of allegedly false and/or
misleading statements concerning a Form 483 issued by the United
States Food and Drug Administration related to the Company's
DEXTENZA(R) product and its manufacturing operations for DEXTENZA.


The Complaint sought relief on behalf of stockholders who purchased
Company common stock between March 10, 2016 and July 11, 2017.

On May 31, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding the
District Court's opinion and order of dismissal of the Complaint.

The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
continue to vigorously defend against this litigation.

Ocular Therapeutix, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the formulation, development, and commercialization of therapies
for diseases and conditions of the eye using its bioresorbable
hydrogel platform technology. Ocular Therapeutix, Inc. was founded
in 2006 and is headquartered in Bedford, Massachusetts.


OOMA INC: Dolemba Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2019, that the company has settled a class action
suit initiated by Scott Dolemba.

On September 4, 2018, plaintiff Scott Dolemba filed a putative
class action complaint against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

On May 21, 2019, the Company and plaintiff settled the complaint
for an immaterial amount and the complaint was voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice.

Ooma, Inc. creates connected experiences for businesses and
consumers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Ooma,
Inc. was incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale,
California.


OOMA INC: Reid Class Action in New York Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Valentin Reid.

On May 23, 2019, plaintiff Valentin Reid filed a putative class
action complaint (the "Reid Litigation") against the Company in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging
violations of the ADA, New York State Human Rights Law, New York
State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law.

The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, unspecified
monetary damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other appropriate
relief.

Based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company has
determined that the amount of any material loss or range of any
losses that is reasonably possible to result from the Reid
Litigation is not estimable.

Ooma, Inc. creates connected experiences for businesses and
consumers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Ooma,
Inc. was incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale,
California.


OOMA INC: Stipulation of Settlement Filed in Barnett Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2019, that the parties in the class action suit
initiated by Michael Barnett have reached a Stipulation of
Settlement.

On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a purported stockholder
class action in the San Mateo County Superior Court of the State of
California (Case No. CIV536959) against the Company, certain of its
officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO) on July 17, 2015.

Since that time two additional purported class actions making
substantially the same allegations against the same defendants were
filed, and on May 18, 2016, all three complaints were combined into
a "consolidated complaint" filed in the same court (the "Securities
Litigation").

The consolidated complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased shares of common stock in the Company's IPO
in reliance upon the Registration Statement and Prospectus the
Company filed with the SEC. The consolidated complaint alleges that
the Company and the other defendants violated the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") by issuing the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege contained
material misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief
as the court may deem proper.

On November 29, 2017, the Superior Court dismissed the claims that
were based on Sections 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with
prejudice, and the case proceeded to the discovery phase.

On July 30, 2018, the Court issued an order certifying the class
and, after a period of discovery practice, on May 30, 2019, the
parties filed with the Court a Stipulation of Settlement.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company's
directors' and officers' liability insurers will deposit $8.65
million into a settlement fund for payment to class members,
plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs of administering the
settlement. The proposed settlement must be approved by the Court
before becoming effective.

The Stipulation of Settlement contains no admissions of wrongdoing,
and the Company and the other defendants have maintained and
continue to deny liability and wrongdoing of any kind with respect
to the class action claims.  

Ooma said, "However, given the potential cost and burden of
continued litigation, the Company believes the proposed settlement
is in the best interests of its stockholders and the Company. If
the Court grants final approval of the Stipulation of Settlement,
the Court will dismiss the class action lawsuit with prejudice and
the plaintiff will be deemed to have released all claims against
the Company and all other defendants relating to the allegations in
the class action. The Company can provide no assurance that the
Court will approve the Stipulation of Settlement."

Ooma, Inc. creates connected experiences for businesses and
consumers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Ooma,
Inc. was incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale,
California.


P & G TRADING: Does not Pay Overtime Wages, Hunt Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
DUANE HUNT, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. P & G TRADING COMPANY, and JOHN DOES 1-10.
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-13875 (D. N.J., June 17, 2019) is an
instant action to redress Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey
Wage Payment Law.

Named Plaintiff regularly worked for Defendants for over 40 hours,
and also operated a truck weighing 10,000 pounds or less to deliver
Defendants' products to its customers. However, the Defendants' pay
records do not indicate any additional compensation for hours
worked beyond 40 per workweek. The Defendants failed to pay Named
Plaintiff and Collective Plaintiffs at a rate of 1.5 times their
regular rate of pay for each hour that they worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, says the complaint.

Named Plaintiff worked for Defendant Company as a driver from
December 2015 until May 2019.

Defendant Company is a seafood distributor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Manali Arora, Esq.
     Travis B. Martindale-Jarvis, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


PARKER DRILLING: State Law Not Adopted as Federal Law on OCS
------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case captioned
PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LTD., Petitioner, v. BRIAN
NEWTON. No. 18-389 (U.S.), held that the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act (OCSLA), 67 Stat. 462, 43 U. S. C. Section 1331 et seq.,
extends federal law to the subsoil and seabed of the Outer
Continental Shelf and all attachments thereon (OCS).

Under the OCSLA, all law on the OCS is federal law, administered by
federal officials. The OCSLA denies States any interest in or
jurisdiction over the OCS, and it deems the adjacent State's laws
to be federal law "[t]o the extent that they are applicable and not
inconsistent with" other federal law.

The question before the Court is how to determine which state laws
meet this requirement and therefore should be adopted as federal
law.  Applying familiar tools of statutory interpretation, the
Court holds that where federal law addresses the relevant issue,
state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the OCS.

Brian Newton worked for Parker Drilling Management Services on
drilling platforms off the coast of California. Newton's 14-day
shifts involved 12 hours per day on duty and 12 hours per day on
standby, during which he could not leave the platform. He was paid
well above the California and federal minimum wages for his time on
duty, but he was not paid for his standby time. Newton filed a
class action in California state court alleging violations of
several California wage-and-hour laws and related state-law
claims.

The District Court applied Fifth Circuit precedent providing that
under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), state law only
applies to the extent it is necessary to fill a significant void or
gap in federal law. It determined that the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 (FLSA) constitutes a comprehensive federal wage-and-hour
scheme and thus left no significant gap for state law to fill.
Because all of Newton's claims relied on state law, the court
granted Parker judgment on the pleadings.

The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. It first held that state
law is applicable under the OCSLA whenever it pertains to the
subject matter at hand. The court found that California
wage-and-hour laws satisfied this standard and turned to the
determinative question in Newton's casewhether California wage and
hour laws are `inconsistent with' existing federal law.

According to the Ninth Circuit, state laws are inconsistent with
federal law under the OCSLA only if they are mutually incompatible,
incongruous, or inharmonious.

The OCSLA defines the body of law that governs the OCS. First, in
Section1333(a)(1), the OCSLA extends the Constitution and laws and
civil and political jurisdiction of the United States to the OCS.
Section 1333(a)(1) provides that federal law applies to the same
extent as if the [OCS] were an area of exclusive Federal
jurisdiction located within a State.

Then, Section 1333(a)(2)(A) provides: "To the extent that they are
applicable and not inconsistent with this subchapter or with other
Federal laws and regulations of the Secretary now in effect or
hereafter adopted, the civil and criminal laws of each adjacent
State, now in effect or hereafter adopted, amended, or repealed are
declared to be the law of the United States for that portion of the
subsoil and seabed of the outer Continental Shelf, and artificial
islands and fixed structures erected thereon, which would be within
the area of the State if its boundaries were extended seaward to
the outer margin of the outer Continental Shelf."

Newton argues that state law is applicable on the OCS whenever it
pertains to the subject matter at issue. Newton further argues that
state law is only inconsistent with federal law if it is
incompatible with the federal scheme. In essence, Newton's argument
is that state law is inconsistent only if it would be pre-empted
under our ordinary pre-emption principles.

Parker, on the other hand, argues that state law is not applicable
on the OCS in the absence of a gap in federal law that needs to be
filled. Moreover, Parker argues that state law can be inconsistent
with federal law even if it is possible for a party to satisfy both
sets of laws.
  
Although this is a close question of statutory interpretation, on
the whole the Supreme Court finds Parker's approach more persuasive
because the words of a statute must be read in their context and
with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.  That
rule is particularly relevant here, as the terms applicable and not
inconsistent are susceptible of interpretations that would deprive
one term or the other of meaning.  If Newton is right that
applicable merely means relevant to the subject matter, then the
word adds nothing to the statute, for an irrelevant law would never
be applicable in that sense.  

And if Parker is right that applicable means necessary to fill a
gap in federal law, it is hard to imagine circumstances in which
not inconsistent would add anything to the statute, for a state law
would rarely be inconsistent with a federal law that leaves a gap
that needs to be filled.

Taken together, these provisions convince us that state laws can be
applicable and not inconsistent with federal law under Section
1333(a)(2)(A) only if federal law does not address the relevant
issue.  As the Court has said before, the OCSLA makes apparent that
federal law is 'exclusive' in its regulation of the OCS, and that
state law is adopted only as surrogate federal law.  The OCSLA
extends all federal law to the OCS, and instead of also extending
state law writ large, it borrows only certain state laws.  These
laws, in turn, are declared to be federal law and are administered
by federal officials.  Given the primacy of federal law on the OCS
and the limited role of state law, it would make little sense to
treat the OCS as a mere extension of the adjacent State, where
state law applies unless it conflicts with federal law.  That type
of pre-emption analysis is applicable only where the overlapping,
dual jurisdiction of the Federal and State Governments makes it
necessary to decide which law takes precedence. But the OCS is not,
and never was, part of a State, so state law has never applied of
its own force.

Because federal law is the only law on the OCS, and there has never
been overlapping state and federal jurisdiction there, the
statute's reference to not inconsistent state laws does not present
the ordinary question in preemption case, i.e., whether a conflict
exists between federal and state law.  Instead, the question is
whether federal law has already addressed the relevant issue; if
so, state law addressing the same issue would necessarily be
inconsistent with existing federal law and cannot be adopted as
surrogate federal law.

Put another way, to the extent federal law applies to a particular
issue, state law is inapplicable.

Under Newton's interpretation, state law would apply unless
pre-empted by federal law, meaning that the OCS would be treated
essentially the same as the adjacent State. But that interpretation
would render much of the OCSLA unnecessary.  For example, the
statute would not have needed to adopt state law as federal law or
say that federal law applies on the OCS as if it were an area of
exclusive Federal jurisdiction located within a State.  It could
have simply defined which State's law applied on the OCS and given
federal officials and courts the authority to enforce the law.  And
the statute would not have needed to limit state laws on the OCS to
those applicable and not inconsistent with federal law (as Newton
understands those words), for irrelevant laws never apply and
federal law is always supreme.

Newton's interpretation deprives much of the statute of any import,
violating the `cardinal principle' of interpretation that courts
'must give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a
statute.'

Although Congress later amended the OCSLA to adopt state law on an
ongoing basis, this amendment only confirms the connection between
the OCSLA and the federal enclave model. Beginning in 1825, when
federal statutory law punished only a few crimes committed on
federal enclaves, Congress enacted several Assimilative Crimes Acts
(ACAs) that borrowed state law to fill gaps in the federal criminal
law on enclaves. Because of this limitation, the initial ACA
gradually lost much of its effectiveness in maintaining current
conformity with state criminal laws and Congress eventually
provided for the adoption of the state laws in effect at the time
of the crime.
  
After this Court upheld this ongoing adoption of state criminal law
against a non-delegation challenge. Congress amended the OCSLA to
borrow state laws  in effect or hereafter adopted, amended, or
repealed.At the same time, Congress left unchanged the features of
the OCSLA that we have emphasized above, i.e.,that the only law on
the OCS is federal, and that state law is adopted only when it is
applicable and not inconsistent with existing federal law.

Thus, the Court do not understand the statutory amendment to alter
our conclusion. If anything, this history reinforces that the OCS
should be treated as an exclusive federal enclave, not an extension
of a State, and that the OCSLA, like the ACAs, does not adopt state
law where there is no gap to fill.

Applying this standard, some of Newton's present claims are readily
resolvable. For instance, some of his claims are premised on the
adoption of California law requiring payment for all time that
Newton spent on standby.   Therefore, this California law does not
provide the rule of decision on the OCS, and to the extent Newton's
OCS-based claims rely on that law, they necessarily fail.

Newton points out that the FLSA sets a minimum wage of not less
than $7.25 an hour and does not excuse noncompliance with any
Federal or State law establishing a higher minimum wage. But
whatever the import of these provisions in an ordinary pre-emption
case, they do not help Newton here, for the question under the
OCSLA is whether federal law addresses the minimum wage on the OCS.
It does. Therefore, the California minimum wage is not adopted as
federal law and does not apply on the OCS.

Newton's other claims were not analyzed by the Court of Appeals,
and the parties have provided little briefing on those claims.
Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that Newton should be given
leave to amend his complaint. Because the Court cannot finally
resolve whether Parker was entitled to judgment on the pleadings,
the Court vacates the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and the
case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's June 10, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y559525a from Leagle.com.

Paul D. Clement -- paul.clement@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP, Attorney for Petitioner, Parker Drilling Management Services,
Ltd.

David C. Frederick -- dfrederick@kellogghansen.com -- Kellogg,
Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, Attorney for Respondent, Brian
Newton.

Michael Anthony Strauss -- mike@strausslawyers.com -- Strauss &
Strauss, APC, Attorney for Respondent, Brian Newton.

Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, United States Department of
Justice, for United States.

Hyland Hunt -- hhunt@deutschhunt.com -- Deutsch Hunt PLLC, for
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America.

Jeremy Charles Marwell -- jmarwell@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins
LLP, for Freeport-McMoRan Oil & Gas LLC, et al.

Richard A. Samp -- rsamp@wlf.org -- Washington Legal Foundation,
for Washington Legal Foundation.

John J. Korzen, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, P.O. Box 7206
Reynolda Station, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109-7206,
APPELLATE ADVOCACY CLINIC, for CALIFORNIA APPLICANTS' ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION ("CAAA").


PERSPECTA INC: Additional Mediation in Forsyth Case Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Perspecta Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2019, that a further mediation of additional
plaintiffs subject to arbitration agreements was scheduled for June
26-27, 2019, in the case entitled, Forsyth, et al. v. HP Inc. and
Hewlett Packard Enterprise.

This purported class and collective action was filed on August 18,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, against HP Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Enterprise Company
(HPE) alleging violations of the Federal Age Discrimination in
Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act, California public policy and the California Business and
Professions Code. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December
19, 2016.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class action under the ADEA
comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a work force reduction
("WFR") plan on or after December 9, 2014 (deferral states) and
April 8, 2015 (non-deferral states), and who were 40 years of age
or older at the time of termination.

Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under California
law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed by
defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant to a
WFR plan on or after August 18, 2012.

On January 30, 2017, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss
and a motion to compel arbitration of claims by certain named and
opt-in plaintiffs who had signed releases as part of their WFR
packages.

On September 20, 2017, the Court denied the partial motion to
dismiss without prejudice, but granted defendants' motions to
compel arbitration for those named and opt-in plaintiffs.

The American Arbitration Association, which was designated to
manage the arbitration process, selected a single arbitrator to
conduct the proceedings.

Pursuant to the release agreements, mediation is a precondition to
arbitration. A mediation was held on October 4-5, 2018, and a
settlement reached with the 16 named and opt-in plaintiffs who were
compelled to arbitrate.

The settlement has been completed.

A further mediation of additional plaintiffs subject to arbitration
agreements has been scheduled for June 26-27, 2019. The case
remains stayed with respect to other putative class members.

Former business units of HPE now owned by the Company will be
liable in this matter for any recovery by plaintiffs previously
associated with the USPS business of HPE.

Perspecta Inc. provides enterprise information technology (IT)
services to government customers in the United States federal,
state, and local markets. Perspecta Inc. is headquartered in
Chantilly, Virginia.


PHOENIX, AZ: Summary Judgment in Suit Over Retirement Plan Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES AFL-CIO LOCAL 2384, et al., Plaintiffs /Appellants, v.
CITY OF PHOENIX, et al., Defendants/Appellees, Case No. 1 CA-CV
18-002 (Ariz. App.), Judge David D. Weinzweig of the Court of
Appeals of Arizona, Division One, affirmed the superior court's
order granting summary judgment in favor of the City Defendants.

The City of Phoenix is a charter city organized under Article 13,
Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution.  The City's voters approved
the Employees' Retirement Plan in 1953, which is memorialized in
the City of Phoenix Charter, and vests administrative, management
and operational authority in the City of Phoenix Employees'
Retirement Board.

The Plan is a defined retirement benefit plan comprised of
full-time City employees with continuous 12-month work schedules;
it expressly excludes persons who furnish personal services to the
City on a contractual or fee basis.  The Plan is funded by
contributions from Plan members and the City.  It specifically
directs that each member must pay 5% of his annual compensation to
fund the actuarially-required pension reserves needed to cover his
or her future pension benefit.

The Members sued the City Defendants in September 2014 for
declaratory, injunctive and mandamus relief.  Styled as a class
action, the lawsuit challenged the Plan's calculation of pension
benefits under revised A.R. 2.18, arguing the amended regulation
violated the Plan's express terms, the United States and Arizona
Constitutions, and the common law because it diminished or impaired
their pension benefits.  The superior court denied class
certification.

The parties cross-moved for summary judgment.  The superior court
granted summary judgment in favor of the City Defendants and
against Members.  It found that pensionable compensation under the
Plan was limited to regular, annual payments for services rendered.
And it held that a lump-sum payout at retirement for accrued
vacation leave is not regular annual pay because an employee
receives a payout only one time if at all.  The court recognized
that the payments compensated Plan members for up to 2.5 years of
accrued vacation leave in reaching the conclusion they were neither
"annual" nor "a payment made at regular intervals."  It also held
the City could end its errant historical practice and revise A.R.
2.18 to prospectively conform with the Charter's express terms
without violating the Arizona Constitution or common law.

The superior court awarded the City Defendants $141,986.70 in
attorneys' fees under A.R.S. Section 12-341.01 and $338 in costs
under A.R.S. Section 12-341 after they had requested $283,973.40 in
fees and $1008.50 in costs.  

The Members timely appealed.  They argue the superior court erred
in several respects; first by misinterpreting "final average
compensation" to exclude one-time payouts for accrued vacation
leave, and again by concluding the City Defendants did not violate
the United States Constitution, Arizona Constitution or common law
by adopting revised A.R. 2.18. Members also contest the award of
attorneys' fees.  Meanwhile, the City Defendants insist the court
properly interpreted the Plan's plain language to exclude the
irregular payouts from the benefit formula, and correctly
determined that Plan members have no common-law or constitutional
right to compel the City Defendants to continue an errant
historical practice.

At issue is whether the Plan requires the City Defendants to
include a one-time cash payout for accrued vacation leave at
retirement in a Plan member's "final average compensation."  The
issue hinges on the term "compensation," which is defined as
"salary or wages."  The Plan provides no definition for "salary or
wages."

Judge Weinzweig sees no difference for definitional purposes
between one-time payouts for accrued sick leave and vacation leave
benefits.  Each represents a singular cash boost—irregular in
time and amount—for as much as 2.5 years of accrued benefits.
The Plan neither envisions nor defines either lump-sum payout as
pensionable compensation.

In addition, although the Judge is not persuaded by the City
Defendants' rationale in distinguishing between cash payments under
the alternative programs, his conclusion remains unchanged.  At
issue is voter intent and City administrators cannot reshape the
intent of voters with errant practices.

He also finds that the Plan did not authorize the City to count
one-time cash payouts for accrued vacation leave at retirement as
pensionable compensation, and the City's amendment to A.R. 2.18 to
harmonize its practices with the Plan pass constitutional and
common law muster.  The superior court properly granted summary
judgment in favor of the City Defendants.

Finally, he denies fees on appeal in discretion.  The City
Defendants are, however, entitled to their taxable costs upon
compliance with ARCAP 21.  The Judge finds that the record includes
a reasonable basis for the court's attorneys' fee award and we find
no abuse of discretion.

In light of the foregoing, Judge Weinzweig holds that the Plan does
not compel the City Defendants to count lump-sum cash payouts to
retirees for accrued vacation leave as "final average
compensation," and the City Defendants did not offend
constitutional or common law safeguards by revising A.R. 2.18 to
conform with the Plan.  He affirmed.

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

Martin & Bonnett PLLC, Phoenix, By Susan Martin --
info@martinbonnett.com -- Jennifer L. Kroll & Michael Licata,
Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants.

Osborn Maledon PA, Phoenix, By Colin F. Campbell --
ccampbell@omlaw.com -- Eric M. Fraser -- efraser@omlaw.com -- &
Hayleigh S. Crawford -- hcrawford@omlaw.com -- Counsel for
Defendants/Appellees.


PHYSICIAN COMPASSIONATE: Teblum Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DARYL TEBLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHYSICIAN COMPASSIONATE CARE LLC d/b/a
DOCMJ, the Defendant Case No. 2:19-cv-00403-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla.,
June 14, 2019), alleges that Defendant engages in unsolicited
telemarketing directed towards prospective customers with no regard
for consumers' privacy rights, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant owns and/or operates medical centers throughout
Florida and Ohio where patients can obtain medical marijuana
recommendations.

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 786-496-4469
          E-mail: IJHiraldo@IJHLaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Eisenband, Esq.
          EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954.533.4092
          E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

               - and -

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

PNC FINANCIAL: Herbin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
TONYA HERBIN, JENNIFER TABOR, and BRETT TYSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE PNC
FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. and PNC BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-00696-CB (W.D. Pa., June 14, 2019) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation for Plaintiffs and similarly situated
telephone customer service representatives, including but not
limited to Customer Service Representative, Sales Representatives,
Customer Service and Support Representatives, Customer Support
Representatives, and/or other similar positions with different
titles (collectively, "CSRs"), who have worked for Defendants
throughout the United States, whether in call centers (sometimes
referred to as a "Customer Care Centers") or "virtually" (outside
of a call center and/or from home).

Pursuant to PNC's policy, pattern, and/or practice, Plaintiffs
regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek as a CSR but was
not paid for all hours that they worked, including hours that they
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Specifically, at all times
relevant, Plaintiffs routinely worked approximately one hour and
forty-five minutes off-the-clock, overtime hours per week. PNC's
systematic failure and refusal to pay Plaintiffs and all other
similarly situated CSRs for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek
violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable state laws,
including the Pennsylvania Wage Laws, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as non-exempt CSRs.

PNC Financial is incorporated in Pennsylvania and maintains its
corporate headquarters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243

          - and -

     Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
     Cheryl-Lynn D. Bentley, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 245-1000

          - and -

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Paolo Meireles, Esq.
     Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     951 Yamato Road
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Phone: (561) 447-8888


PURDUE PHARMA: Ellis Sues Over S.O.D.'s Addiction to Opioids
------------------------------------------------------------
ESPERENZA ELLIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF
BABY S.O.D., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.;
THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL
HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45464-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 14, 2019) is a class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids.

According to the complaint, like thousands of children born every
year, Baby S.O.D. was born addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure
to opioids cause severe withdrawal symptoms and lasting
developmental impacts. The first days of Baby S.O.D.'s life were
spent in excruciating pain as doctors weaned the infant from opioid
addiction. Baby S.O.D. will require years of treatment and
counseling to deal with the effects of prenatal exposure. Baby
S.O.D. and their mother are victims of the opioid crisis that has
ravaged New Mexico, causing immense suffering to those born
addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced to deal with
the aftermath. At birth, Baby S.O.D. was diagnosed with Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of
mothers addicted to opioids. Baby S.O.D. was forced to endure a
painful start to their life; crying excessively, arching their
back, refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis,
and "a consequence of the abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal
exposure to substances that were used or abused by the mother
during pregnancy." Baby S.O.D. spent their first days in a Neonatal
Intensive Care Unit writhing in agony as they went through
detoxification.

Baby S.O.D.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to
Baby S.O.D.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby
S.O.D.'s opioid exposure during gestation. Upon information and
belief, S.O.D.'s mother consumed opioids manufactured and
distributed by all named defendants including: a. Purdue's products
Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin; b. Cephalon's products Actiq
and Fentora; c. Janssen's product Duragesic; d. Endo's products
Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone (Vicodin
and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and Hydromorphone; and e. Activis'
product Norco and Kadian. Baby S.O.D.'s experience is part of an
opioid epidemic sweeping through the United States, including New
Mexico, that has caused thousands of infants great suffering and
continuing developmental issues. This epidemic is the largest
health care crisis in U.S. history, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring
to provide this class of infants the monitoring of developmental
issues that will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and
equitable relief in the form of funding for services and
treatment.

Baby S.O.D., a citizen of New Mexico, and Putative Class members
are individuals who have suffered Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome as a
result of exposure to opioids in utero.

Purdue manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such
as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla
ER, and Targiniq ER in the U.S. and New Mexico. OxyContin is
Purdue's best-selling opioid.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
     Stephen Wussow, Esq.
     COOPER LAW FIRM
     1525 Religious Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-399-0009
     Facsimile: 504-309-6989
     Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

          - and -

     Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
     David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
     THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
     2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
     Charleston, WV 25311
     Phone: 304-343-4401
     Facsimile: 304-343-4405
     Email: kwthompson@gmail.com

          - and -

     Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
     CREADORE LAW FIRM
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: 212-355-7200
     Email: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

          - and -

     Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
     Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
     MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
     338 Lafayette Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-581-9065
     Facsimile: 504-581-7635
     Email: srb@mbfirm.com

          - and -

     Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
     242 Northeast 27th Street
     Miami, FL 33137
     Phone: (305) 532-0500
     Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
     Email: khr@khrlawoffices.com
     Secondary: ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
     Tertiary: assistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Flach Sues Over A.B.'s & G.B.'s Addiction to Opioids
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY FLACH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF
BABIES A.B. AND G.B., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE
PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45488-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 16, 2019) is a class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids.

According to the complaint, like thousands of children born every
year, Babies A.B. and G.B. were born addicted to opioids. Prenatal
exposure to opioids cause severe withdrawal symptoms and lasting
developmental impacts. The first days of Babies A.B. and G.B.'s
lives were spent in excruciating pain as doctors weaned the infant
from opioid addiction. Babies A.B. and G.B. will require years of
treatment and counseling to deal with the effects of prenatal
exposure. Babies A.B. and G.B. and their mother are victims of the
opioid crisis that has ravaged New Jersey, causing immense
suffering to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to
those forced to deal with the aftermath. At birth, Babies A.B. and
G.B. were diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ("NAS"), a
condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to opioids. Babies
A.B. and G.B. were forced to endure a painful start to their life;
crying excessively, arching their back, refusing to feed, and
shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the
abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that
were used or abused by the mother during pregnancy." Babies A.B.
and G.B. spent their first days in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
writhing in agony as they went through detoxification.

Babies A.B. and G.B.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids
prior to Babies A.B. and G.B.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid
addiction and Babies A.B. and G.B.'s opioid exposure during
gestation. Upon information and belief, A.B. and G.B.'s mother
consumed opioids manufactured and distributed by all named
defendants including: a. Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and
MS Contin; b. Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora; c. Janssen's
product Duragesic; d. Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana,
Opana ER, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone,
and Hydromorphone; and e. Activis' product Norco and Kadian. Babies
A.B. and G.B.'s experience is part of an opioid epidemic sweeping
through the United States, including New Jersey, that has caused
thousands of infants great suffering and continuing developmental
issues. This epidemic is the largest health care crisis in U.S.
history, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to
provide this class of infants the monitoring of developmental
issues that will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and
equitable relief in the form of funding for services and
treatment.

Babies A.B., G.B., citizens of New Jersey, and Putative Class
members are individuals who have suffered Neonatal Abstinence
Syndrome as a result of exposure to opioids in utero.

Purdue manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such
as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla
ER, and Targiniq ER in the U.S. and New Mexico. OxyContin is
Purdue's best-selling opioid.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
     Stephen Wussow, Esq.
     COOPER LAW FIRM
     1525 Religious Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-399-0009
     Facsimile: 504-309-6989
     Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

          - and -

     Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
     David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
     THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
     2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
     Charleston, WV 25311
     Phone: 304-343-4401
     Facsimile: 304-343-4405
     Email: kwthompson@gmail.com

          - and -

     Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
     CREADORE LAW FIRM
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: 212-355-7200
     Email: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

          - and -

     Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
     Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
     MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
     338 Lafayette Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-581-9065
     Facsimile: 504-581-7635
     Email: srb@mbfirm.com

          - and -

     Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
     242 Northeast 27th Street
     Miami, FL 33137
     Phone: (305) 532-0500
     Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
     Email: khr@khrlawoffices.com
     Secondary: ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
     Tertiary: assistant@khrlawoffices.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Hamawi Sues Over K.L.H. and N.A.W's Opioid Addiction
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIJHA HAMAWI AND MEGHAN LARA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS
AND GUARDIANS OF BABIES K.L.H. and N.A.W., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA
L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.;
MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN
CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a
ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.;
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.
f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC;
MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS
HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.;
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.;
WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S.
SACKLER; JONATHON D. SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A.
SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER;
DAVID A. SACKLER; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.;
RHODES PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR
THE BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45477-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 15, 2019) is a class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids.

According to the complaint, like thousands of children born every
year, Babies K.L.H. and N.A.W were born addicted to opioids.
Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe withdrawal symptoms and
lasting developmental impacts. The first days of Babies K.L.H. and
N.A.W's lives were spent in excruciating pain as doctors weaned the
infant from opioid addiction. Babies K.L.H. and N.A.W will require
years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects of
prenatal exposure. Babies K.L.H. and N.A.W and their mother are
victims of the opioid crisis that has ravaged Kentucky, causing
immense suffering to those born addicted to opioids and great
expense to those forced to deal with the aftermath. At birth,
Babies K.L.H. and N.A.W were diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence
Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of mothers
addicted to opioids. Babies K.L.H. and N.A.W were forced to endure
a painful start to their life; crying excessively, arching their
back, refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis,
and "a consequence of the abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal
exposure to substances that were used or abused by the mother
during pregnancy." Babies K.L.H. and N.A.W spent their first days
in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit writhing in agony as they went
through detoxification.

Babies K.L.H. and N.A.W's mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids
prior to Babies K.L.H. and N.A.W's gestation, resulting in her
opioid addiction and Babies K.L.H. and N.A.W's opioid exposure
during gestation. Upon information and belief Babies K.L.H. and
N.A.W's mother consumed opioids manufactured and distributed by all
named defendants including: a. Purdue's products Oxycontin,
Dilaudid, and MS Contin; b. Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
c. Janssen's product Duragesic; d. Endo's products Perodan,
Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone (Vicodin and
Lortab), Oxymorphone, and Hydromorphone; and e. Activis' product
Norco and Kadian. Babies K.L.H. and N.A.W's experience is part of
an opioid epidemic sweeping through the United States, including
Kentucky, that has caused thousands of infants great suffering and
continuing developmental issues. This epidemic is the largest
health care crisis in U.S. history, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to
provide this class of infants the monitoring of developmental
issues that will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and
equitable relief in the form of funding for services and
treatment.

Babies K.L.H. and N.A.W., citizens of Kentucky, and Putative Class
members  are individuals who have suffered Neonatal Abstinence
Syndrome as a result of exposure to opioids in utero.

Purdue manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such
as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla
ER, and Targiniq ER in the U.S. and New Mexico. OxyContin is
Purdue's best-selling opioid.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
     Stephen Wussow, Esq.
     COOPER LAW FIRM
     1525 Religious Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-399-0009
     Facsimile: 504-309-6989
     Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

          - and -

     Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
     David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
     THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
     2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
     Charleston, WV 25311
     Phone: 304-343-4401
     Facsimile: 304-343-4405
     Email: kwthompson@gmail.com

          - and -

     Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
     CREADORE LAW FIRM
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: 212-355-7200
     Email: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

          - and -

     Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
     Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
     MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
     338 Lafayette Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-581-9065
     Facsimile: 504-581-7635
     Email: srb@mbfirm.com

          - and -

     Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
     242 Northeast 27th Street
     Miami, FL 33137
     Phone: (305) 532-0500
     Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
     Email: khr@khrlawoffices.com
     Secondary: ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
     Tertiary: assistant@khrlawoffices.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Hampel Sues Over A.M.H.'s Opioid Addiction
---------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA HAMPEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF
BABY A.M.H., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.;
THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL
HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45473-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 14, 2019) is a class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids.

According to the complaint, like thousands of children born every
year, Baby A.M.H. was born addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure
to opioids cause severe withdrawal symptoms and lasting
developmental impacts. The first days of Baby A.M.H.'s life were
spent in excruciating pain as doctors weaned the infant from opioid
addiction. Baby A.M.H. will require years of treatment and
counseling to deal with the effects of prenatal exposure. Baby
A.M.H. and their mother are victims of the opioid crisis that has
ravaged New Mexico, causing immense suffering to those born
addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced to deal with
the aftermath. At birth, Baby A.M.H. was diagnosed with Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of
mothers addicted to opioids. Baby A.M.H. was forced to endure a
painful start to their life; crying excessively, arching their
back, refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis,
and "a consequence of the abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal
exposure to substances that were used or abused by the mother
during pregnancy." Baby A.M.H. spent their first days in a Neonatal
Intensive Care Unit writhing in agony as they went through
detoxification.

Baby A.M.H.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to
Baby A.M.H.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby
A.M.H.'s opioid exposure during gestation. Upon information and
belief, Baby A.M.H.'s mother consumed opioids manufactured and
distributed by all named defendants including: a. Purdue's products
Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin; b. Cephalon's products Actiq
and Fentora; c. Janssen's product Duragesic; d. Endo's products
Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone (Vicodin
and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and Hydromorphone; and e. Activis'
product Norco and Kadian. Baby A.M.H.'s experience is part of an
opioid epidemic sweeping through the United States, including
Alabama, that has caused thousands of infants great suffering and
continuing developmental issues. This epidemic is the largest
health care crisis in U.S. history, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to
provide this class of infants the monitoring of developmental
issues that will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and
equitable relief in the form of funding for services and
treatment.

Baby A.M.H., a citizen of Alabama, and Putative Class members are
individuals who have suffered Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome as a
result of exposure to opioids in utero.

Purdue manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such
as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla
ER, and Targiniq ER in the U.S. and New Mexico. OxyContin is
Purdue's best-selling opioid.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
     Stephen Wussow, Esq.
     COOPER LAW FIRM
     1525 Religious Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-399-0009
     Facsimile: 504-309-6989
     Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

          - and -

     Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
     David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
     THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
     2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
     Charleston, WV 25311
     Phone: 304-343-4401
     Facsimile: 304-343-4405
     Email: kwthompson@gmail.com

          - and -

     Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
     CREADORE LAW FIRM
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: 212-355-7200
     Email: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

          - and -

     Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
     Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
     MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
     338 Lafayette Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-581-9065
     Facsimile: 504-581-7635
     Email: srb@mbfirm.com

          - and -

     Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
     242 Northeast 27th Street
     Miami, FL 33137
     Phone: (305) 532-0500
     Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
     Email: khr@khrlawoffices.com
     Secondary: ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
     Tertiary: assistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Ivie Sues Over A.I.'s Opioid Addiction
-----------------------------------------------------
BILLIE IVIE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABY
A.I., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE
FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH,
INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45489-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 16, 2019) is a class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids.

According to the complaint, like thousands of children born every
year, Baby A.I. was born addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to
opioids cause severe withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental
impacts. The first days of Baby A.I.'s life was spent in
excruciating pain as doctors weaned the infant from opioid
addiction. Baby A.I. will require years of treatment and counseling
to deal with the effects of prenatal exposure. Baby A.I. and their
mother are victims of the opioid crisis that has ravaged North
Carolina, causing immense suffering to those born addicted to
opioids and great expense to those forced to deal with the
aftermath. At birth, Baby A.I. wwas diagnosed with Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of
mothers addicted to opioids. Baby A.I. was forced to endure a
painful start to their life; crying excessively, arching their
back, refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis,
and "a consequence of the abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal
exposure to substances that were used or abused by the mother
during pregnancy." Babies A.B. and G.B. spent their first days in a
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit writhing in agony as they went through
detoxification.

Baby A.I.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to
Babies A.B. and G.B.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction
and Baby A.I.'s opioid exposure during gestation. Upon information
and belief, Baby A.I.'s mother consumed opioids manufactured and
distributed by all named defendants including: a. Purdue's products
Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin; b. Cephalon's products Actiq
and Fentora; c. Janssen's product Duragesic; d. Endo's products
Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone (Vicodin
and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and Hydromorphone; and e. Activis'
product Norco and Kadian. Baby A.I.'s experience is part of an
opioid epidemic sweeping through the United States, including North
Carolina, that has caused thousands of infants great suffering and
continuing developmental issues. This epidemic is the largest
health care crisis in U.S. history, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to
provide this class of infants the monitoring of developmental
issues that will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and
equitable relief in the form of funding for services and
treatment.

Baby A.I., citizens of North Carolina, and Putative Class members
are individuals who have suffered Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome as a
result of exposure to opioids in utero.

Purdue manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such
as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla
ER, and Targiniq ER in the U.S. and New Mexico. OxyContin is
Purdue's best-selling opioid.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
     Stephen Wussow, Esq.
     COOPER LAW FIRM
     1525 Religious Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-399-0009
     Facsimile: 504-309-6989
     Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

          - and -

     Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
     David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
     THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
     2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
     Charleston, WV 25311
     Phone: 304-343-4401
     Facsimile: 304-343-4405
     Email: kwthompson@gmail.com

          - and -

     Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
     CREADORE LAW FIRM
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: 212-355-7200
     Email: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

          - and -

     Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
     Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
     MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
     338 Lafayette Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-581-9065
     Facsimile: 504-581-7635
     Email: srb@mbfirm.com

          - and -

     Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
     242 Northeast 27th Street
     Miami, FL 33137
     Phone: (305) 532-0500
     Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
     Email: khr@khrlawoffices.com
     Secondary: ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
     Tertiary: assistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Lechuga Sues Over Q.H.L., A.G.L.'s Opioid Addiction
------------------------------------------------------------------
NIOLA LECHUGA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF
BABIES Q.H.L. AND A.G.L., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE
PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45468-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 14, 2019) is a class action seeking to eliminate the
hazard to public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic
and to abate the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent
and unfair marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription
opioids.

According to the complaint, like thousands of children born every
year, Babies Q.H.L. and A.G.L. were born addicted to opioids.
Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe withdrawal symptoms and
lasting developmental impacts. The first days of Babies Q.H.L. and
A.G.L.'s lives were spent in excruciating pain as doctors weaned
the infant from opioid addiction. Babies Q.H.L. and A.G.L. will
require years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects
of prenatal exposure. Babies Q.H.L. and A.G.L. and their mother are
victims of the opioid crisis that has ravaged Oregon, causing
immense suffering to those born addicted to opioids and great
expense to those forced to deal with the aftermath. At birth,
Babies Q.H.L. and A.G.L. were diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence
Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of mothers
addicted to opioids. Babies Q.H.L. and A.G.L. were forced to endure
a painful start to their life; crying excessively, arching their
back, refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis,
and "a consequence of the abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal
exposure to substances that were used or abused by the mother
during pregnancy." Babies Q.H.L. and A.G.L. spent their first days
in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit writhing in agony as they went
through detoxification.

Babies Q.H.L. and A.G.L.'s mother was prescribed Defendants'
opioids prior to Babies Q.H.L. and A.G.L.'s gestation, resulting in
her opioid addiction and Babies Q.H.L. and A.G.L.'s opioid exposure
during gestation. Upon information and belief, Babies Q.H.L. and
A.G.L.'s mother consumed opioids manufactured and distributed by
all named defendants including: a. Purdue's products Oxycontin,
Dilaudid, and MS Contin; b. Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
c. Janssen's product Duragesic; d. Endo's products Perodan,
Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone (Vicodin and
Lortab), Oxymorphone, and Hydromorphone; and e. Activis' product
Norco and Kadian. Babies Q.H.L. and A.G.L.'s experience is part of
an opioid epidemic sweeping through the United States, including
Oregon, that has caused thousands of infants great suffering and
continuing developmental issues. This epidemic is the largest
health care crisis in U.S. history, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to
provide this class of infants the monitoring of developmental
issues that will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and
equitable relief in the form of funding for services and
treatment.

Babies Q.H.L. and A.G.L., citizens of Oregon, and Putative Class
members are individuals who have suffered Neonatal Abstinence
Syndrome as a result of exposure to opioids in utero.

Purdue manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such
as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla
ER, and Targiniq ER in the U.S. and New Mexico. OxyContin is
Purdue's best-selling opioid.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
     Stephen Wussow, Esq.
     COOPER LAW FIRM
     1525 Religious Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-399-0009
     Facsimile: 504-309-6989
     Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

          - and -

     Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
     David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
     THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
     2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
     Charleston, WV 25311
     Phone: 304-343-4401
     Facsimile: 304-343-4405
     Email: kwthompson@gmail.com

          - and -

     Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
     CREADORE LAW FIRM
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: 212-355-7200
     Email: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

          - and -

     Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
     Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
     MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
     338 Lafayette Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-581-9065
     Facsimile: 504-581-7635
     Email: srb@mbfirm.com

          - and -

     Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
     242 Northeast 27th Street
     Miami, FL 33137
     Phone: (305) 532-0500
     Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
     Email: khr@khrlawoffices.com
     Secondary: ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
     Tertiary: assistant@khrlawoffices.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Martinez et al Sue over Sale of Opioid Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P, et
al. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
statutory damages, and any other relief allowed by law against the
Defendant opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers
that, by their actions and omissions, knowingly or negligently have
distributed and dispensed prescription opioid drugs in a manner
that foreseeably injured, and continues to injure, Baby J.M. and
the Class. The Plaintiffs further seek the equitable relief of
medical monitoring to provide this class of infants the monitoring
of developmental issues that will almost inevitably appear as they
grow older and equitable relief in the form of funding for services
and treatment.

Like thousands of children born every year, Baby J.M. was born
addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe
withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental impacts. The first
days of Baby J.M.'s life were spent in excruciating pain as doctors
weaned the infant from opioid addiction. Baby J.M. will require
years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects of
prenatal exposure. Baby J.M. and their mother are victims of the
opioid crisis that has ravaged Virginia, causing immense suffering
to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced
to deal with the aftermath.

At birth, Baby J.M. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome
(NAS), a condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to
opioids. Baby J.M. was forced to endure a painful start to their
life; crying excessively, arching their back, refusing to feed, and
shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the
abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that
were used or abused by the mother during pregnancy." Baby J.M.
spent their first days in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit writhing
in agony as they went through detoxification.

Baby J.M.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to Baby
J.M.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby J.M.'s
opioid exposure during gestation. J.M.'s mother consumed opioids
manufactured and distributed by all named defendants including:

-- Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin;
-- Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
-- Janssen's product Duragesic;
-- Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone,
    Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and
    Hydromorphone; and
-- Activis' product Norco and Kadian.

Baby J.M.'s experience is part of an opioid epidemic sweeping
through the United States, including Virginia, that has caused
thousands of infants great suffering and continuing developmental
issues. This epidemic is the largest health care crisis in U.S.
history.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids, the
lawsuit says.

Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Baby J.M. and Class
Members including the costs of neo-natal medical care, additional
therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other treatments for
NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and rehabilitation services
after birth and into the future.

The case is captioned JACQUELYNN MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABY J.M., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.;
PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45484-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 16, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-399-0009
          Facsimile: 504-309-6989
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: 304-343-4401
          Facsimile: 304-343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          CREADORE LAW FIRM
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: 212-355-7200
          E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-9065
          Facsimile: 504-581-7635
          E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT
          HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
          242 Northeast 27th Street
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 532-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
          E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com
                  ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
                  ssistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Means Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P, et
al. seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law against the Defendant
opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers.  According
to the lawsuit, the Defendants, by their actions and omissions,
knowingly or negligently have distributed and dispensed
prescription opioid drugs in a manner that foreseeably injured, and
continues to injure, Baby E.D.J. and the Class. The Plaintiffs
further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to provide
this class of infants the monitoring of developmental issues that
will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and equitable
relief in the form of funding for services and treatment.

Like thousands of children born every year, Baby E.D.J. was born
addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe
withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental impacts. The first
days of Baby E.D.J.'s life were spent in excruciating pain as
doctors weaned the infant from opioid addiction. Baby E.D.J. will
require years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects
of prenatal exposure. Baby E.D.J. and their mother are victims of
the opioid crisis that has ravaged Louisiana, causing immense
suffering to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to
those forced to deal with the aftermath.

At birth, Baby E.D.J. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence
Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of mothers
addicted to opioids. Baby E.D.J. was forced to endure a painful
start to their life; crying excessively, arching their back,
refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis, and "a
consequence of the abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure
to substances that were used or abused by the mother during
pregnancy." Baby E.D.J. spent their first days in a Neonatal
Intensive Care Unit writhing in agony as they went through
detoxification.

Baby E.D.J.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to
Baby E.D.J.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby
E.D.J.'s opioid exposure during gestation. E.D.J.'s mother consumed
opioids manufactured and distributed by all named defendants
including:

-- Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin;
-- Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
-- Janssen's product Duragesic;
-- Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone,
    Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and
    Hydromorphone; and
-- Activis' product Norco and Kadian.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids, the
lawsuit says.

Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Baby E.D.J. and Class
Members including the costs of neo-natal medical care, additional
therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other treatments for
NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and rehabilitation services
after birth and into the future.

The case is captioned COREY MEANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND
AND GUARDIAN OF BABY E.D.J., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE
PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45470-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 14, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-399-0009
          Facsimile: 504-309-6989
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: 304-343-4401
          Facsimile: 304-343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          CREADORE LAW FIRM
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: 212-355-7200
          E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-9065
          Facsimile: 504-581-7635
          E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT
             HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
          242 Northeast 27 th Street
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 532-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
          E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com
                  ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
                  ssistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Meinecke Sues Over J.B's Addiction to Opioids
------------------------------------------------------------
KJELLSI MEINECKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF
BABY J.B., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.;
THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL
HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45493-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 17, 2019) is a class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids.

According to the complaint, like thousands of children born every
year, Baby J.B. was born addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to
opioids cause severe withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental
impacts. The first days of Baby J.B.'s life were spent in
excruciating pain as doctors weaned the infant from opioid
addiction. Baby J.B. will require years of treatment and counseling
to deal with the effects of prenatal exposure. Baby J.B. and their
mother are victims of the opioid crisis that has ravaged Minnesota,
causing immense suffering to those born addicted to opioids and
great expense to those forced to deal with the aftermath. At birth,
Baby J.B. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ("NAS"),
a condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to opioids. Baby
J.B. was forced to endure a painful start to their life; crying
excessively, arching their back, refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS
is a clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the abrupt
discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that were
used or abused by the mother during pregnancy." Baby J.B. spent
their first days in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit writhing in
agony as they went through detoxification.

Baby J.B.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to Baby
J.B.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby J.B.'s
opioid exposure during gestation. Upon information and belief,
J.B.'s mother consumed opioids manufactured and distributed by all
named defendants including a) Purdue's products Oxycontin,
Dilaudid, and MS Contin; b) Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
c) Janssen's product Duragesic; d) Endo's products Perodan,
Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone (Vicodin and
Lortab), Oxymorphone, and Hydromorphone; and e) Activis' product
Norco and Kadian. Baby J.B.'s experience is part of an opioid
epidemic sweeping through the United States, including Minnesota,
that has caused thousands of infants great suffering and continuing
developmental issues. This epidemic is the largest health care
crisis in U.S. history, says the complaint.

Against this background, Plaintiffs seek the equitable relief of
medical monitoring to provide this class of infants the monitoring
of developmental issues that will almost inevitably appear as they
grow older and equitable relief in the form of funding for services
and treatment.

Baby J.B., a citizen of Minnesota, and Putative Class members are
individuals who have suffered Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome as a
result of exposure to opioids in utero.

Purdue manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such
as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla
ER, and Targiniq ER in the U.S. and New Mexico. OxyContin is
Purdue's best-selling opioid.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
     Stephen Wussow, Esq.
     COOPER LAW FIRM
     1525 Religious Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-399-0009
     Facsimile: 504-309-6989
     Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

          - and -

     Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
     David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
     THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
     2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
     Charleston, WV 25311
     Phone: 304-343-4401
     Facsimile: 304-343-4405
     Email: kwthompson@gmail.com

          - and -

     Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
     CREADORE LAW FIRM
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: 212-355-7200
     Email: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

          - and -

     Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
     Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
     MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
     338 Lafayette Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-581-9065
     Facsimile: 504-581-7635
     Email: srb@mbfirm.com

          - and -

     Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
     242 Northeast 27th Street
     Miami, FL 33137
     Phone: (305) 532-0500
     Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
     Email: khr@khrlawoffices.com
     Secondary: ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
     Tertiary: assistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Ortiz Sues Over A.O.'s Addiction to Opioids
----------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ORTIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABY
A.O., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE
FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH,
INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45492-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 17, 2019) is a class action seeking to eliminate the
hazard to public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic
and to abate the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent
and unfair marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription
opioids.

According to the complaint, like thousands of children born every
year, Baby A.O. was born addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to
opioids cause severe withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental
impacts. The first days of Baby A.O.'s life were spent in
excruciating pain as doctors weaned the infant from opioid
addiction. Baby A.O. will require years of treatment and counseling
to deal with the effects of prenatal exposure. Baby A.O. and their
mother are victims of the opioid crisis that has ravaged Wisconsin,
causing immense suffering to those born addicted to opioids and
great expense to those forced to deal with the aftermath. At birth,
Baby A.O. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ("NAS"),
a condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to opioids. Baby
A.O. was forced to endure a painful start to their life; crying
excessively, arching their back, refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS
is a clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the abrupt
discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that were
used or abused by the mother during pregnancy." Baby A.O. spent
their first days in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit writhing in
agony as they went through detoxification.

Baby A.O.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to Baby
A.O.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby A.O.'s
opioid exposure during gestation. Upon information and belief, Baby
A.O.'s mother consumed opioids manufactured and distributed by all
named defendants including: a. Purdue's products Oxycontin,
Dilaudid, and MS Contin; b. Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
c. Janssen's product Duragesic; d. Endo's products Perodan,
Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone (Vicodin and
Lortab), Oxymorphone, and Hydromorphone; and e. Activis' product
Norco and Kadian. Baby A.O.'s experience is part of an opioid
epidemic sweeping through the United States, including Wisconsin,
that has caused thousands of infants great suffering and continuing
developmental issues. This epidemic is the largest health care
crisis in U.S. history, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to
provide this class of infants the monitoring of developmental
issues that will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and
equitable relief in the form of funding for services and
treatment.

Baby A.O., a citizen of Minnesota, and Putative Class members are
individuals who have suffered Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome as a
result of exposure to opioids in utero.

Purdue manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such
as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla
ER, and Targiniq ER in the U.S. and New Mexico. OxyContin is
Purdue's best-selling opioid.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
     Stephen Wussow, Esq.
     COOPER LAW FIRM
     1525 Religious Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-399-0009
     Facsimile: 504-309-6989
     Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

          - and -

     Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
     David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
     THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
     2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
     Charleston, WV 25311
     Phone: 304-343-4401
     Facsimile: 304-343-4405
     Email: kwthompson@gmail.com

          - and -

     Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
     CREADORE LAW FIRM
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: 212-355-7200
     Email: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

          - and -

     Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
     Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
     MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
     338 Lafayette Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-581-9065
     Facsimile: 504-581-7635
     Email: srb@mbfirm.com

          - and -

     Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
     242 Northeast 27th Street
     Miami, FL 33137
     Phone: (305) 532-0500
     Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
     Email: khr@khrlawoffices.com
     Secondary: ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
     Tertiary: assistant@khrlawoffices.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Peterson Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al., seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law against the Defendant
opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers.  According
to the lawsuit, the Defendants, by their actions and omissions,
knowingly or negligently have distributed and dispensed
prescription opioid drugs in a manner that foreseeably injured, and
continues to injure, Baby E.A.P.. and the Class. The Plaintiffs
further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to provide
this class of infants the monitoring of developmental issues that
will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and equitable
relief in the form of funding for services and treatment.

Like thousands of children born every year, Baby E.A.P.. was born
addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe
withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental impacts. The first
days of Baby E.A.P..'s life were spent in excruciating pain as
doctors weaned the infant from opioid addiction. Baby E.A.P.. will
require years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects
of prenatal exposure. Baby E.A.P.. and their mother are victims of
the opioid crisis that has ravaged Louisiana, causing immense
suffering to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to
those forced to deal with the aftermath.

At birth, Baby E.A.P.. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence
Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of mothers
addicted to opioids. Baby E.A.P.. was forced to endure a painful
start to their life; crying excessively, arching their back,
refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis, and "a
consequence of the abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure
to substances that were used or abused by the mother during
pregnancy." Baby E.A.P.. spent their first days in a Neonatal
Intensive Care Unit writhing in agony as they went through
detoxification.

Baby E.A.P..'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to
Baby E.A.P..'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and
Baby E.A.P..'s opioid exposure during gestation. Baby E.A.P..'s
mother consumed opioids manufactured and distributed by all named
defendants including:

-- Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin;
-- Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
-- Janssen's product Duragesic;
-- Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone,
    Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and
    Hydromorphone; and
-- Activis' product Norco and Kadian.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids, the
lawsuit says.

Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Baby E.A.P.. and
Class Members including the costs of neo-natal medical care,
additional therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other
treatments for NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and
rehabilitation services after birth and into the future.

The case is captioned SALLY PETERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABY E.A.P, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.;
PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45472-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 14, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-399-0009
          Facsimile: 504-309-6989
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: 304-343-4401
          Facsimile: 304-343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          CREADORE LAW FIRM
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: 212-355-7200
          E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-9065
          Facsimile: 504-581-7635
          E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT
          HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
          242 Northeast 27 th Street
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 532-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
          E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com
                  ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
                  ssistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Rodriguez Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al., seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law against the Defendant
opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers.  According
to the lawsuit, the Defendants, by their actions and omissions,
knowingly or negligently have distributed and dispensed
prescription opioid drugs in a manner that foreseeably injured, and
continues to injure, Baby M.A.P. and the Class. The Plaintiffs
further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to provide
this class of infants the monitoring of developmental issues that
will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and equitable
relief in the form of funding for services and treatment.

Like thousands of children born every year, Baby M.A.P. was born
addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe
withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental impacts. The first
days of Baby M.A.P.'s life were spent in excruciating pain as
doctors weaned the infant from opioid addiction. Baby M.A.P. will
require years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects
of prenatal exposure. Baby M.A.P. and their mother are victims of
the opioid crisis that has ravaged Louisiana, causing immense
suffering to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to
those forced to deal with the aftermath.

At birth, Baby M.A.P. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence
Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of mothers
addicted to opioids. Baby M.A.P. was forced to endure a painful
start to their life; crying excessively, arching their back,
refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis, and "a
consequence of the abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure
to substances that were used or abused by the mother during
pregnancy." Baby M.A.P. spent their first days in a Neonatal
Intensive Care Unit writhing in agony as they went through
detoxification.

Baby M.A.P.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to
Baby M.A.P.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby
M.A.P.'s opioid exposure during gestation. Baby M.A.P.'s mother
consumed opioids manufactured and distributed by all named
defendants including:

-- Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin;
-- Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
-- Janssen's product Duragesic;
-- Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone,
    Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and
    Hydromorphone; and
-- Activis' product Norco and Kadian.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids, the
lawsuit says.

Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Baby M.A.P. and Class
Members including the costs of neo-natal medical care, additional
therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other treatments for
NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and rehabilitation services
after birth and into the future.

The case is captioned JESSICA RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABY M.A.P., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. PURDUE
PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY,
INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.;
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,
LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a
ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.;
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.
f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC;
MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS
HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.;
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.;
WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S.
SACKLER; JONATHON D. SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A.
SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER;
DAVID A. SACKLER; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.;
RHODES PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR
THE BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45463-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 14, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-399-0009
          Facsimile: 504-309-6989
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: 304-343-4401
          Facsimile: 304-343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          CREADORE LAW FIRM
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: 212-355-7200
          E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-9065
          Facsimile: 504-581-7635
          E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT
          HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
          242 Northeast 27 th Street
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 532-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
          E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com
                  ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
                  ssistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Shewmake Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al., seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law against the Defendant
opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers.  According
to the lawsuit, the Defendants, by their actions and omissions,
knowingly or negligently have distributed and dispensed
prescription opioid drugs in a manner that foreseeably injured, and
continues to injure, Babies L.G., A.S., and J.S. and the Class. The
Plaintiffs further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring
to provide this class of infants the monitoring of developmental
issues that will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and
equitable relief in the form of funding for services and
treatment.

Like thousands of children born every year, Babies L.G., A.S., and
J.S. were born addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids
cause severe withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental impacts.
The first days of Babies L.G., A.S., and J.S.'s life were spent in
excruciating pain as doctors weaned the infant from opioid
addiction. Babies L.G., A.S., and J.S. will require years of
treatment and counseling to deal with the effects of prenatal
exposure. Babies L.G., A.S., and J.S. and their mother are victims
of the opioid crisis that has ravaged Louisiana, causing immense
suffering to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to
those forced to deal with the aftermath.

At birth, Babies L.G., A.S., and J.S. were diagnosed with Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of
mothers addicted to opioids. Babies L.G., A.S., and J.S. were
forced to endure a painful start to their life; crying excessively,
arching their back, refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS is a
clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the abrupt
discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that were
used or abused by the mother during pregnancy." Babies L.G., A.S.,
and J.S. spent their first days in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
writhing in agony as they went through detoxification.

Babies L.G., A.S., and J.S.'s mother was prescribed Defendants'
opioids prior to Babies L.G., A.S., and J.S.'s gestation, resulting
in her opioid addiction and Babies L.G., A.S., and J.S.'s opioid
exposure during gestation. Babies L.G., A.S., and J.S.'s mother
consumed opioids manufactured and distributed by all named
defendants including:

-- Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin;
-- Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
-- Janssen's product Duragesic;
-- Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone,
    Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and
    Hydromorphone; and
-- Activis' product Norco and Kadian.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids, the
lawsuit says.

Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Babies L.G., A.S.,
and J.S. and Class Members including the costs of neo-natal medical
care, additional therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other
treatments for NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and
rehabilitation services after birth and into the future.

The case is captioned SHILO SHEWMAKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABIES L.G., A.S., AND J.S., ON BEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs.
PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK
COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.;
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,
LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a
ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.;
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.
f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC;
MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS
HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.;
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.;
WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S.
SACKLER; JONATHON D. SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A.
SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER;
DAVID A. SACKLER; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.;
RHODES PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR
THE BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45482-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 16, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-399-0009
          Facsimile: 504-309-6989
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: 304-343-4401
          Facsimile: 304-343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          CREADORE LAW FIRM
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: 212-355-7200
          E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-9065
          Facsimile: 504-581-7635
          E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT
          HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
          242 Northeast 27th Street
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 532-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
          E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com
                  ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
                  ssistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Simonson Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al., seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law against the Defendant
opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers.  According
to the lawsuit, the Defendants, by their actions and omissions,
knowingly or negligently have distributed and dispensed
prescription opioid drugs in a manner that foreseeably injured, and
continues to injure, Baby M.S. and the Class. The Plaintiffs
further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to provide
this class of infants the monitoring of developmental issues that
will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and equitable
relief in the form of funding for services and treatment.

Like thousands of children born every year, Baby M.S. was born
addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe
withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental impacts. The first
days of Baby M.S.'s life were spent in excruciating pain as doctors
weaned the infant from opioid addiction. Baby M.S. will require
years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects
of prenatal exposure. Baby M.S. and their mother are victims of the
opioid crisis that has ravaged Louisiana, causing immense suffering
to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced
to deal with the aftermath.

At birth, Baby M.S. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome
("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to
opioids. Baby M.S. was forced to endure a painful start to their
life; crying excessively, arching their back, refusing to feed, and
shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the
abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that
were used or abused by the mother during pregnancy." Baby M.S.
spent their first days in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit writhing
in agony as they went through detoxification.

Baby M.S.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to Baby
M.S.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby M.S.'s
opioid exposure during gestation. Baby M.S.'s mother consumed
opioids manufactured and distributed by all named defendants
including:

-- Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin;
-- Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
-- Janssen's product Duragesic;
-- Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone,
    Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and
    Hydromorphone; and
-- Activis' product Norco and Kadian.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids, the
lawsuit says.

Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Baby M.S. and Class
Members including the costs of neo-natal medical care, additional
therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other treatments for
NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and rehabilitation services
after birth and into the future.

The case is captioned ALICIA SIMONSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABY M.S., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.;
PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45479-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 15, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-399-0009
          Facsimile: 504-309-6989
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: 304-343-4401
          Facsimile: 304-343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          CREADORE LAW FIRM
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: 212-355-7200
          E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-9065
          Facsimile: 504-581-7635
          E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT
          HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
          242 Northeast 27 th Street
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 532-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
          E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com
                  ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
                  ssistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Stewart Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al., seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law against the Defendant
opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers.  According
to the lawsuit, the Defendants, by their actions and omissions,
knowingly or negligently have distributed and dispensed
prescription opioid drugs in a manner that foreseeably injured, and
continues to injure, Baby K.J.C. and the Class. The Plaintiffs
further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to provide
this class of infants the monitoring of developmental issues that
will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and equitable
relief in the form of funding for services and treatment.

Like thousands of children born every year, Baby K.J.C. was born
addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe
withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental impacts. The first
days of Baby K.J.C.'s life were spent in excruciating pain as
doctors weaned the infant from opioid addiction. Baby K.J.C. will
require years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects
of prenatal exposure. Baby K.J.C. and their mother are victims of
the opioid crisis that has ravaged Louisiana, causing immense
suffering to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to
those forced to deal with the aftermath.

At birth, Baby K.J.C. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence
Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of mothers
addicted to opioids. Baby K.J.C. was forced to endure a painful
start to their life; crying excessively, arching their back,
refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis, and "a
consequence of the abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure
to substances that were used or abused by the mother during
pregnancy." Baby K.J.C. spent their first days in a Neonatal
Intensive Care Unit writhing in agony as they went through
detoxification.

Baby K.J.C.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to
Baby K.J.C.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby
K.J.C.'s opioid exposure during gestation. Baby K.J.C.'s mother
consumed opioids manufactured and distributed by all named
defendants including:

-- Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin;
-- Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
-- Janssen's product Duragesic;
-- Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone,
    Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and
    Hydromorphone; and
-- Activis' product Norco and Kadian.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids, the
lawsuit says.

Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Baby K.J.C. and Class
Members including the costs of neo-natal medical care, additional
therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other treatments for
NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and rehabilitation services
after birth and into the future.

The case is captioned WENDY STEWART, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABY K.J.C., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. PURDUE
PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY,
INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.;
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,
LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a
ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.;
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.
f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC;
MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS
HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.;
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.;
WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S.
SACKLER; JONATHON D. SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A.
SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER;
DAVID A. SACKLER; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.;
RHODES PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR
THE BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45481-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 15, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-399-0009
          Facsimile: 504-309-6989
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: 304-343-4401
          Facsimile: 304-343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          CREADORE LAW FIRM
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: 212-355-7200
          E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-9065
          Facsimile: 504-581-7635
          E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT
          HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
          242 Northeast 27th Street
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 532-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
          E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com
                  ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
                  ssistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Sued Over D.L.D., M.A.S., N.S.'s Opioid Addiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTA GAUTHIER, ANGELA SAWYERS, AND JESSICA  SPRINGBORN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIENDS AND GUARDIANS OF BABIES D.L.D,
M.A.S., and N.S., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.;
THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL
HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45478-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 15, 2019) is a class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids.

According to the complaint, like thousands of children born every
year, Babies D.L.D., M.A.S., and N.S. were born addicted to
opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe withdrawal
symptoms and lasting developmental impacts. The first days of
Babies D.L.D., M.A.S., and N.S.'s lives were spent in excruciating
pain as doctors weaned the infant from opioid addiction. Babies
D.L.D., M.A.S., and N.S. will require years of treatment and
counseling to deal with the effects of prenatal exposure. Babies
D.L.D., M.A.S., and N.S. and their mother are victims of the opioid
crisis that has ravaged Michigan, causing immense suffering to
those born addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced to
deal with the aftermath. At birth, Babies A.B. and G.B. were
diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition
suffered by babies of mothers addicted to opioids. Babies A.B. and
G.B. were forced to endure a painful start to their life; crying
excessively, arching their back, refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS
is a clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the abrupt
discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that were
used or abused by the mother during pregnancy." Babies D.L.D.,
M.A.S., and N.S. spent their first days in a Neonatal Intensive
Care Unit writhing in agony as they went through detoxification.

Babies D.L.D., M.A.S., and N.S.'s mother was prescribed Defendants'
opioids prior to Babies D.L.D., M.A.S., and N.S.'s gestation,
resulting in her opioid addiction and Babies A.B. and G.B.'s opioid
exposure during gestation. Upon information and belief Babies
D.L.D., M.A.S., and N.S.'s mother consumed opioids manufactured and
distributed by all named defendants including: a. Purdue's products
Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin; b. Cephalon's products Actiq
and Fentora; c. Janssen's product Duragesic; d. Endo's products
Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone, Hydrocodone (Vicodin
and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and Hydromorphone; and e. Activis'
product Norco and Kadian. Babies D.L.D., M.A.S., and N.S.'s
experience is part of an opioid epidemic sweeping through the
United States, including Michigan, that has caused thousands of
infants great suffering and continuing developmental issues. This
epidemic is the largest health care crisis in U.S. history, says
the complaint.

Plaintiffs seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to
provide this class of infants the monitoring of developmental
issues that will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and
equitable relief in the form of funding for services and
treatment.

Babies D.L.D., M.A.S., and N.S., citizens of Michigan, and Putative
Class members  are individuals who have suffered Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome as a result of exposure to opioids in utero.

Purdue manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such
as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla
ER, and Targiniq ER in the U.S. and New Mexico. OxyContin is
Purdue's best-selling opioid.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
     Stephen Wussow, Esq.
     COOPER LAW FIRM
     1525 Religious Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-399-0009
     Facsimile: 504-309-6989
     Email: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

          - and -

     Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
     David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
     THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
     2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
     Charleston, WV 25311
     Phone: 304-343-4401
     Facsimile: 304-343-4405
     Email: kwthompson@gmail.com

          - and -

     Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
     CREADORE LAW FIRM
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: 212-355-7200
     Email: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

          - and -

     Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
     Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
     MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
     338 Lafayette Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: 504-581-9065
     Facsimile: 504-581-7635
     Email: srb@mbfirm.com

          - and -

     Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
     242 Northeast 27th Street
     Miami, FL 33137
     Phone: (305) 532-0500
     Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
     Email: khr@khrlawoffices.com
     Secondary: ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
     Tertiary: assistant@khrlawoffices.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Tuttle Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al., seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law against the Defendant
opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers.  According
to the lawsuit, the Defendants, by their actions and omissions,
knowingly or negligently have distributed and dispensed
prescription opioid drugs in a manner that foreseeably injured, and
continues to injure, Baby A.T. and the Class. The Plaintiffs
further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to provide
this class of infants the monitoring of developmental issues that
will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and equitable
relief in the form of funding for services and treatment.

Like thousands of children born every year, Baby A.T. was born
addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe
withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental impacts. The first
days of Baby A.T.'s life were spent in excruciating pain as doctors
weaned the infant from opioid addiction. Baby A.T. will require
years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects of
prenatal exposure. Baby A.T. and their mother are victims of the
opioid crisis that has ravaged Louisiana, causing immense suffering
to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced
to deal with the aftermath.

At birth, Baby A.T. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome
("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to
opioids. Baby A.T. was forced to endure a painful start to their
life; crying excessively, arching their back, refusing to feed, and
shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the
abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that
were used or abused by the mother during pregnancy." Baby A.T.
spent their first days in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit writhing
in agony as they went through detoxification.

Baby A.T.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to Baby
A.T.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby A.T.'s
opioid exposure during gestation. Baby A.T.'s mother consumed
opioids manufactured and distributed by all named defendants
including:

-- Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin;
-- Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
-- Janssen's product Duragesic;
-- Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone,
    Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and
    Hydromorphone; and
-- Activis' product Norco and Kadian.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids, the
lawsuit says.

Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Baby A.T. and Class
Members including the costs of neo-natal medical care, additional
therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other treatments for
NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and rehabilitation services
after birth and into the future.

The case is captioned NICOLE TUTTLE,, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABY A.T., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.;
PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45476-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 15, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-399-0009
          Facsimile: 504-309-6989
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: 304-343-4401
          Facsimile: 304-343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          CREADORE LAW FIRM
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: 212-355-7200
          E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-9065
          Facsimile: 504-581-7635
          E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT
          HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
          242 Northeast 27th Street
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 532-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
          E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com
                  ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
                  ssistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Warren Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al., seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law against the Defendant
opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers.  According
to the lawsuit, the Defendants, by their actions and omissions,
knowingly or negligently have distributed and dispensed
prescription opioid drugs in a manner that foreseeably injured, and
continues to injure, Baby A.W. and the Class. The Plaintiffs
further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to provide
this class of infants the monitoring of developmental issues that
will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and equitable
relief in the form of funding for services and treatment.

Like thousands of children born every year, Baby A.W. was born
addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe
withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental impacts. The first
days of Baby A.W.'s life were spent in excruciating pain as doctors
weaned the infant from opioid addiction. Baby A.W. will require
years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects
of prenatal exposure. Baby A.W. and their mother are victims of the
opioid crisis that has ravaged Louisiana, causing immense suffering
to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced
to deal with the aftermath.

At birth, Baby A.W. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome
("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to
opioids. Baby A.W. was forced to endure a painful start to their
life; crying excessively, arching their back, refusing to feed, and
shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the
abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that
were used or abused by the mother during pregnancy." Baby A.W.
spent their first days in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit writhing
in agony as they went through detoxification.

Baby A.W.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to Baby
A.W.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby A.W.'s
opioid exposure during gestation. A.W.'s mother consumed opioids
manufactured and distributed by all named defendants including:

-- Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin;
-- Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
-- Janssen's product Duragesic;
-- Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone,
    Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and
    Hydromorphone; and
-- Activis' product Norco and Kadian.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids, the
lawsuit says.

Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Baby A.W. and Class
Members including the costs of neo-natal medical care, additional
therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other treatments for
NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and rehabilitation services
after birth and into the future.

The case is captioned DESIRAE WARREN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABY A.W., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.;
PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45486-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 16, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-399-0009
          Facsimile: 504-309-6989
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: 304-343-4401
          Facsimile: 304-343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          CREADORE LAW FIRM
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: 212-355-7200
          E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-9065
          Facsimile: 504-581-7635
          E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT
          HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
          242 Northeast 27th Street
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 532-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
          E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com
                  ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
                  ssistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Weatherwax Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al., seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law against the Defendant
opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers.  According
to the lawsuit, the Defendants, by their actions and omissions,
knowingly or negligently have distributed and dispensed
prescription opioid drugs in a manner that foreseeably injured, and
continues to injure, Baby L.W. and the Class. The Plaintiffs
further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to provide
this class of infants the monitoring of developmental issues that
will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and equitable
relief in the form of funding for services and treatment.

Like thousands of children born every year, Baby L.W. was born
addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe
withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental impacts. The first
days of Baby L.W.'s life were spent in excruciating pain as doctors
weaned the infant from opioid addiction. Baby L.W.'s will require
years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects of
prenatal exposure. Baby L.W. and their mother are victims of the
opioid crisis that has ravaged Louisiana, causing immense suffering
to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced
to deal with the aftermath.

At birth, Baby L.W. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome
("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to
opioids. Baby L.W. was forced to endure a painful start to their
life; crying excessively, arching their back, refusing to feed, and
shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the
abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that
were used or abused by the mother during pregnancy." Baby L.W.
spent their first days in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit writhing
in agony as they went through detoxification.

Baby L.W.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to Baby
L.W.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby L.W.'s
opioid exposure during gestation. L.W.'s mother consumed opioids
manufactured and distributed by all named defendants including:

-- Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin;
-- Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
-- Janssen's product Duragesic;
-- Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone,
    Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and
    Hydromorphone; and
-- Activis' product Norco and Kadian.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids, the
lawsuit says.

Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Baby L.W. and Class
Members including the costs of neo-natal medical care, additional
therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other treatments for
NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and rehabilitation services
after birth and into the future.

The case is captioned QUINCY WEATHERWAX, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABY L.W., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. PURDUE
PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY,
INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.;
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,
LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON &
JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a
ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.;
WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.
f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC;
MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.; NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS
HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.;
WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.;
WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S.
SACKLER; JONATHON D. SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A.
SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER;
DAVID A. SACKLER; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.;
RHODES PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR
THE BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45483-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 16, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-399-0009
          Facsimile: 504-309-6989
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: 304-343-4401
          Facsimile: 304-343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          CREADORE LAW FIRM
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: 212-355-7200
          E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-9065
          Facsimile: 504-581-7635
          E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT
          HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
          242 Northeast 27 th Street
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 532-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
          E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com
                  ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
                  ssistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Whittaker Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma, L.P.,
et al. seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law against the Defendant
opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers.  According
to the lawsuit, the Defendants, by their actions and omissions,
knowingly or negligently have distributed and dispensed
prescription opioid drugs in a manner that foreseeably injured, and
continues to injure, Babies E.W., G.L.O., and N.S.G. and the Class.
The Plaintiffs further seek the equitable relief of medical
monitoring to provide this class of infants the monitoring of
developmental issues that will almost inevitably appear as they
grow older and equitable relief in the form of funding for services
and treatment.

Like thousands of children born every year, Babies E.W., G.L.O.,
and N.S.G. were born addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to
opioids cause severe withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental
impacts. The first days of Babies E.W., G.L.O., and N.S.G.'s life
were spent in excruciating pain as doctors weaned the infant from
opioid addiction. Babies E.W., G.L.O., and N.S.G. will require
years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects of
prenatal exposure. Babies E.W., G.L.O., and N.S.G. and their mother
are victims of the opioid crisis that has ravaged Louisiana,
causing immense suffering to those born addicted to opioids and
great expense to those forced to deal with the aftermath.

At birth, Babies E.W., G.L.O., and N.S.G. were diagnosed with
Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition suffered by
babies of mothers addicted to opioids. Babies E.W., G.L.O., and
N.S.G. were forced to endure a painful start to their life; crying
excessively, arching their back, refusing to feed, and shaking. NAS
is a clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the abrupt
discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that were
used or abused by the mother during pregnancy." Babies E.W.,
G.L.O., and N.S.G. spent their first days in a Neonatal Intensive
Care Unit writhing in agony as they went through detoxification.

Babies E.W., G.L.O., and N.S.G.'s mother was prescribed Defendants'
opioids prior to Babies E.W., G.L.O., and N.S.G.'s gestation,
resulting in her opioid addiction and Babies E.W., G.L.O., and
N.S.G.'s opioid exposure during gestation. E.W., G.L.O., and
N.S.G.'s mother consumed opioids manufactured and distributed by
all named defendants including:

-- Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin;
-- Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
-- Janssen's product Duragesic;
-- Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone,
    Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and
    Hydromorphone; and
-- Activis' product Norco and Kadian.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids, the
lawsuit says.

Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Babies E.W., G.L.O.,
and N.S.G. and Class Members including the costs of neo-natal
medical care, additional therapeutic, prescription drug purchases
and other treatments for NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and
rehabilitation services after birth and into the future.

The case is captioned SHELLY WHITTAKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABIES E.W., G.L.O., and N.S.G.,
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiffs, vs. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE
FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH,
INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.;
JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45475-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 14, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
          Telephone: 504-399-0009
          Facsimile: 504-309-6989
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: 304-343-4401
          Facsimile: 304-343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          CREADORE LAW FIRM
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: 212-355-7200
          E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-9065
          Facsimile: 504-581-7635
          E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT
          HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
          242 Northeast 27 th Street
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 532-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
          E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com
                  ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
                  ssistant@khrlawoffices.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Williams Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
et al., seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, statutory
damages, and any other relief allowed by law against the Defendant
opioid drug distributors, retailers, and manufacturers.  According
to the lawsuit, the Defendants, by their actions and omissions,
knowingly or negligently have distributed and dispensed
prescription opioid drugs in a manner that foreseeably injured, and
continues to injure, Baby A.W. and the Class. The Plaintiffs
further seek the equitable relief of medical monitoring to provide
this class of infants the monitoring of developmental issues that
will almost inevitably appear as they grow older and equitable
relief in the form of funding for services and treatment.

Like thousands of children born every year, Baby A.W. was born
addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe
withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental impacts. The first
days of Baby A.W.'s life were spent in excruciating pain as doctors
weaned the infant from opioid addiction. Baby A.W.'s will require
years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects of
prenatal exposure. Baby A.W. and their mother are victims of the
opioid crisis that has ravaged Louisiana, causing immense suffering
to those born addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced
to deal with the aftermath.

At birth, Baby A.W. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome
("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of mothers addicted to
opioids. Baby A.W. was forced to endure a painful start to their
life; crying excessively, arching their back, refusing to feed, and
shaking. NAS is a clinical diagnosis, and "a consequence of the
abrupt discontinuation of chronic fetal exposure to substances that
were used or abused by the mother during pregnancy." Baby A.W.
spent their first days in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit writhing
in agony as they went through detoxification.

Baby A.W.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to Baby
A.W.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby A.W.'s
opioid exposure during gestation. A.W.'s mother consumed opioids
manufactured and distributed by all named defendants including:

-- Purdue's products Oxycontin, Dilaudid, and MS Contin;
-- Cephalon's products Actiq and Fentora;
-- Janssen's product Duragesic;
-- Endo's products Perodan, Percoset, Opana, Opana ER, Oxycodone,
    Hydrocodone (Vicodin and Lortab), Oxymorphone, and
    Hydromorphone; and
-- Activis' product Norco and Kadian.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to eliminate the hazard to
public health and safety caused by the opioid epidemic and to abate
the nuisance caused by Defendants' false, negligent and unfair
marketing and/or unlawful diversion of prescription opioids, the
lawsuit says.

Defendants have foreseeably caused damages to Baby A.W. and Class
Members including the costs of neo-natal medical care, additional
therapeutic, prescription drug purchases and other treatments for
NAS afflicted newborns, and counseling and rehabilitation services
after birth and into the future.

The case is captioned FARRAH WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT
FRIEND AND GUARDIAN OF BABY A.W., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, vs. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.;
PURDUE PHARMA, INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; MCKESSON
CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION;
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC.; ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA INC. n/k/a JANSSEN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ALLERGAN PLC f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. n/k/a ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES,
INC.; ACTAVIS LLC; and ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA,
INC., DEPOMED, INC.; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX
LLC; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.; PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.;
NORAMCO, INC.; INDIVIOR, INC.; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; RITE AID OF
MARYLAND, INC.; RITE AID CORP.; WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.;
WALGREEN EASTERN CO.; WALGREEN CO.; WAL-MART INC. f/k/a WALMART
STORES, INC.; MIAMI-LUKEN, INC.; COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION; THE
KROGER CO.; H.D. SMITH, LLC; H.D. SMITH HOLDINGS, LLC; H.D. SMITH
HOLDING COMPANY; ANDA, INC.; RICHARD S. SACKLER; JONATHON D.
SACKLER; MORTIMER D.A. SACKLER; KATHE A. SACKLER; ILENE SACKLER
LEFCOURT; BEVERLY SACKLER; THERESA SACKLER; DAVID A. SACKLER;
RHODES TECHNOLOGIES; RHODES TECHNOLOGIES INC.; RHODES
PHARACEUTICALS L.P.; RHODES PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; TRUST FOR THE
BENEFIT OF MEMBERS OF THE RAYMOND SACKLER FAMILY; THE P.F.
LABORATORIES, INC., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-op-45485-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, June 16, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stephen Wussow, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-399-0009
          Facsimile: 504-309-6989
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com

               - and -

          Kevin Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY LAW FIRM
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: 304-343-4401
          Facsimile: 304-343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald E. Creadore, Esq.
          CREADORE LAW FIRM
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: 212-355-7200
          E-mail: donald@creadorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott R. Bickford, Esq.
          Spencer R. Doody, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: 504-581-9065
          Facsimile: 504-581-7635
          E-mail: srb@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Kent Harrison Robbins, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF KENT
          HARRISON ROBBINS, P.A.
          242 Northeast 27th Street
          Miami, FL 33137
          Telephone: (305) 532-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 531-0150
          E-mail: khr@khrlawoffices.com
                  ereyes@khrlawoffices.com
                  ssistant@khrlawoffices.com

REOZOM REAL ESTATE: Duarte Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIO DUARTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. REOZOM REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC a Michigan
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-22474-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., June 14, 2019) seeks to secure redress for violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process,  asserts
the complaint. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in
the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of
the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks
statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class,
and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the
complaint.

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

Defendant is an online real estate sales and marketing
platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


RESORTCOM INTERNATIONAL: Shelton Sues over Telemarketing Campaigns
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAMES EVERETT SHELTON, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RESORTCOM
INTERNATIONAL, LLC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01378 (N.D.
Ohio., June 14, 2019), alleges that the Defendant violates the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act in response to widespread public
outrage about the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance
telemarketing practices.

Resortcom allegedly made a pre-recorded telemarketing call to Mr.
Shelton's cellular telephone number in violation of the TCPA. The
The Plaintiff never consented to receive the call, which was placed
to him for telemarketing purposes. Because telemarketing campaigns
generally place calls to hundreds of thousands or even millions of
potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on
behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received
illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant.

In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA to regulate the explosive growth
of the telemarketing industry. The TCPA makes it unlawful "to make
any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made
with the prior express consent of the called party) using an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone
service or any service for which the called party is charged for
the call."

The Plaintiff and other call recipients were harmed by these calls.
They were temporarily deprived of legitimate use of their phones
because the phone line was tied up and their privacy was improperly
invaded. Moreover, these calls injured Plaintiff and the other call
recipients because they were frustrating, obnoxious, annoying, were
a nuisance, and disturbed the solitude of Plaintiff and the
proposed class, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          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

RESTORATION ROBOTICS: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for July 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration Robotics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that a hearing on the
company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit
entitled, In re Restoration Robotics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD, is scheduled for July 11, 2019.

On May 23, 2018, a putative shareholder class action complaint was
filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Mateo (the "Superior Court"), captioned Wong v. Restoration
Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 18CIV02609.

On June 21, 2018 and June 28, 2018, two putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, captioned Guerrini v. Restoration
Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD and Yzeiraj v.
Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03883-BLF,
respectively.

On July 24, 2018, the U.S. Northern District Court related the
Guerrini and Yzeiraj actions and reassigned the Yzeiraj action to
Judge Edward J. Davila.

The Wong and Guerrini complaints name the Company as defendants,
and certain of its current and former executive officers and
directors, certain of its venture capital investors and the
underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO).

The Yzeiraj complaint names the Company as defendants and certain
of its current and former executive officers and directors.

The Wong complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act.

The Guerrini and Yzeiraj complaints assert claims under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaints all allege, among other things, that the Company's
Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1, 2017 and
the Prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) on October 13, 2017 in connection with the Company's IPO were
inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material
facts, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and omitted to state material facts
required to be stated therein.

The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages, other equitable
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 8, 2018, the Company, along with certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, filed a motion to
dismiss the Wong complaint based on the forum selection clause
designating the federal district courts as the exclusive forum for
claims arising under the Securities Act contained in the Company's
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, and which asked
the court in the alternative to stay the Wong action.

Also, on August 8, 2018, the venture capital investor and
underwriters' defendants in the Wong action filed demurrers to the
Wong complaint, and the Company, along with certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, joined in the venture
capital investor defendants’ demurrer.

A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss and the demurrers to
the Wong complaint was held on October 24, 2018. On October 25,
2018, the Court ordered the defendants' demurrers to the complaint
sustained with leave to amend and granted an extension of time for
plaintiff to serve a First Amended Complaint until further order of
the Court.

On January 31, 2019, the Court stayed the case and stayed any
decision on the Company's motion to dismiss on forum selection
grounds pending resolution of an appeal of Sciabacucchi v.
Salzberg, a case addressing similar issues in Delaware.

On October 2, 2018, the U.S. Northern District Court granted a
Motion for Consolidation of Related Actions, Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of Lead Counsel filed by Plaintiff Edgardo
Guerrini, which consolidated the Guerrini and Yzeiraj actions under
the caption In re Restoration Robotics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD.

On November 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff Edgardo Guerrini filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint for violations of federal securities
laws asserting the same claims, against the same defendants, as his
original complaint but adding certain allegations in support of
those claims.

On January 29, 2019, the Company, along with certain of its current
and former executive officers and directors, filed a motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The venture capital defendants and underwriter defendants filed
joinders to the Company's motion to dismiss on the same day.

A hearing on the Company's motion to dismiss is scheduled for July
11, 2019.

The Company is unable to predict the date on which the District
Court will issue any decision on the motion to dismiss at this
time.

Restoration Robotics said, "The Company believes that these
lawsuits are without merit and management intends to vigorously
defend against these claims."

Restoration Robotics, Inc., a medical technology company, develops
and commercializes image-guided robotic systems in the United
States and internationally. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Jilek Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Data
------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY JILEK and LATORRIE GLOVER-BROWN, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RETRIEVAL-MASTERS
CREDITORS BUREAU, INC. D/B/A AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY;
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC.; OPTUM360, LLC; AND LABORATORY CORPORATION
OF AMERICA HOLDINGS D/B/A LABCORP; Defendants, Case No.
7:19-cv-05552 (S.D. N.Y., June 14, 2019) seeks to recover losses as
a result of Defendants' failure to keep Plaintiffs' data secure and
to force Defendants to improve their data security practices.

When people seek medical care, they put their trust not just in the
doctors and nurses that care for them, but in the companies that
promise to take reasonable precautions to protect their most
sensitive information. Defendants Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp and
their business associates Optum360 and AMCA violated that trust.
Instead of safeguarding their patients' data, Quest Diagnostics,
Optum360, and LabCorp provided troves of highly sensitive
information to AMCA--a collections agency with a Better Business
Bureau rating of "F" and nearly 600 Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau complaints against it without properly vetting the
cybersecurity controls that AMCA had in place to protect that
information. AMCA, in turn, neglected to safeguard this data,
allowing financially-motivated hackers to steal and sell it on the
dark web, a seedy corner of the internet where illicit black
markets thrive, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are individuals residing in Texas, who have used Quest
Diagnostics' services and suffered identity fraud.

Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc., d/b/a American Medical
Collection Agency, is a New York corporation with its principal
place of business in Elmsford, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John A. Kehoe, Esq.
     KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
     41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor
     New York, NY 10010
     Phone: (212) 804-7700
     Email: jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com

          - and -

     Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
     David M. Berger, Esq.
     GIBBS LAW GROUP, LLP
     501 14th Street, Suite 1110
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 350-9700
     Email: ehg@classlawgroup.com
            dmb@classlawgroup.com


RH: Awaits Preliminary Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------
RH said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 13, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended May 4, 2019, that the parties in the case entitled, In re RH,
Inc. Securities Litigation, are awaiting the court's decision on a
motion for preliminary approval of settlement  

On February 2, 2017, City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California,
against the Company, Gary Friedman, and Karen Boone.

On March 16, 2017, Peter J. Errichiello, Jr. filed a similar class
action complaint in the same forum and against the same parties. On
April 26, 2017, the court consolidated the two actions. The
consolidated action is captioned In re RH, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed in June 2017 asserting
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint asserts claims purportedly on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Company common stock from March 26, 2015 to June 8,
2016. The alleged misstatements relate to statements regarding the
roll out of the RH Modern product line and the Company's inventory
levels.

The complaint seeks class certification, monetary damages, and
other appropriate relief, including an award of costs and
attorneys' fees.

On March 21, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants in the
case entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to settle
the case. The settlement amount is $50 million, which amount is to
the company's understanding covered in full by the Company's
insurance policies.

On May 6, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement together with a settlement
agreement executed by both parties.

The settlement agreement is subject to customary conditions
including court approval following notice to the Company's
shareholders, and a hearing at which time the court will consider
the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.

If a settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve
all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the
action. A hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement is
scheduled for June 18, 2019.

As a result of signing the memorandum of understanding and the
potential liability becoming probable and estimable, the Company
has recorded a provision for legal settlement and unpaid legal fees
for $60.1 million within other current liabilities on the condensed
consolidated balance sheets as of May 4, 2019.

Additionally, the Company has recorded a litigation insurance
recovery receivable of $60.1 million as of May 4, 2019 within
prepaid expense and other current assets on the condensed
consolidated balance sheets, which represents the estimated
insurance claims proceeds from the Company's insurance carriers.

RH, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer in the
home furnishings. It offers products in various categories,
including furniture, lighting, textiles, bathware, decor, outdoor
and garden, tableware, and child and teen furnishings. The company
was formerly known as Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. and
changed its name to RH in January 2017. RH was founded in 1979 and
is headquartered in Corte Madera, California.


SAKS FIFTH AVENUE: Kang Suit Asserts ADA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
JACK KANG, individually and on behalf of all other individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, LLC Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05646 (S.D. N.Y., June 17, 2019) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, says
the complaint.

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

Defendant operates over fifteen locations in the county of Los
Angeles. These retail stores provide to the public important goods
such as designer apparel, handbags, watches, fine jewelry,
cosmetics and home decor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stamatios Stamoulis, Esq.
     Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
     800 N. West Street, Third Floor
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 999-1540
     Email: stamoulis@swdelaw.com

        - and -

     Yvette J. Harrell, Esq.
     Legal Justice Advocates, LLP
     1629 K Street NW, Suite 300
     Washington, D.C. 20006
     Phone: (202) 290-6671
     Email: yh@legaljusticeadvocates.com


SANTA ROSA CONSULTING: Vallone et al Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANTINO PAPADIMITROPOULOS, MARVIN MENDOZA, and JOYCE VALLONE,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. SANTA ROSA CONSULTING, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-11779-AJT-SDD ECF (E.D. Mich., June 14, 2019) alleges that
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated workers, as W-2 employees,
did not receive full compensation for all hours worked, including
applicable minimum wages and/or overtime wages at time-and-a-half
their regular rate of pay in excess of 40 in a workweek in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and certain states law by failing to pay
Plaintiffs and the putative collective/class members applicable
overtime and/or minimum wages for non-travel hours worked and/or
for failing to pay anything for certain out-of-town travel hours.

The Plaintiffs estimate that the putative Classes will include
several hundreds of similarly situated workers. They were
compensated by Defendant on an hourly basis and were not paid on a
salary basis. They workers regularly worked over 40 hours during
the regular workweek -- seven days per week and 12 hours per day,
the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is an information technology firm that provides
training and support to employees of hospitals and other medical
facilities as those employees begin to learn how to use new
commercial electronic record keeping software.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Opt-ins are:

          Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN McMANUS, P.C.
          25892 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910
          Telephone: (248) 542-6300
          Facsimile : (248) 542-6301
          E-mail: mcmanus@faganlawpc.com

               - and -

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
          Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
          LARSON KING, LLP
          30 East Seventh St., Suite 2800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 312-6500
          Facsimile: (651) 312-6618
          E-mail: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com

SCI DIRECT: $1.65MM Deal in Romano Labor Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLE ROMANO, JONATHAN BONO, and JAMES DOYLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SCI DIRECT, INC., TRIDENT SOCIETY INC., NEPTUNE
SOCIETY OF AMERICA, INC., and NEPTUNE MANAGEMENT CORP., Defendants,
Case 2116 2:17-cv-03537-ODW (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Action Settlement.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants misclassified them and
and the class they seek to represent, as independent contractors
rather than employees.  As such, the Plaintiffs allege that they
were denied certain benefits like meal and rest periods, regular
and overtime wages, reimbursement for reasonable business expenses,
and other benefits.  Romano filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles
Superior Court on April 6, 2017, on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated employees.  Defendant SCI Direct, Inc. removed
the case on May 10, 2017.

Following several motions and orders from the Court, on Dec. 21,
2018, pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement, the Plaintiffs
filed their Fourth Amended Complaint and alleged the following
causes of action on behalf of themselves and the putative class:
(1) Unpaid overtime wages under the California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4; (2) Failure to pay
minimum wages under the California Labor Code; (3) Failure to pay
all regular wages under the California Labor Code and the Wage
Order; (4) Failure to allow or pay for meal periods under the
California Labor Code; (5) Failure to allow or pay for rest periods
under the California Labor Code; (6) Waiting time penalties under
the California Labor Code; (7) Failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements under the California Labor Code; (8) Unfair
business practices under the California Business and Professions
Code; (9) Failure to pay overtime under the FLSA); (10) Failure to
reimburse business expenses under the California Labor Code; and
(11) PAGA claim seeking civil penalties for violations of the
California Labor Code and sections 3, 4, 11, and 12 of the Wage
Order.

The Plaintiffs now move without opposition for preliminary approval
of the Settlement Agreement.  The Settlement Agreement defines the
proposed class as all individuals who contracted with or provided
services to SCI Direct, as an independent sales representative in
California from May 18, 2014 to Feb. 1, 2019.  The parties estimate
that there are approximately 230 potential members of the class.

In full settlement of the claims asserted in the lawsuit, the
Defendants agree to pay $1.65 million.  The Total Settlement Amount
includes PAGA penalties, the incentive award, and the fees and
costs of the Settlement Administrator.  Any amount not used by the
Settlement Administrator will be added to the amount distributable
to the class members.  If the Class Size increases by 10% or more
(i.e. 253 class members or more), then the Total Settlement Amount
will be adjusted upwards, pro rata, for each additional member.

After deducting the payments from the Total Settlement Amount, the
estimated total distributable amount to the class members is $1.49
million.  After 120 days, any uncashed checks will revert to
Defendants, with the exception of the settlement amount related to
the PAGA penalties.  The settlement amount related to the PAGA
penalties will be delivered to California Controller's Unclaimed
Funds in the name of the class member.

The Settlement Agreement authorizes the Plaintiffs' counsel to
petition the Court for approval of attorneys' fees in an amount not
to exceed $825,000 and costs not exceeding $25,000.  This amount is
separate and will not be deducted from the Total Settlement
Amount.

The Settlement Agreement provides that the Plaintiffs' counsel will
petition the Court for approval of incentive awards of $5,000 for
Plaintiff James Doyle, $10,000 for Plaintiff Jonathan Bono, and
$15,000 for Plaintiff Nicole Romano.

The Settlement Agreement requires payments to the California Labor
and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") pursuant to PAGA.  The
parties agreed to allocate $160,000 of the Total Settlement Amount
for PAGA penalties, $120,000 (75% of $160,000) of which will be
paid to the LWDA, with the remaining $40,000 to be distributed to
the settling class members on a pro rata basis.

As each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one of
the requirements of Rule 23(b) are met, Judge Wright holds that the
the class may be provisionally certified for settlement purposes.
He also finds that the settlement negotiations appear fair and
adequate and the proposed settlement terms appear to come within
the range of possible judicial approval.  

He notes that the incentive award for Plaintiffs Bono and Romano
appear to be substantial and beyond the amount that courts in the
jurisdiction have deemed presumptively reasonable.  Accordingly, as
with the incentive award to Mr. Bono, on the record, he is inclined
to reduce the award, subject to adequate support for such an
extreme departure upon the motion for final approval.  The counsel
are experienced wage-and-hour class action litigators and the fee
request, while high, falls within the range identified as
potentially acceptable in the Ninth Circuit.  Accordingly,
preliminary approval is appropriate, though final approval will
depend on the counsel providing sufficient information to support
the requested award.

Finally, the Judge finds that the procedures for the Notice
sufficient and the most practicable under the circumstances.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Wright granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.  The final
approval hearing will be held on Nov. 18, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.

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

Nicole Romano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Jonathan Bono, Plaintiffs, represented by Adrian Robert
Bacon -- abacon@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd Friedman PC,
Thomas Edward Wheeler -- twheeler@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of
Todd Friedman PC & Todd M. Friedman -- tfriedman@toddflaw.com --
Todd M Friedman Law Offices PC.

James Doyle, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Edward
Wheeler, Law Offices of Todd Friedman PC, Adrian Robert Bacon, Law
Offices of Todd M Friedman PC & Todd M. Friedman, Law Office of
Todd M Friedman PC.

SCI Direct, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher P. Leyel,
Yoka and Smith LLP, Lonnie J. Williams, Jr. --
lonnie.williams@stinson.com -- Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, pro hac
vice & Carrie M. Francis -- carrie.francis@stinson.com -- Stinson
Leonard Street LLP.


SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Abstral(R) Related Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company is
awaiting the court's ruling on its motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in the Abstral(R)-related suit.

The Company's predecessor company, Galena, was involved in multiple
legal proceedings and administrative actions, including stockholder
class actions, both state and federal.

On February 13, 2017, multiple putative shareholder securities
class action complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among
other things, that the Company and certain of the Company's former
officers and directors failed to disclose that Galena’s
promotional practices for Abstral(R) (fentanyl sublingual tablets)
were allegedly improper and that Galena may be subject to civil and
criminal liability, and that these alleged failures rendered
Galena’s statements about its business misleading.

The individual actions were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were
named by the Court and a consolidated complaint was filed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On August 21, 2018, the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was granted without prejudice to file an
amended complaint.

On September 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
The Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint is currently
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel
cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications.   SELLAS
Life Sciences Group, Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York.


SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT: Shannon's Labor Suit Transferred to S.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LAVERNA SHANNON, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated and in a representative capacity,
Plaintiff, v. SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT., INC. and DOES 1-10, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00007617-CU-OE-CTL (Filed on Feb. 8,
2019), was transferred from the Superior Court of the State of
California County of San Diego to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on June 12, 2019. This
labor suit is assigned to Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant and Magistrate
Judge Jill L. Burkhardt. The United States District Court for the
Southern District of California assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01101-BAS-JLB. In this complaint, Plaintiff Laverna Shannon
alleges several Labor Code violations including failure to pay
proper overtime wages and failure to provide meal periods and pay
meal premiums.

Sherwood Management Co., Inc. is a California corporation that does
business as Daniel's Jewelers. Sherwood is in the retail jewelry
line of business and has more than 100 retail stores in California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Diane E. Richard, Esq.
     Richard Law, P.C.
     5060 N. Harbor Drive, Suite 265
     San Diego, CA 92106
     Telephone: (619) 880-5517 x101
     E-mail: diane@richardlawpc.com


SIGNET JEWELERS: Claimants' Appeal in Suit vs. SJI Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that SJI submitted a Rule 28(j)
letter to the Second Circuit addressing the effects of the Supreme
Court's ruling in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (S. Ct.
Apr. 24, 2019), on the pending appeal.

On March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI,
a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that US store-level employment
practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional
activities with respect to gender.

In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private
arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide
basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI
opposed the motion.  

On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination
Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants'
disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim
under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date
of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7,
2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims.

The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a
disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a
disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII,
and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay
Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective
Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on
February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015.
Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an
order issued on March 16, 2015.

Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII
Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11,
2015, which SJI opposed. April 27, 2015, the arbitrator issued an
order denying the Claimants' Motion.

SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award on March 3, 2015, which Claimants opposed. On November 16,
2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification
Award in part and denied it in part.

On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the
District Court's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. On November
25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI
appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which Claimants opposed.

The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on
February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with
the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed
and oral argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit on November 2, 2016.

On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for
Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect
of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional
Discrimination Claims, which SJI opposed. On June 15, 2015, the
arbitrator granted the Claimants' motion.

On March 6, 2017, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional
Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization
of Notice, which SJI opposed The arbitrator heard oral argument on
Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016,
issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification
Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations
Period, conditionally certifying Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as
a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA
claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to
the putative members of the collective action.

SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The
District Court's Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016.

SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending
The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate
Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional
Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of
EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016, which Claimants opposed.
On April 5, 2016, the arbitrator denied SJI's Motion.

On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And
Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period,
which Claimants opposed. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016.

On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's
opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which
Claimant's opposed. On June 1, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals dismissed SJI's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.


Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on
November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an
order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude
class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and
declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration.

The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5,
2016, and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding
Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice
Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016.

SJI filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016,
which Claimants opposed. The matter was fully briefed and oral
argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The motion was granted in part
on January 27, 2017.

Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016,
and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on August
1, 2016. Approximately, 10,314 current and former employees
submitted consent forms to opt in to the collective action;
however, some have withdrawn their consents. The number of valid
consents is disputed and yet to be determined.

SJI believes the number of valid consents to be approximately
9,124.

On July 24, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit issued its unanimous Summary Order that held that the
absent class members "never consented" to the Arbitrator
determining the permissibility of class arbitration under the
agreements, and remanded the matter to the District Court to
determine whether the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by
certifying the Title VII class that contained absent class members
who had not opted in the litigation.

On August 7, 2017, SJI filed its Renewed Motion to Vacate the Class
Determination Award relative to absent class members with the
District Court. The matter was fully briefed and an oral argument
was heard on October 16, 2017.

On January 15, 2018, District Court granted SJI's Motion finding
that the Arbitrator exceeded her authority by binding non-parties
(absent class members) to the Title VII claim. The District Court
further held that the RESOLVE Agreement does not permit class
action procedures, thereby, reducing the Claimants in the Title VII
matter from 70,000 to 254.

Claimants dispute that the number of claimants in the Title VII is
254. On January 18, 2018, the Claimants filed a Notice of Appeal
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The
appeal was fully briefed and oral argument before the Second
Circuit occurred on May 7, 2018.

SJI currently awaits the Second Circuit's decision on this appeal.


On May 17, 2019, SJI submitted a Rule 28(j) letter to the Second
Circuit addressing the effects of the Supreme Court's ruling in
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (S. Ct. Apr. 24, 2019), on
the pending appeal.

The Second Circuit then issued an order directing the parties to
submit additional arguments on that issue, which have been
submitted.

On November 10, 2017, SJI filed in the arbitration motions for
summary judgment, and for decertification, of Claimants' Equal Pay
Act and Title VII promotions claims.

On January 30, 2018, oral argument on SJI's motions was heard. On
January 26, 2018, SJI filed a Motion to Vacate The Equal Pay Act
Collective Action Award And Tolling Order asserting that the
Arbitrator exceeded her authority by conditionally certifying the
Equal Pay Act claim and allowing the absent claimants to opt-in the
litigation.

On March 12, 2018, the Arbitrator denied SJI's Motion to Vacate The
Equal Pay Act Collective Action Award and Tolling Order. SJI still
has a pending motion seeking decertification of the EPA Collective
Action before the Arbitrator.

On March 19, 2018, the Arbitrator issued an Order partially
granting SJI's Motion to Amend the Arbitrator's November 2, 2017,
Bifurcated Seventh Amended Case Management Plan resulting in a
continuance of the May 14, 2018 trial date. A new trial date has
not been set.

SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and has been defending
the case vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be
estimated.

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products. Signet Jewelers Limited was
founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Discovery Underway in Consolidated NY Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that discovery is still ongoing
in the consolidated class action suit in New York, bearing case
number 16-cv-6728.

In August 2016, two alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its
then-current Chief Executive Officer and current Chief Financial
Officer (Nos. 16-cv-6728 and 16-cv-6861, the "S.D.N.Y. cases").

On September 16, 2016, the Court consolidated the S.D.N.Y. cases
under case number 16-cv-6728. On April 3, 2017, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons
that acquired the Company's securities on or between August 29,
2013, and February 27, 2017, naming as defendants the Company, its
then-current and former Chief Executive Officers, and its current
and former Chief Financial Officers.

The second amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by,
among other things, misrepresenting the Company's business and
earnings by (i) failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly
having issues ensuring the safety of customers' jewelry while in
the Company's custody for repairs, which allegedly damaged customer
confidence; (ii) making misleading statements about the Company's
credit portfolio; and (iii) failing to disclose reports of sexual
harassment allegations that were raised by claimants in an ongoing
pay and promotion gender discrimination class arbitration (the
"Arbitration").

The second amended complaint alleged that the Company's share price
was artificially inflated as a result of the alleged
misrepresentations and sought unspecified compensatory damages and
costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.

In March 2017, two other alleged Company shareholders each filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against the Company and its
then-current and former Chief Executive Officers (Nos. 17-cv-875
and 17-cv-923, the "N.D. Tex. cases").

Those complaints were nearly identical to each other and alleged
that the defendants' statements concerning the Arbitration violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The N.D. Tex. cases were subsequently transferred to the Southern
District of New York and consolidated with the S.D.N.Y. cases (the
"Consolidated Action").

On July 27, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff’s counsel in the Consolidated Action. On August 3,
2017, the Court ordered the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated
Action to file a third amended complaint by September 29, 2017.

On September 29, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint that covered a putative class period of August 29, 2013,
through May 24, 2017, and that asserted substantially similar
claims to the second amended complaint, except that it omitted the
claim based on defendants' alleged misstatements concerning the
security of customers' jewelry while in the Company's custody for
repairs.

The defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on
December 1, 2017. On December 4, 2017, the Court entered an order
permitting the lead plaintiff to amend its complaint as of right by
December 22, 2017, and providing that the lead plaintiff would not
be given any further opportunity to amend its complaint to address
the issues raised in the defendants' motion to dismiss.

On December 15, 2017, Nebil Aydin filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and its current Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (No. 17-cv-9853).

The Aydin complaint alleged that the defendants made misleading
statements regarding the Company's credit portfolio between August
24, 2017, and November 21, 2017, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sought
unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including
attorneys’ and experts' fees. On January 7, 2018, the Aydin case
was consolidated into the Consolidated Action.

On December 22, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action
filed its fourth amended complaint, which asserted substantially
the same claims as its third amended complaint for an expanded
class period of August 28, 2013, through December 1, 2017. On
January 26, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint. This motion was fully briefed as of March 9,
2018.

On March 20, 2018, the Court granted the lead plaintiff leave to
file a fifth amended complaint. On March 22, 2018, the lead
plaintiff in the Consolidated Action filed its fifth amended
complaint which asserts substantially the same claims as its fourth
amended complaint for an expanded class period of August 29, 2013,
through March 13, 2018. The prior motion to dismiss was denied as
moot. On March 30, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the fifth
amended complaint.

On November 26, 2018, the Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss. Discovery is ongoing in this action.

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

Signet Jewelers Limited engages in the retail sale of diamond
jewelry, watches, and other products. Signet Jewelers Limited was
founded in 1950 and is based in Hamilton, Bermuda.


SOUTH FLORIDA NURSING: Ovilmar Files Wage and Hour Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDNA OVILMAR and DIEUMENE VILME, on behalf of themselves and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. SOUTH FLORIDA
NURSING SERVICES, INC., a Florida corporation, and ROBERT HARRIS,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:19-cv-80792-DMM (S.D. Fla.,
June 17, 2019) is an action on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class
Members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), to
remedy violations of the wage-and-hour provisions of the FLSA, that
have deprived Plaintiffs and the Class Members of proper pay.

Plaintiffs were Certified Nursing Assistants employed by Defendants
and provided home health care services to clients of SFNS
throughout South Florida.

The Defendants, individually and/or through an enterprise, have
willfully engaged in a pattern and/or practice of unlawful conduct
by failing to pay the required overtime premium earned on or off
the clock to the Plaintiffs and all Class Members who are
non-exempt Hourly Employees, and thus have willfully failed to pay
employees the required overtime wage for hours worked in excess of
40 per work week, says the complaint.

SFNS, is a Florida for profit corporation with its principal place
of business in Palm Beach County, Florida and doing business as a
home healthcare provider to individuals throughout South
Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Christopher C. Copeland, Esq.
     CHRISTOPHER C. COPELAND, P.A.
     1003 W. Indiantown Road, Suite 208
     Jupiter, FL 33458
     Phone: 561-691-9048
     Fax: 866-259-0719
     Primary Email: Chris@CopelandPA.com
     Secondary Email: Carla@CopelandPA.com


STATE COLLECTION: $80K Attys' Fees Awarded in Spuhler FDCA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KYLE SPUHLER AND NICHOLE SPUHLER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE
COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-1149 (E.D.
Wis.), Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

Kyle and Nichole Spuhler filed a single count complaint against the
Defendant, alleging that a debt collection letter sent to them
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  The
Spuhlers alleged that the letter was misleading because it (1)
improperly attempted to collect interest on the debt, (2) failed to
specify which portion of the amount due was interest as opposed to
principle, and (3) failed to indicate that interest was accruing on
the amount due.

Summary judgment was granted in State Collection's favor as to the
first two arguments, and, after a motion for reconsideration was
filed, summary judgment was granted in the Spuhlers' favor as to
the third argument.  The Spuhlers now seek attorneys' fees and
costs in the amount of $210,083.45 in attorneys' fees and
$34,341.35 in costs.

The Spuhlers seek fees for three attorneys and two support staff
members.  Specifically, they request 234.1 hours at a rate of
$350/hour (for a total of $81,935) for Attorney Nathan
DeLadurantey, 88.4 hours at a rate of $300/hour (for a total of
$26,520) for Attorney Heidi Miller, 212.90 hours at a rate of
$450/hour for Attorney Thomas J. Lyons, Jr. (for a total of
$95,803.45), 5.6 hours at a rate of $125/hour (for a total of $700)
for support staff member Ethan Webb, and 41.5 hours at a rate of
$125/hour (for a total of $5,125) for legal assistant Andrea
Weber.

State Collection opposes the motion.  While State Collection does
not challenge the hourly rate for the two support staff members
(Webb and Weber), it challenges the hourly rates of the three
attorneys.  State Collection argues that the Spuhlers failed to
submit any evidence, besides their own affidavits and citations to
other cases, in support of the attorneys' claimed hourly rates.
The Spuhlers responded by providing the United States Consumer Law
Attorney Fee Survey Report, last updated 2015-2016, which it argues
further supports their requested hourly rates.

Magistrate Judge Joseph finds that approximately one year ago, a
court in the district, considering the same evidence the Spuhlers
now put forward, set Attorney DeLadurantey's reasonable rate at
$300/hour and Attorney Miller's reasonable rate at $220/hour.
Thus, she will set Attorney DeLadurantey's rate at $300/hour and
set Attorney Miller's rate at $220/hour.

As for Attorney Lyons, even considering the median rate for the
Minneapolis area (where he is located), the average rate for an
attorney handling credit rights cases is $350/hour.  Given the fact
Attorney Lyons is a more experienced attorney than Attorneys
DeLadurantey and Miller, the Magistarte finds that a reasonable
rate for Attorney Lyons is $350/hour.

While the case was a class action and thus undoubtedly created more
work for the attorneys, the Magistrate finds that it did not
proceed to trial and was decided on summary judgment.  However, the
case had complications that also created more work for the
Plaintiffs, though the exact amount is difficult to quantify.  For
these reasons, the Plaintiffs are awarded $80,000 in attorneys'
fees.

Finally, while the court can assess costs in the first instance,it
is the practice in the district to first seek relief from the Clerk
of Court pursuant to Civil L.R. 54 (E.D. Wis.).  Should the parties
seek review of the Clerk of Court's determination, they may do so
pursuant to Civil L.R. 54(c).

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Joseph granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Plaintiffs are awarded $80,000 in attorneys' fees.
Their request for costs is denied without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/voJZ6f from Leagle.com.

Kyle Spuhler & Nichole Spuhler, Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas
John Lyons, Jr., Consumer Justice Center PA & Nathan E.
DeLadurantey , DeLadurantey Law Office LLC.

State Collection Service Inc, Defendant, represented by David M.
McDorman, McDorman Law Office & Patrick D. Newman --
pnewman@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele PA.


STITCH FIX: Appointment of Lead Counsel & Plaintiff Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stitch Fix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 27, 2019, that the court has not yet
ruled on the motions to consolidate and to appoint lead plaintiff
in the class action suits related to the company's materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's active client
growth and strategy with respect to television advertising between
June 2018 and October 2018.

The four cases have been related to each other, and the motions to
consolidate and to appoint lead plaintiff have been fully briefed.
The court has not yet ruled on the motions.

On October 11, 2018, October 26, 2018, November 16, 2018, and
December 10, 2018, four putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants the company and certain of its officers.

The four lawsuits each make the same allegations of violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the company and
its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's active client growth and
strategy with respect to television advertising between June 2018
and October 2018.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The four cases have been related to each other, and the motions to
consolidate and to appoint lead plaintiff have been fully briefed.
The court has not yet ruled on the motions.

On December 12, 2018, a derivative action was filed against our
directors in the same court, alleging the same violations of
securities laws as alleged in the four putative class action cases
described above and breach of fiduciary duties. The derivative
action has been stayed pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss
in the related class action lawsuits.  

Stitch Fix, Inc. operates as an online subscription and personal
shopping platform. The Company offers shirts, jackets, sweaters,
blazers, leggings, vests, scarfs, jeans, loafers, and boots for men
and women. Stitch Fix serves customers in the United States. Stitch
Fix, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


SUNDANCE DELI: Molina Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RIGOBERTO MOLINA FRANCISCO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SUNDANCE KITCHEN INC. (D/B/A
SUNDANCE KITCHEN & CANTINA), SUNDANCE DELI INC. (D/B/A SUNDANCE
DELI), GENARO DOMINGUEZ , and CASIANO DOMINGUEZ , the Defendants,
Case No. 7:19-cv-05585 (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff Molina was employed as a cook and a helper at
Defendants' restaurants. Molina worked for Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and
spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Molina appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Molina the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay
Plaintiff Molina wages on a timely. Defendants' conduct extended
beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated basis employees.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a policy and
practice of requiring Molina and other employees to work in excess
of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and
overtime compensation required by federal and state law and
regulations.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a restaurant, located
at 208 Mamaroneck Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601 under the
name "Sundance Kitchen & Cantina" and a deli located at 37 Wheeler
Avenue, Pleasantville, New York 10570 under the name "Sundance
Deli".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

SUSHI GAMA: Workers Seek Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR OMAR PADILLA, GERMAN BARRERA CORTES, GREGORIO HERIBERTO ISEM,
NOE PACHECO ARELLANES, and RAUL VICENTE VICENTE, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.  SUSHI GAMA
CORP. (D/B/A SUSHI GAMA), EVAN DOE, and SHANE DOE, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-05629 (S.D. N.Y., June 17, 2019) seeks unpaid minimum
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs,
and asserts violations of the N.Y. Labor Law.

Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that they worked, says the complaint.
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to
work over 10 hours a day.

Plaintiffs were employed as sushi preparers and delivery workers at
the restaurant of the Defendants.

Defendants own, operate, or control a sushi restaurant, located at
1403 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10021 under the name "Sushi
Gama".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

TAILORED BRANDS: Oliver Class Action Concluded
----------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 13, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the class action suit
initiated by Anthony Oliver has been concluded.

On February 17, 2016, Anthony Oliver filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company's Men's Wearhouse subsidiary in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
(Case No. 2:16-cv-01100).  

The complaint attempts to allege claims under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. In particular the complaint alleges that
the Company sent unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones
beginning October 1, 2013 to the present day.

After the company demonstrated that the Company had the plaintiff's
permission to send him texts, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint alleging the Company sent text messages exceeding the
number plaintiff had agreed to receive each week.  

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on what
constitutes a "week" and the Court recently issued an order
granting the plaintiff’s motion and denying our motion on what
period constitutes a "week."

On or about August 17, 2018, the company entered into a settlement
agreement for an immaterial amount consisting of a combination of
cash and coupons. The Court approved the settlement and the company
consider this matter closed.

Tailored Brands, Inc. operates as a specialty apparel retailer the
United States and Canada. It operates through two segments, Retail
and Corporate Apparel. The company was formerly known as The Men's
Wearhouse, Inc. and changed its name to Tailored Brands, Inc. in
February 2016. Tailored Brands, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
based in Houston, Texas.


TAILORED BRANDS: Subsidiary Still Faces Twin Hill Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 13, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the company's subsidiary
continues to defend a class action suit initiated by two American
Airlines employees.

On August 2, 2017, two American Airlines employees, Thor Zurbriggen
and Dena Catan, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the
company's Twin Hill subsidiary in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:17-cv-05648).

The complaint alleged claims for strict liability, negligence, and
medical monitoring based on allegedly defective uniforms Twin Hill
supplied to American Airlines for its employees.

On September 28, 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
adding nine additional named plaintiffs, adding American Airlines,
Inc. as a defendant, and adding claims for civil battery and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiffs filed a Seconded Amended Complaint on October 4, 2018 on
behalf of 39 named plaintiffs, adding PSA Airlines, Inc. and Envoy
Air Inc. as defendants, adding new factual allegations and adding a
new claim of fraud against American.  

The Second Amended Complaint included plaintiffs from the Onody
(Case No. 1:18-cv-02303) and Joy (Case No. 1:18-cv-05808) matters
the company reported in prior filings. As a result, on October 16,
2018, the judge dismissed the separate Onody and Joy matters.

The company had timely answered the Second Amended Complaint and
the matter will proceed in due course. The company believes that
any lawsuit filed on the basis of the safety of the Twin Hill
uniforms supplied to American Airlines is without merit, and the
company intends to contest this action vigorously.

Tailored Brands said, "Twin Hill has substantial and convincing
evidence of the uniforms' safety and fitness for their intended
purpose, and we believe that there is no evidence linking any of
the plaintiffs' alleged injuries to our uniforms. The range of
loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not
currently believe, however, that it will have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows."

Tailored Brands, Inc. operates as a specialty apparel retailer the
United States and Canada. It operates through two segments, Retail
and Corporate Apparel. The company was formerly known as The Men's
Wearhouse, Inc. and changed its name to Tailored Brands, Inc. in
February 2016. Tailored Brands, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
based in Houston, Texas.


TILLY'S INC: Mediation in Gonzalez Class Suit Set for Oct. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that court overseeing the case,
Juan Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Tilly's Inc. et al, Superior Court of California,
County of Orange, Case No. 30-2017-00948710-CU-OE-CXC, set a
deadline of October 31, 2019, for the parties to participate in
mediation.

In October 2017, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
against the company, alleging various violations of California's
wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified damages, unpaid wages, penalties, restitution,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.  

In December 2017, the company filed an answer to the complaint,
denying all of the claims and asserting various defenses.

In April 2018, the plaintiff filed a separate action under the
Private Attorneys General Act against us seeking penalties on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees for the
same alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws.  

The company requested the plaintiff to dismiss the class action
claims based on an existing class action waiver in an arbitration
agreement which plaintiff signed with the company's co-defendant,
BaronHR, the staffing company that employed plaintiff to work at
the Company.  

In June 2018, the plaintiff's class action complaint was dismissed.


The court set a deadline of October 31, 2019 for the parties to
participate in a mediation. The court has not yet issued a trial
date.  

Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will
continue to do so."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others.  Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


TILLY'S INC: Ward Class Action Remanded to Trial Court
------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the California Supreme
Court has denied the petition for review and remanded the case
entitled, Skylar Ward, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, v. Tilly's, Inc., Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC595405, to the trial court for
further proceedings.

In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the company alleging, among other things, various
violations of California's wage and hour laws.  

The complaint sought class certification, unspecified damages,
unpaid wages, penalties, restitution, and attorneys' fees.  

In June 2016, the court granted the copany's demurrer to the
plaintiff's complaint on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to
state a cause of action against Tilly's and dismissed the
complaint.  

Specifically, the court agreed with the company that the
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay fails as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and other putative class members did
not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which the
plaintiff's claims are based.  

In November 2016, the court entered a written order sustaining the
company's demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint and dismissing all
of plaintiff’s causes of action with prejudice. In January 2017,
the plaintiff filed an appeal of the order to the California Court
of Appeal.  

In October 2017, the plaintiff filed her opening appellate brief,
and our responding appellate brief was filed in December 2017. In
May 2018, the plaintiff filed her reply appellate brief. Later in
May 2018, an amicus brief was filed by Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,
Inc., in support of Tilly's position in this appeal. Oral argument
was heard by the California Court of Appeal in November 2018.

On February 4, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion
overturning the trial court's decision, holding that the
plaintiff's allegations stated a claim.

In March 2019, the company filed a petition for review with the
California Supreme Court seeking its discretionary review of the
Court of Appeal's decision.  

On May 15, 2019, the California Supreme Court denied the petition
for review and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.  

Tilly's said, "We have defended this case vigorously, and will
continue to do so."

Tilly's, Inc. retails casual apparel, footwear, and accessories for
young men and women, and boys and girls in the United States. Its
apparel merchandise includes tops, outerwear, bottoms, and dresses;
and accessories merchandise comprises backpacks, hats, sunglasses,
headphones, handbags, watches, jewelry, and others.  Tilly's, Inc.
was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Irvine, California.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action in Australia Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Uber Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues
to defend a class action suit in Austrailia.

On May 3, 2019, an Australian law firm filed a class action in the
Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, against the company and
certain of its subsidiaries, on behalf of certain participants in
the taxi, hire-car, limousine, and charter vehicle industry. In its
announcement of the filing, this law firm stated that more than
6,000 participants had registered to join the action.

On May 6, 2019, two of the company's Australian subsidiaries were
formally served with the filed class action claim. The remaining
five Uber entities named in the filing have not yet been served.

The cause of action alleged in the statement of claim is the tort
of conspiracy by unlawful means and is predicated on allegations
that we operated unlawfully during certain periods between April
2014 and August 2017 in the Australian States of Victoria, New
South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia.

The claim alleges, in effect, that these operations caused loss and
damage to the class representative and class members, including
lost income and decreased value of certain taxi licenses.

Uber Technologies said, "We deny these allegations and intend to
vigorously defend the lawsuit filed."

Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and supports proprietary
technology applications that enable independent providers of
ridesharing, and meal preparation and delivery services to transact
with riders and eaters worldwide. The company operates in two
segments, Core Platform and Other Bets. The company was formerly
known as Ubercab, Inc. and changed its name to Uber Technologies,
Inc. in February 2011. Uber Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2009
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Final Approval Hearing Set for July 18
---------------------------------------------------------
Uber Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the final approval
hearing in the consolidated case, O'Connor, et al., v. Uber
Technologies, Inc. and Yucesoy v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.,
is set for July 18, 2019.

O'Connor and Yucesoy are two putative class actions that assert
various independent contractor misclassification claims brought on
behalf of certain Driver Partners in California and Massachusetts,
respectively.

The two cases were consolidated and both are pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Filed on August 16, 2013 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, the O'Connor action is a class
action against the Company on behalf of all Driver Partners who
contracted with the Company in California and seeks damages for
tips and business expense reimbursement based on alleged
independent contractor misclassification and unfair competition.

The O'Connor action was stayed in the trial court pending the
outcome of appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
regarding the trial court's orders denying the Company's motions to
compel arbitration, order certifying the class action, and order
enjoining the Company's enforcement of its arbitration agreement.

The Ninth Circuit issued its rulings on those appeals on September
25, 2018, finding that the Company's arbitration agreements were
enforceable and accordingly, decertified the O'Connor class and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Filed on June 2, 2014 in the Massachusetts Suffolk County Superior
Court, the Yucesoy action is a class action against the Company on
behalf of all Driver Partners in Massachusetts and seeks damages
based on independent contractor misclassification, tips law
violations and tortious interference with contractual and/or
advantageous relations.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the Yucesoy action on
March 30, 2018 adding new class representatives, to which the
Company filed a motion to compel arbitration and/or dismiss the
action on April 26, 2018.

On March 11, 2019, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement
which provides that the Company will pay $20 million to settle the
O'Connor and Yucesoy actions.

The proposed settlement does not require the Company to start
classifying Driver Partners as employees in California or
Massachusetts and does not include those Driver Partners who are
subject to arbitration.

Plaintiffs filed a motion with the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California seeking court approval of the
settlement agreement.

The motion for preliminary approval of the parties' settlement
agreement was heard on March 21, 2019, and preliminary approval was
granted subject to certain conditions.

The final approval hearing is set for July 18, 2019.

Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and supports proprietary
technology applications that enable independent providers of
ridesharing, and meal preparation and delivery services to transact
with riders and eaters worldwide. The company operates in two
segments, Core Platform and Other Bets. The company was formerly
known as Ubercab, Inc. and changed its name to Uber Technologies,
Inc. in February 2011. Uber Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2009
and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


UNITED NATURAL: Appeal in Class Suit v. Supervalu Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the appeal made by the New
England plaintiff to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, related to a class action involving Supervalu Inc., is
still pending.

On October 22, 2018, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
equity securities of SUPERVALU INC.

In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against
Supervalu alleging that a 2003 transaction between Supervalu and
C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain
trade and allocate markets.

In the 2003 transaction, Supervalu purchased certain assets of the
Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy
proceedings and sold certain of Supervalu's assets to C&S that were
located in New England.

Three other retailers filed similar complaints in other
jurisdictions and the cases were consolidated and are proceeding in
the United States District Court in Minnesota.

The complaints alleged that the conspiracy was concealed and
continued through the use of non-compete and non-solicitation
agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that
Supervalu and C&S purchased from each other.

Plaintiffs are divided into Midwest plaintiffs and a New England
plaintiff and are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and
attorney's fees.

At a mediation on May 25, 2017, Supervalu reached a settlement with
the non-arbitration Champaign distribution center class, which was
the one Midwest class suing Supervalu.

The court granted final approval of the settlement on November 17,
2017.

The material terms of the settlement include: (1) denial of
wrongdoing and liability by Supervalu; (2) release of all Midwest
plaintiffs' claims against Supervalu related to the allegations and
transactions at issue in the litigation that were raised or could
have been raised by the non-arbitration Champaign distribution
center class; and (3) payment by Supervalu of $9 million.

The New England plaintiff is not a party to the settlement and is
pursuing its individual claims and potential class action claims
against Supervalu, which at this time are determined as remote.

On February 15, 2018, Supervalu filed a summary judgment and
Daubert motion and the New England plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification and on July 27, 2018, the District Court
granted Supervalu's motions.

The New England plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit on August 15,
2018.

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

United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food
products in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and
Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976
and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island.


UNITED NATURAL: Dismissal of Data Breach Suit v. Supervalu Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit has denied plaintiff's appeal, affirming the
District Court's dismissal of the class action suit entitled, In
Re: SUPERVALU Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation.

On October 22, 2018, the Company acquired all of the outstanding
equity securities of Supervalu Inc.

In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were
filed against Supervalu relating to the criminal intrusion into
Supervalu's computer network that were previously announced by
Supervalu in its fiscal 2015.

The cases were centralized in the Federal District Court for the
District of Minnesota under the caption In Re: SUPERVALU Inc.
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On June 26, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

Supervalu filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint and the hearing took place on November 3, 2015. On
January 7, 2016, the District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss
and dismissed the case without prejudice, holding that the
plaintiffs did not have standing to sue as they had not met their
burden of showing any compensable damages.

On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the
District Court's dismissal of the complaint or in the alternative
to conduct discovery and file an amended complaint, and Supervalu
filed its response in opposition on March 4, 2016.

On April 20, 2016, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to
vacate the District Court's dismissal or in the alternative to
amend the complaint. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs appealed to the
8th Circuit and on May 31, 2016, Supervalu filed a cross-appeal to
preserve its additional arguments for dismissal of the plaintiffs'
complaint.

On August 30, 2017, the 8th Circuit affirmed the dismissal for 14
out of the 15 plaintiffs finding they had no standing. The 8th
Circuit did not consider Supervalu's cross-appeal and remanded the
case back for consideration of Supervalu's additional arguments for
dismissal against the one remaining plaintiff.

On October 30, 2017, Supervalu filed a motion to dismiss the
remaining plaintiff and on November 7, 2017, the plaintiff filed a
motion to amend its complaint. The court held a hearing on the
motions on December 14, 2017, and on March 7, 2018, the District
Court denied plaintiff's motion to amend and granted Supervalu's
motion to dismiss.

On March 14, 2018, plaintiff appealed to the 8th Circuit and on May
31, 2019, the 8th Circuit denied plaintiff's appeal affirming the
District Court's dismissal of the case.

Supervalu had $50 million of cyber threat insurance above a per
incident deductible of $1 million at the time of the criminal
intrusion, which the Company believes should cover any potential
loss related to this litigation.

United Natural Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
distributes natural, organic, and specialty foods and non-food
products in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through three divisions: Wholesale, Retail, and Manufacturing and
Branded Products. United Natural Foods, Inc. was founded in 1976
and is headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island.


VERINT SYSTEMS: Unit Continues to Defend Suit in Tel Aviv
---------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2019, that Verint Systems Limited,
a company subsidiary, continues to defend a class action suit in
Israel.

In March 2009, one of the company's former employees, Ms. Orit
Deutsch, commenced legal actions in Israel against the company's
primary Israeli subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL") (Case
Number 4186/09) and against the company's affiliate CTI (Case
Number 1335/09).

Also in March 2009, a former employee of Comverse Limited (CTI's
primary Israeli subsidiary at the time), Ms Roni Katriel, commenced
similar legal actions in Israel against Comverse Limited (Case
Number 3444/09).

In these actions, the plaintiffs generally sought to certify class
action suits against the defendants on behalf of current and former
employees of VSL and Comverse Limited who had been granted stock
options in Verint and/or CTI and who were allegedly damaged as a
result of a suspension on option exercises during an extended
filing delay period that is discussed in the company and CTI's
historical public filings.

On June 7, 2012, the Tel Aviv District Court, where the cases had
been filed or transferred, allowed the plaintiffs to consolidate
and amend their complaints against the three defendants: VSL, CTI,
and Comverse Limited.

On October 31, 2012, CTI distributed of all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Comverse, Inc., its principal operating
subsidiary and parent company of Comverse Limited, to CTI's
shareholders (the "Comverse Share Distribution").

In the period leading up to the Comverse Share Distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in
Verint and in its then-subsidiary, Comverse, Inc.) to Comverse,
Inc. or to unaffiliated third parties.

As the result of these transactions, Comverse, Inc. became an
independent company and ceased to be affiliated with CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interests
in Verint. Prior to the completion of the Comverse Share
Distribution, the plaintiffs sought to compel CTI to set aside up
to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment, but the
District Court did not rule on this motion.

In February 2017, Mavenir Inc. became successor-in-interest to
Comverse, Inc.

On February 4, 2013, Verint acquired the remaining CTI shell
company in a merger transaction (the "CTI Merger"). As a result of
the CTI Merger, Verint assumed certain rights and liabilities of
CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the foregoing
legal actions.

However, under the terms of a Distribution Agreement entered into
in connection with the Comverse Share Distribution, the company, as
successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse,
Inc. (now Mavenir) for any losses the company may suffer in its
capacity as successor to CTI related to the foregoing legal
actions.

Following an unsuccessful mediation process, on August 28, 2016,
the District Court (i) denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
suit as a class action with respect to all claims relating to
Verint stock options and (ii) approved the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the suit as a class action with respect to claims of
current or former employees of Comverse Limited (now part of
Mavenir) or of VSL who held unexercised CTI stock options at the
time CTI suspended option exercises.

The court also ruled that the merits of the case would be evaluated
under New York law.

As a result of this ruling (which excluded claims related to Verint
stock options from the case), one of the original plaintiffs in the
case, Ms. Deutsch, was replaced by a new representative plaintiff,
Mr. David Vaaknin. CTI appealed portions of the District Court’s
ruling to the Israeli Supreme Court. On August 8, 2017, the Israeli
Supreme Court partially allowed CTI's appeal and ordered the case
to be returned to the District Court to determine whether a cause
of action exists under New York law based on the parties' expert
opinions.

Following a second unsuccessful round of mediation in mid to late
2018, the proceedings resumed. The plaintiffs have filed a motion
to amend the class certification motion and CTI has filed a
corresponding motion to dismiss and a response.

At a hearing on April 16, 2019, the District Court suggested that
the parties consider another round of mediation.

CTI has since delivered a notice to the District Court confirming
its acceptance of the court's recommendation to try the mediation
process once again.

Verint Systems Inc. provides actionable intelligence solutions
worldwide. Verint Systems Inc. was founded in 1994 and is
headquartered in Melville, New York.


VERSUM MATERIALS: Robert Class Action Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Versum Materials, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 10, 2019, that the
company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Robert v.
Versum Materials, Inc. et al., 1:19-cv-00922.

With the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 12, 2019
(the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Versum Materials, Inc.
("Versum"), Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany ("Parent") and EMD
Performance Materials Holding, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to
which Merger Sub will merge with and into Versum, with Versum
surviving and continuing as the surviving corporation in the merger
and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger").

On May 13, 2019, Versum filed a definitive proxy statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the special meeting
of its stockholders to be held on June 17, 2019 (the "Special
Meeting") to consider and vote on various proposals necessary to
approve the Merger Agreement (the "proxy statement").

Following the filing of the proxy statement a purported shareholder
filed the putative class action Robert v. Versum Materials, Inc. et
al., 1;19-cv-00922 (filed May 17, 2019) (the "Action") against
Versum and the members of the Versum Board of Directors. The
lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the proxy statement,
misstates or fails to disclose certain material information in
violation of federal securities laws. The lawsuit seeks, among
other relief, either an order enjoining the merger or rescission if
the merger is consummated.

Solely to avoid the costs, burden, nuisance and uncertainties
inherent in litigation and to allow the Versum stockholders to vote
on the Merger at the Special Meeting, without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Versum hereby supplements the disclosures
contained in the proxy statement (the "Supplemental Disclosures").
The Supplemental Disclosures should be read in conjunction with the
proxy statement.

Versum vigorously denies that the proxy statement is deficient in
any respect and that the Supplemental Disclosures are material or
required. Versum believes that the Action is without merit and that
no further disclosure is required to supplement the proxy statement
under applicable laws.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://urlzs.com/jDaV7.

Versum Materials, Inc. develops, manufactures, transports, and
handles specialty materials for the semiconductor and display
industries in the United States, Taiwan, South Korea, China,
Europe, and rest of Asia. The company operates through two
segments, Materials, and Delivery Systems and Services (DS&S).
Versum Materials, Inc. was founded in 2015 and is headquartered in
Tempe, Arizona.


VIRGINA PHYSICIANS: Gust Seeks Proper Wages
-------------------------------------------
Renate Gust, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Virginia Physicians, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00445 (E.D. Va., June 17, 2019) asserts a claim for unpaid
overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as
amended.

Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours per week. The Defendant was
aware that Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week
yet did not properly pay Plaintiff for all of her hours worked.
Moreover, due to Defendant's failure to record the precise "meal
break" taken, if any, its time altering policy, and requirements
that Plaintiff refrain from clocking in and clock out early, the
Defendant failed to maintain accurate time records of all hours
worked by Plaintiff. The Defendant's unlawful time deductions
deprived Plaintiff of full overtime pay in all weeks in which she
worked more than 40 hours, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Gust was initially hired by Defendant in October 2014 as
a Certified Medical Assistant at the Reynolds Primary Care location
of VA Physicians.

VA Physicians is engaged in the business of delivering healthcare
services in central Virginia. It is a Virginia corporation with its
principal office in Glen Allen, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
     Curwood Law Firm
     530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
     Richmond, VA 23219
     Phone: (804) 788-0808
     Fax: (804) 767-6777
     Email: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com

          - and -

     Drew David Sarrett, Esq.
     The Sarrett Law Firm PLLC
     8100 Three Chopt Road, Suite 203
     Richmond, VA 23229
     Phone: (804) 301-1951
     Fax: (804) 250-6005
     Email: drew@sarrettlawfirm.com


VIRGINIA: Court Grants Bid to Reconsider Dismissal of Burch Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENNIS BURCH, Plaintiff, v. BENITA MURPHY, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-03311 (S.D. W. Va.), Judge
Thomas E. Johnston of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Charleston Division, granted the
Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter Judgment, requesting the
Court to reconsider its previous ruling, (i) adopting Magistrate
Judge Dwane L. Tinsley's proposed findings and recommendation, and
(ii) granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff, an inmate at Huttonsville Correctional Center, filed
the action on June 16, 2017, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
In his complaint, the Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of
West Virginia's parole review statute as applied retroactively to
inmates serving life with mercy sentences for crimes committed
prior to the statute's amendment.

By standing order, the action was referred to Magistrate Judge
Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation
for disposition ("PF&R").  The Defendants' filed a motion to
dismiss or, alternatively, to strike class action allegations on
June 19, 2018.  On Feb. 25, 2019, the Magistrate Judge submitted
his PF&R wherein he recommended that thw Court grants the
Defendants' motion and dismiss the case.

The Plaintiff's objections to the PF&R were due on March 14, 2019.
No objections to the PF&R had been received as of March 15, 2019.
Thus, the Court entered its Memorandum Opinion and Order adopting
the PF&R, granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissing
the action from its docket.

On March 19, 2019, the Court received the Plaintiff's objections to
the PF&R, and accompanying motion to exceed the page limitation for
his objections.  The Plaintiff filed the present motion to
reconsider on March 25, 2019, arguing that the aforesaid objections
were timely filed and requesting that the Court alter its decision
and reinstate the case.  The Defendants timely responded to the
motion, and the Plaintiff timely replied.

The gravamen of the Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion is that the Court
should amend the judgment to correct clear errors of law and
prevent manifest injustice.

Judge Johnston finds that the Plaintiff accurately notes that a pro
se litigant's legal papers are considered filed upon delivery to
prison authorities, not receipt by the clerk.  In his motion to
reconsider, the Plaintiff explains that he delivered his objections
to prison officials for mailing on March 14, 2019.  His objections
to the PF&R are dated March 14 and include a cover letter and
certificate of service also dated March 14.  In addition, his
voucher to withdraw funds demonstrates that he purchased postage
for his court filings on March 14.

The Judge holds that there is no evidence contradicting te
Plaintiff's claim that his objections were tendered to prison
officials on March 14.  As the PF&R was entered on Feb. 25, 2019,
the objections would be deemed timely filed under the "prison
mailbox rule."  Accordingly, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's
objections were timely filed on March 14, 2019.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Johnston granted the Plaintiff's
Rule 59(e) motion.  He directed the Clerk to remove the action from
the Court's docket until further notice from the court of appeals.
He further directed the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to the
counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 22, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/sR24jR from Leagle.com.

Dennis Burch, The Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Being Those
State of West Virginia Prisoners Serving a Sentence of Life with
the Possibility of Parole for a Crime Committed Before July 10,
1997, Plaintiff, pro se.

Benita Murphy, Chairperson, West Virginia Parole Board, Michael
Trupo, Carole B. Greene & Peggy Pope, Members, West Virginia Parole
Board, All in Their Official Capacities, Defendants, represented by
Keith D. Fisher, OFFICE OF THE WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL.


WALMART INC: Settlement in City of Pontiac Suit Wins Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walmart Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 7, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2019, that the court has granted final approval of
the settlement in the class action suit entitled, City of Pontiac
General Employees Retirement System v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The class action captioned City of Pontiac General Employees
Retirement System v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., USDC, Western Dist. of
AR, asserted violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, relating to certain prior disclosures made by the Company
in connection with its investigation of alleged violations of the
U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

On October 26, 2018, the parties filed a motion asking the court to
approve a proposed settlement under which the Company would pay
$160 million (the "Settlement Amount") to resolve the claims of all
class members.

By order dated April 8, 2019, the court granted final approval of
the settlement.

The settlement does not include or constitute an admission,
concession, or finding of any fault, liability, or wrongdoing by
the Company or any defendant.

The Settlement Amount was expensed in the Company's fiscal 2019
financial statements and has been paid by the Company.

Walmart Inc. engages in the retail and wholesale operations in
various formats worldwide. The company operates through three
segments: Walmart U.S., Walmart International, and Sam's Club. It
operates supercenters, supermarkets, hypermarkets, warehouse clubs,
cash and carry stores, discount stores, drugstores, and convenience
stores; membership-only warehouse clubs; e-commerce Websites, such
as walmart.com, jet.com, shoes.com, and samsclub.com; and mobile
commerce applications. The company was formerly known as Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. and changed its name to Walmart Inc. in February 2018.
Walmart Inc. was founded in 1945 and is based in Bentonville,
Arkansas.


WATCHUNG GROUP: Diaz Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Premium Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Watchung Group Inc.
for violations of the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). The case is captioned YESENIA DIAZ,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THE WATCHUNG GROUP INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05I535 (S.D.N.Y., June 13, 2019). Among other things,
Plaintiff Yesenia Diaz alleges that the Watchung Group, Inc. failed
to pay overtime premium pay under FLSA and failed to pay minimum
wage under the NYLL. Watchung employed Plaintiff Diaz as a security
guard from in or about July 2018 until April 2019.  Throughout her
employment, Plaintiff Diaz often worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. However, Watchung allegedly paid Plaintiff Diaz her regular
hourly rate for all hours.

Watchung Group Inc. provides security services to at least two
residential buildings throughout New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
     Sara Isaacson, Esq.
     LIPSKY LOWE LLP
     630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Telephone: (212) 392-4772
     Facsimile: (212) 444-1030
     E-mail: doug@lipskylowe.com
             sara@lipskylowe.com


WELLS FARGO: Loughran Files Fraud Class Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LOUGHRAN & MARGARET LOUGHRAN, On their own behalf and on
behalf Of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO
& COMPANY, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. d/b/a WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,
MCCALLA RAYMER LIEBERT PIERCE, LLC, Individually and as Successor
in interest to Pierce & Associates, PIERCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
MAYER BROWN LLP, John Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04023 (N.D. Ill., June 14, 2019) is a class action under
the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the Illinois
Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and
for the following other causes of action: common law fraud, civil
conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The complaint alleges that Wells Fargo Bank engaged in deceptive
and unfair collection practices by filing foreclosure actions
against its home loan (mortgage) borrowers ("homeowners") in the
name of a third party. Wells Fargo Bank filed foreclosure actions
against homeowners surreptitiously as the "trustee" identified in
the Pooling & Servicing Agreements of its Mortgage-Backed
Securities. It then created false affidavits signed by employees of
Wells Fargo Bank which misrepresented that the "trustee" was in
possession of the original signed promissory notes. Actually, Wells
Fargo Bank had possession of the original signed promissory notes.
Moreover, Wells Fargo was the proper party entitled to enforce the
promissory notes and to whom the homeowners were obligated to
repay. Wells Fargo then created "Assignments of Mortgage" ("AOM")
from Wells Fargo Bank to the "trustee" and filed the AOM in the
local county land records offices and/or filed copies of the AOM in
court pleadings, in further support of its false statements that
the "trustee" was in possession of the promissory note.

The "Trustee" named as Plaintiff in judicial foreclosure cases
and/or as the buyer (highest or winning bidder) at an auction in
judicial and non-judicial sales was another bank identified as
"Trustee" in the pooling and servicing agreements that governed
Wells Fargo Bank's Mortgage-Backed Securities. However, the
"trustee" named in the pooling and servicing agreements was not a
real trustee. The "trustee" named in the pooling and servicing
agreements was designated a "trustee" in the pooling and servicing
agreements but the term is a misnomer that Wells Fargo Bank later
used to deceive the homeowners and the courts. Wells Fargo Bank
loaned money to the homeowners. Or it might have bought the
homeowners' promissory notes (loans) from other lenders. The
homeowners' loans were evidenced by signed promissory notes which
were secured by mortgages on the borrowers' homes. The secured
signed promissory notes were Wells Fargo Bank's assets; hence, the
term "Asset-Backed Securities." Wells Fargo Bank pooled those
assets into a revocable trust and then sold investors certificates
which gave the investors an interest in the income streams
generated by the homeowners' monthly payments of principal and
interest ("monthly payments"). The trust containing the promissory
notes was governed by New York law regardless of choice of law
principles and, therefore, the "trustee" identified in the pooling
and servicing agreement, by law, has no fiduciary duties to the
certificate holders. Thus, the "trustee" identified in the pooling
and servicing agreements is not a trustee according to any legal
definition or ordinary meaning commonly ascribed to the term. The
actual trustee according to the ordinary meaning of the term is
Wells Fargo Bank. In simple terms, Wells Fargo is like the grantor
and trustee of a revocable trust and the beneficiaries are the
holders of the certificates and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.

As a result of Wells Fargo Bank's actions, homeowners, after
borrowing money from Wells Fargo Bank (their creditor) and making
their monthly mortgage payments to Wells Fargo Bank (their
servicer), upon default would later get sued by, as far as the
least sophisticated consumer or even the average competent lawyer
would conclude, a third party--e.g., US Bank, N.A., Deutschebank
National Trust, or HSBC Bank--"as Trustee" for a Pooling &
Servicing Agreement of a Mortgage-Backed Securities trust. In
actuality, Wells Fargo Bank initiated the foreclosure action but
directed its foreclosure attorneys to file as Plaintiff in the name
of the "trustee" designated in the pooling and servicing
agreements. Wells Fargo Bank's outside counsel--i.e., foreclosure
attorneys ("debt collectors") and litigation attorneys--knowingly
maintained the façade, thereby conducting an association-in-fact
"enterprise", says the complaint.

Plaintiffs, Daniel Loughran and Margaret Loughran are consumers
under the FDCPA and ICFA and the mortgage loan transaction with
Wells Fargo Bank was for the financing of the building of their
family residence and, therefore, for personal, family, and
household purposes.

Defendant Wells Fargo & Company is a diversified financial services
company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John Smith, Esq.
     Law Office of John Smith
     5062 Rockrose Court, #4
     Roscoe, IL 61073
     Phone: (847)242-8401
     Primary Email: john@johnsmithlawyer.com
     Secondary Email: johnpsmithlaw@gmail.com


WELLS FARGO: Settlement in Nakamura Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
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 Nakamura's
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Settlement.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the proposed
Settlement Class, and the Defendant have agreed to settle the
captioned litigation on the terms set forth in the Aug. 25, 2018,
Settlement Agreement.  The matter comes before the Court on
Nakamura's Unopposed Motion.  The Defendant Wells has agreed to the
Settlement in full.  Judge Crabtree held a hearing on the
Plaintiff's motion on May 15, 2019.   He has considered the
parties' papers, relevant legal authority, the arguments made by
the parties in favor of the settlement, and the record in the case.
He granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval.

Under Rule 23, and solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Judge
certified the Class, finding that questions of law and fact common
to all members of the Settlement Class predominate over questions
affecting only individual members, and certification of the
Settlement Class for purposes of settlement is superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient resolution of the
controversy, satisfying Rule 23(b)(3).

He Granted the Motion, and fully and finally approved the
Settlement Agreement, incorporating into the Order and Final
Judgment the Settlement Agreement.  All terms used in this
Memorandum and Order will have the same meaning as set forth in the
Agreement.

The Judge made final the appointment of Rex A. Sharp, Ryan C.
Hudson, and Scott B. Goodger of Rex A. Sharp, P.A.; Bryce B. Bell
and Mark W. Schmitz of Bell Law, LLC; and A. Scott Waddell of
Waddell Law Firm, LLC as the Class Counsel in the matter.

Named Plaintiff Nakamura has requested an incentive award in the
amount of $76,875.  The Judge awarded Mr. Nakamura $10,000 for his
200 hours of work as an incentive award.  This represents $50 per
hour, an increase over the rate used in 2013.

The Judge dismissed with prejudice all claims in the action and,
except as otherwise explicitly provided for in the Settlement
Agreement, does so without costs awarded to either side.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 21, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/B2RCRW 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.


WORKMAN INDUSTRIAL: Grodecki Seeks OT Pay for Laborers
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Workman Industrial
Services, Inc. and James T. Workman, III for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938. The case is captioned JAN GRODECKI, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
WORKMAN INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., and JAMES T. WORKMAN, III,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01374 (N.D. Ohio, June 13, 2019).

Plaintiff Jan Grodecki accuses the Defendant for underpayment of
overtime compensation to its hourly, nonexempt, laborers. Such
underpayment is allegedly caused by the Defendants' failure to
count as hours worked the time spent meeting at Defendants'
location to load trucks and/or wait on other crew members, failure
to count as hours worked the time spent travelling to the jobsite,
and the time spent returning to the original required meeting
location.

Workman Industrial Services is a construction industry specialist
entering its fifth decade of service to private, commercial, and
municipal organizations. A long-standing heavy construction
specialist, it focuses on highly engineered projects like water and
waste treatment facilities, water towers, and special-purpose
concrete structures. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     34 N. High St., Ste. 502
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: (614) 824-5770
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

             - and -

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


ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Asks Court to Reconsider Dismissal Order
------------------------------------------------------------
Zoompass Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 13, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiff in the New
Jersey class action suit has asked a court for reconsideration of
the dismissal order.

During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company learned that a
class action complaint (the "Class Action Complaint") had been
filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.  

The Class Action Complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants
violated the federal securities laws by, among other things,
failing to disclose that the Company was engaged in an unlawful
scheme to promote its stock. The Company has been served with the
Class Action Complaint.  

The Company has analyzed the Class Action Complaint and, based on
that analysis, has concluded that it is legally deficient and
otherwise without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend
against these claims.

Also during the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company learned
that two derivative complaints (the "Derivative Complaints") on
behalf of the Company have been filed against the Company's
Directors and Chief Executive Officer, President, Corporate
Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer, and nominally against the
Company, in Nevada state and federal court.  

The state court action subsequently was removed to federal court.
The Derivative Complaints allege, inter alia, that the Company's
officers and directors directed the Company to undertake an
unlawful scheme to promote its stock. The Company has been served
with the Derivative Complaints.  The Company has analyzed them and,
based on its analysis, has concluded that the Derivative Complaints
are legally deficient and otherwise without merit.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend against these claims.   

Subsequent to the year end, on August 7, 2018, the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the Class
Action Complaint. Additionally, subsequent to the year end on
August 21, 2018, the Company was served with the Second Amended
Complaint in the District of New Jersey. The Company filed a motion
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on September 18, 2018. On
January 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with
prejudice. Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the
dismissal order on February 7, 2019.

Zoompass Holdings, Inc. develops a mobile money platform that
enables brands to transform their financial interactions with
customers. The company was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada with an additional location in Englewood, New
Jersey. Zoompass Holdings, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Paymobile Inc.


ZUMIEZ INC: Continues to Defend Herrera Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Zumiez Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended May 4, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suit entitled, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc.

A putative class action, Alexia Herrera, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated, v. Zumiez Inc., was filed against the
company in the Eastern District Count of California, Sacramento
Division under case number 2:16-cv-01802-SB in August 2016.

Alexandra Bernal filed the initial complaint and then in October
2016 added Alexia Herrera as a named plaintiff and Alexandra Bernal
left the case.  

The putative class action lawsuit against the company alleges,
among other things, various violations of California's wage and
hour laws, including alleged violations of failure to pay reporting
time.  

In May 2017 the company moved for judgment on the pleadings in that
plaintiff's cause of action for reporting-time pay should fail as a
matter of law as the plaintiff and the other putative class members
did not "report for work" with respect to certain shifts on which
the plaintiff’s claims are based.  

In August 2017, the court denied the motion.  

However, in October 2017 the district court certified the order
denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings for immediate
interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  

The company then filed a petition for permission to appeal the
order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which
petition was then granted in January 2018.  

The company's opening appellate brief was filed on June 6, 2018 and
the plaintiff's answering appellate brief was filed August 6, 2018.
The company's reply brief to the Plaintiff’s answering appellate
brief was filed on September 26, 2018 and oral arguments were
completed on February 4, 2019.  

On May 20, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit granted the company's motion for leave to file a
supplemental brief addressing new authority.  

Zumiez said, "Given the current status of this case, we are unable
to express a view regarding the ultimate outcome or, if the outcome
is adverse, to estimate an amount, or range, of reasonably possible
loss. We have defended this case vigorously and will continue to do
so."

Zumiez Inc., founded in 1978, is a mall-based specialty retailer
providing sports-related apparel, footwear, equipment, and
accessories. It also sells miscellaneous novelties and dvds aimed
at young men and women between the ages of 12 and 24 and
private-label apparel. In addition, it sells merchandise on its Web
site, zumiez.com. The company is based in Everett, Washington.


ZUORA INC: Roberts Sues over Misleading Reports, Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CASEY ROBERTS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ZUORA, INC., TIEN TZUO, and TYLER
SLOAT, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03422 (N.D. Cal., June 14,
2019), is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Zuora securities between April 12,
2018 and May 30, 2019, inclusive.

Zuora is a cloud-based subscription management platform. Its
business consists of three components: Zuora Central Platform, a
subscription management hub; order-to-revenue products; and an
application marketplace. Its flagship products are Zuora RevPro
("RevPro"), a revenue recognition automation solution that enables
customers to group transactions into revenue contracts and
performance obligations, and Zuora Billing ("Billing"), which is
designed for subscription billing. Zuora acquired RevPro in May
2017 when it acquired Leeyo Software Inc. ("Leeyo").

On May 30, 2019, the Company lowered its fiscal 2020 revenue
guidance to a range of $268 million to $278 million, from prior
guidance of $289 million to $293.5 million, citing problems
integrating RevPro, as well as sales execution problems.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $5.91 per share,
nearly 30%, to close at $13.99 per share on May 31, 2019, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company would focus on implementing RevPro
for new customers ahead of the deadline to comply with accounting
standard ASC 606; (2) that, as a result, the Company lacked
adequate resources to integrate RevPro with the core business; (3)
that the Company would focus on RevPro integration a year after the
acquisition closed; that delays in integrating RevPro would
materially impact the business; (5) that the market for RevPro was
limited to customers seeking to implement new accounting standards
such as ASC 606; (6) that, after the deadline for ASC 606
compliance passed, demand for RevPro was reasonably likely to
decline; and (7) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Asbestos Filed in Alameda Court on June 7
------------------------------------------------------------
The following cases categorized as "asbestos" cases were on the
docket in the Alameda County Superior Court on June 7:

   * Robert Curphey v. Allied Fluid Products Corp.; CBS Corp.;
First Doe; General Electric Company; Imo Industries Inc.; Warren
Pumps LLC, Case No. RG19022161.  Justin Bosi, Esq., serves as
lawyer.

   * Richard Limas v. Basco Drywall & Painting Co.; Calaveras
Asbestos Ltd.; Foster Wheeler LLC; General Electric Company;
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No. RG19022163.
Matthew L. Theil, Esq., serves as lawyer.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Air Force Landlord Exposed Families to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Budryk, writing for The Hill, reported that one of the U.S.
military's major housing providers falsified maintenance records
for years at an Oklahoma Air Force base, exposing military families
to asbestos, according to a Reuters investigation.

The investigation found that Balfour Beatty Communities, the
landlord for Tinker Air Force Base, kept two sets of maintenance
books, presenting the falsified records to the Air Force and
keeping handwritten, accurate records for company use only,
according to Reuters.

Robert Whittington, who worked as Balfour Beatty's manager on the
base between 2014 and mid-2017, told the news service he altered
work-order records in response to instructions from his superior
and also pressured employees to close out incomplete work orders
before their lateness could count against the company.

Balfour Beatty received a report from the Ippolito family in 2015
of warped floor tiles, which contained asbestos and further damage
from a water leak, according to Reuters.

In a maintenance log, a company technician said the leak was fixed
in 20 minutes, when in fact it took more than a week and the other
problems took months, according to the news service.

"You think your family is safe, and then you find out your kid is
eating asbestos flooring. It makes me sick," Nick Ippolito, a Navy
petty officer second class stationed on the base, told Reuters. "It
seems like they're just out for the dollar."

A Reuters review of company records, Air Force reports and
interviews with former employees found the company faked records to
make it appear more responsive than it was to complaints.

"It's like they're operating a bank robbery at a corporate level,"
Whittington told Reuters. "I got to the point where I was waking up
in the morning and wondering, 'Well, how many people am I going to
have to screw over today?' "

Air Force housing employees stationed at the base warned the
maintenance logs contained false information about promptness of
responses at least 18 times since 2015, according to Air Force
reports.

"We do not feel that emergency, urgent and routine work orders are
accurately recorded," one states, according to the news service.

Balfour Beatty did not immediately respond to a request for comment
from The Hill.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: American Biltrite Faces Retrial in Floor Tile Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hayes, writing for Bloomberg Law, reported that American
Biltrite will face a retrial of claims that asbestos in its vinyl
tile installed in a home half a century ago caused a man's
mesothelioma.

Though most asbestos personal injury claims involve workplace
exposures, the case alleges exposure in the home.

Robert Friedman presented enough evidence for a jury to decide
whether the company's product caused his illness, which was
diagnosed in January 2017, the California Court of Appeal said June
19 in an unpublished decision.

The cases are LAOSD ASBESTOS CASES. ROBERT T. FRIEDMAN et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. AMERICAN BILTRITE, INC. Defendant and
Respondent, Nos. B291411, B291411 (Cal. App.).

A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y38x9fsq from Leagle.com.

Weitz & Luxenberg, Benno Ashrafi, Esq., and Josiah Parker, Esq.,
for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Manning Gross + Massenburg, Carrie Lin, Esq. -- clin@mgmlaw.com --
Brent Karren, Esq. -- and Candice Kusmer for Defendant and
Respondent.

Crowell & Moring, Kevin C. Mayer, Esq. -- kmayer@crowell.com -- and
William L. Anderson, Esq. -- wanderson@crowell.com -- for Coalition
for Litigation Justice, Inc. as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant
and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in $13MM Lopez Verdict Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from a US$13 million verdict in an asbestos-related case
against Tyson Foods, Inc.'s subsidiary remains pending, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2019.

The Company states, "The Hillshire Brands Company was named as a
defendant in an asbestos exposure case filed by Mark Lopez in May
2014 in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California.  Mr.
Lopez was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January 2014 and is now
deceased.  Mr. Lopez's family members asserted negligence, premises
liability and strict liability claims related to Mr.  Lopez's
alleged asbestos exposure from 1954-1986 from the Union Sugar plant
in Betteravia, California.  The plant, which was sold in 1986, was
owned by entities that were predecessors-in-interest to The
Hillshire Brands Company.  In August 2017, the jury returned a
verdict of approximately US$13 million in favor of the plaintiffs,
and a judgment was entered.  We have appealed the judgment and all
briefing has been completed."

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

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/iGlnGF


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ark. DEQ Seeks No Action Assurance from EPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Wright, Esq., at Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates &
Woodyard, P.L.L.C., in an article for JD Supra, wrote that The
United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") granted an
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality ("ADEQ") request for a
No Action Assurance ("Assurance") related to the provisions of the
Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
("NESHAP"). 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart M.

ADEQ made the request in light of the record flooding in Arkansas
that began in May 2019.

EPA notes that ADEQ is seeking relief from two provisions of the
Asbestos NESHAP, which include:

   * The ten-day notification requirement for demolitions and
renovations

   * The thorough inspection requirement for renovations and
demolition of structures that have been declared structurally
unsound and in danger of imminent collapse and ordered by a
government agency to be demolished.

ADEQ's rationale for the request for the Assurance was acknowledged
with EPA stating:

     ". . . You note that there are fifteen counties addressed in
the President's Emergency Declaration and Major Disaster
Declaration, issued on May 30, 2019, and June 8, 2019,
respectively. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary circumstances
facing the State and local communities. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") appreciates the efforts of the Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to expedite renovation
and demolition activities while ensuring the protection of public
health and the environment. We think that it is appropriate to
proceed cautiously."

EPA's Assurance provides significant discussion regarding its
interpretation of the notification and inspection requirements and
its willingness to exercise some enforcement discretion in regards
to these provisions.

The scope of the Assurance is stated to apply to:

     ". . . owners or operators of renovations or demolitions of
structures damaged by the recent flooding of Arkansas counties
covered under an emergency and/or disaster declaration made by the
President of the United States. This NAA is in effect commencing
today, and terminates on September 11, 2019, at 11:50 PM (CDT). The
issuance of an NAA for this period of time is in the public
interest."

The Assurance further clarifies that it is not applicable to any
other federal requirements that may apply to demolition or
renovation activities (other than the asbestos NESHAP provisions
addressed in the Assurance).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 118 Pending Talc Suits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. remains a defendant in 118 pending individual
cases related to asbestos-contaminated talc products as of March
31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

Avon Products states, "The Company has been named a defendant in
numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging
that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were
contaminated with asbestos.  Many of these actions involve a number
of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including
manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products
that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain
asbestos.  As of March 31, 2019, there were 118 individual cases
pending against the Company.  During the three months ended 31
March, 2019, 18 new cases were filed and 8 cases were dismissed,
settled, or otherwise resolved.  The value of our settlements in
this area thus far has not been material, either individually or in
the aggregate.  Additional similar cases arising out of the use of
the Company's talc products are reasonably anticipated.

"We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are
without merit.  We are defending vigorously against these claims
and will continue to do so.  To date, none of the cases filed
against the Company have proceeded to trial and there have been no
findings of liability against the Company.  However, nationwide
trial results in similar cases filed against other manufacturers of
cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright dismissals to very
large jury awards of both compensatory and punitive damages.

"Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict
any overall trends in the outcome of the cases pending against the
Company, and we are only able to make a reasonable estimate for a
small number of individual cases that have advanced to the later
stages of legal proceedings.  Any accruals currently recorded on
the Company's balance sheet with respect to these individual cases
are not material.  Other than these accruals, we are at this time
unable to estimate our reasonably possible or probable losses.
However, any adverse outcomes, either in an individual case or in
the aggregate, could be material.  Future costs to litigate these
cases, which we expense as incurred, are not known but may be
significant, though some costs will be covered by insurance."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/JXEMH3


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Had $146MM Non-PCC Reserves at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated's reserve for asbestos claims that are
unrelated to Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC") was US$146
million at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Corning is a defendant in certain cases
alleging injuries from asbestos unrelated to PCC (the "non-PCC
asbestos claims") which had been stayed pending the confirmation of
the Plan.  The stay was lifted on August 25, 2016.

"At December 31, 2018 and March 31, 2019, the amount of the reserve
for these non-PCC asbestos claims was estimated to be US$146
million.  The reserve balance as of March 31, 2019 represents the
undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees for the
estimated life of the litigation."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/9XSilb


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has $185MM PCC Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019, that the total amount of payments due in
years 2019 through 2023 for asbestos claims under the
reorganization plan of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (PCC) is
US$185 million at March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. each owned
50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC").
PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 2000, and the Modified
Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for PCC (the "Plan") became
effective in April 2016.

"At December 31, 2016, the Company's liability under the Plan was
US$290 million, which is required to be paid through a series of
fixed payments beginning in the second quarter of 2017.  At March
31, 2019, the total amount of payments due in years 2019 through
2023 is US$185 million, of which US$50 million is due in the second
quarter of 2019 and is classified as a current liability.  The
remaining US$135 million is classified as a non-current
liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/9XSilb


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duncan Refinery Workers With Cancer Could Get Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Provost, writing for The Duncan Banner, reported that
according to to Norris Injury Lawyers, people working at the Duncan
Refinery from 1981 and back who were diagnosed with various cancers
may be entitled to cash benefits from multiple private trusts.

A press release stated that lung cancer, esophageal cancer,
laryngeal cancer, pharyngeal cancer, stomach cancer, colon cancer,
rectal cancer, and mesothelioma are frequently caused by asbestos
exposure.

"Asbestos-laced products were used for decades at Duncan Refinery,"
the release said. "Neither employees nor management were aware of
the asbestos risk."

While Asbestos is a mineral and is harmless in its natural state,
it is when the mineral is manufactured into fibrous material that
the danger arises.

"When inhaled or swallowed, microscopic asbestos fibers may be
permanently affixed to body tissue," the release stated. "Over many
years, these fibers may cause genetic changes that can lead to
cancer."

According to the National Cancer Institute, "It can take from 10 to
40 years or more for asbestos-related cancers to appear."

Federal Bankruptcy Courts have required asbestos manufacturers to
set aside hundreds of millions of dollars in private trusts to
compensate cancer victims and the families of deceased cancer
victims.

"Through these trusts, cancer victims can receive money damages by
the filing of timely, detailed, and accurate claims," the report
said.

Norris Injury Lawyers have created a specific initiative to assist
Duncan Refinery employees in applying for money set aside for them
in the asbestos trusts.

Cancer victims or the families of deceased victims who worked at
the refinery before 1981 may call 800-478-9578 for a free
evaluation of their claim. Additional information is available at
getnorris.com/asb


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Jury Awards $70MM Verdict to Thornton Couple
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a former laboratory technician at a
biopharmaceutical company and his wife were awarded roughly $70
million by a Florida state jury over claims he contracted
mesothelioma from his exposure at work to asbestos-containing
products sold by an equipment business.

At the end of the roughly two-week trila before Miami-Dade Circuit
Judge Jose M. Rodriguez, jurors issued that award against GEA
Mechanical Equipment US Inc. after finding the company was
negligent in distributing the allegedly contaminated products and
failing to adequately warn plaintiff Charles Thornton of the
related health hazards, court records show.  The verdict included
$50 million in damages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had $844.9MM Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc. had an undiscounted asbestos-related liability of US$844.9
million as of March 31, 2019, for pending and unasserted claims
estimated to be filed over the next 10 years, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps
LLC, are joined as a defendant with numerous other companies in
product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos
exposure.  These claims allege that certain of their products sold
prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g.,
a gasket) which contained asbestos.  To the extent these
third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated
in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable.  Frequently,
the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or Goulds Pumps
LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure.  In addition, a
large majority of claims pending against the Company subsidiaries
have been placed on inactive dockets because the plaintiff cannot
demonstrate a significant compensable loss.  Our experience to date
is that a substantial portion of resolved claims have been
dismissed without payment by the Company's subsidiaries.

"We record a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos
claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years.  While it is
probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to
be filed against the Company, a liability for potential future
claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable due to
the variables and uncertainties inherent in the long-term
projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential
recoveries.  As of March 31, 2019, we have recorded an undiscounted
asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted claims
estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of US$844.9 million,
including expected legal fees, and an associated asset of US$369.6
million which represents estimated recoveries from insurers,
resulting in a net asbestos exposure of US$475.3 million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ZKEdJL



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Johnson Controls Has $541MM Liability at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson Controls International plc estimated its asbestos-related
liability for pending and future claims and related defense costs
to be US$541 million as of March 31, 2019, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

Johnson Controls states, "The Company and certain of its
subsidiaries, along with numerous other third parties, are named as
defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to
asbestos containing materials.  These cases have typically involved
product liability claims based primarily on allegations of
manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that
either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos containing
components.

"As of March 31, 2019, the Company's estimated asbestos related net
liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position was US$175 million.
The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of US$541 million, of which US$55 million
was recorded in other current liabilities and US$486 million was
recorded in other noncurrent liabilities.

"The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated
statements of financial position of US$366 million, of which US$51
million was recorded in other current assets, and US$315 million
was recorded in other noncurrent assets.  Assets included US$19
million of cash and US$263 million of investments, which have all
been designated as restricted.

"In connection with the recognition of liabilities for
asbestos-related matters, the Company records asbestos-related
insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount of such
recoveries recorded at March 31, 2019 was US$84 million.  As of
September 30, 2018, the Company's estimated asbestos related net
liability recorded on a discounted basis within the Company's
consolidated statements of financial position was US$173 million.
The net liability within the consolidated statements of financial
position was comprised of a liability for pending and future claims
and related defense costs of US$550 million, of which US$55 million
was recorded in other current liabilities and US$495 million was
recorded in other noncurrent liabilities.

"The Company also maintained separate cash, investments and
receivables related to insurance recoveries within the consolidated
statements of financial position of US$377 million, of which US$33
million was recorded in other current assets, and US$344 million
was recorded in other noncurrent assets.  Assets included US$6
million of cash and US$281 million of investments, which have all
been designated as restricted.  In connection with the recognition
of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records
asbestos-related insurance recoveries that are probable; the amount
of such recoveries recorded at September 30, 2018 was US$90
million."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/w1BtTX


ASBESTOS UPDATE: M. Floyd Sues BP America in St. Louis Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The following cases categorized as "asbestos" cases were on the
docket in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court on June 10:

     * Montie Floyd; Terry Teague v. Bp America Inc; Bp Products
North America Inc; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; Gardner
Denver Inc; Grinnell Corporation; Itt Corporation; Jp Bushnell
Packing Supply Co; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Monsanto
Company; Riley Power Inc; Welco Manufacturing Company; Zurn
Industries, Case No. 1922-CC06779.  Timothy Paul Hulla, Esq., is
the plaintiff's attorney.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man with Terminal Cancer Set to Sue Council
------------------------------------------------------------
Romsey Advertiser reported that a man with terminal cancer is suing
Hampshire County Council after claiming he was exposed to asbestos
at a Southampton college.

John Slade from Romsey believes he came into contact with the toxic
fibres when he used to teach pottery in a makeshift hut at Richard
Taunton College, Hill Lane.

The 70-year-old retired history teacher was diagnosed with cancer
after being rushed to hospital with a collapsed lung. He also
suffered from extreme tiredness which doctors have linked to the
cancer.

The steel structure huts John taught in were initially erected on
Southampton Common as army barracks in preparation for the D-Day
landings during the Second World War. They were later used as
classrooms at the College's Highfield Road site.

John said: "When I was diagnosed I was quite devastated. This is
something that happened that wasn't in my control and it seems most
unfair.

"I can't walk half a mile now without getting breathless. What was
occasional headaches is now almost continuous. I even had to miss
my own grandson's wedding which I was meant to officiate at last
summer.

"It's just terribly unfair that this has happened and I feel
incredibly unlucky."

The father-of-one enjoyed making objects and took up an evening
class for teachers, which he used to share his new pottery skills
with pupils.

John also claims he would use asbestos gloves to remove hot items
from the pottery kiln several times a week.

He added: "By the time I started teaching, the huts would have been
used at the college since the 1940s. They were only meant to have a
ten-year shelf life so you can just imagine what state they were
in.

"They were really dilapidated, with rain coming in, and we were
always covered in dust. We simply had no idea that we were
endangering our lives.

"I actually feel depressed quite a lot of the time but I try and
get lost in what I'm doing and stay engaged in things and people.
I've taken up woodwork and try to get to the gym regularly but I'm
not in the same way I was a few years ago."

Ceri Clark, an industrial disease lawyer from Slater and Gordon who
is representing John, added: "People wrongly assume that it is only
builders and other tradesmen who are affected by this horrible
disease but asbestos was widely used in many school buildings
across the country for years, meaning countless staff and students
could have been put at risk.

"That's why we are appealing for anyone who worked with him or was
taught by him in places where there could have been asbestos
present to get in touch and tell us what they know."

A spokesperson for Hampshire County Council said: "While we can
confirm that the County Council is in receipt of a claim, we are
unable to comment while this is being investigated."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 40 Cases at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Minerals Technologies Inc. has 40 pending asbestos cases, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are
among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for
exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials.  The
Company currently has three pending silica cases and forty pending
asbestos cases.  To date, 1,493 silica cases and 57 asbestos cases
have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or
American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of
AMCOL.  Seven new asbestos cases were filed during the first
quarter of 2019, and three additional asbestos cases were filed
subsequent to the end of the quarter.  No asbestos or silica cases
were dismissed during the period.  Most of these claims do not
provide adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood
that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such
liability, if any.  Additional claims of this nature may be made
against the Company or its subsidiaries.  At this time management
anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and
the cost of defending such claims, will not have a material effect
on its financial position or results of operations.

"The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal
amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that
may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the
acquisition).  We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts
claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading
practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed
damage.  The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of
these cases since inception continues to be insignificant.  The
majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases
against AMCOL or American Colloid, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc.
pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992.  The
Company is entitled to indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for
sales prior to the initial public offering.  Of the 40 pending
asbestos cases, 29 of the non-AMCOL cases are subject to
indemnification, in whole or in part, because the plaintiffs claim
liability based on sales of products that occurred either entirely
before the initial public offering, or both before and after the
initial public offering.  In five of the seven remaining non-AMCOL
cases, the plaintiffs have not alleged dates of exposure, and in
the remaining two non-AMCOL cases, exposure is alleged to have been
after the Company's initial public offering in 1992.  The remaining
four cases involve AMCOL only, so no Pfizer indemnity is available.
Our experience has been that the Company is not liable to
plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect
to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Kt79UO


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Contractor Cited for Asbestos Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Wright, Esq. -- wwright@mwlaw.com -- at Mitchell, Williams,
Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C., in an article for JD Supra,
wrote that The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
("OSHA") issued a May 15th news release stating that it cited two
Missouri contractors for allegedly failing to comply with asbestos
removal standards while performing rehabilitation work at Kansas
State University's Library in Manhattan, Kansas.

The companies cited are Custom Crushing & Company ("Custom") and
Belfor Property Restoration ("Belfor").

Custom is stated to have been cited for violations which include:

   * exposing employees to asbestos;

   * failure to provide respiratory protection, and personal
protective clothing;

   * failure to develop a written hazard communication program;

   * failure to train workers on asbestos hazards;

   * failure to properly dispose of material and waste containing
asbestos; and

   * failure to conduct medical surveillance for employees exposed
to health hazards.

Belfor is stated to have been cited for violations that include:

   * failure to inform building's owner and other employees of the
location and quantity of presumed asbestos-containing material

   * OSHA is proposing civil penalties of $193,596 for Custom and
$39,780 for Belfor.

The two companies have 15 business days from receipt of the
citations and penalties to comply, request an informal conference
with OSHA's area director, or contest the findings before the
independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Still Defends 571 Lawsuits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
MRC Global Inc. is still facing approximately 571 asbestos-related
lawsuits involving approximately 1,151 claims as of March 31, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that
plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that
exposure to asbestos allegedly caused.  Plaintiffs and their family
members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of
defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture,
distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos
containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly
caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos.  These plaintiffs
typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of
third-party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc.
subsidiary purportedly distributed.

"As of March 31, 2019, we are named a defendant in approximately
571 lawsuits involving approximately 1,151 claims.  No asbestos
lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a
majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved.
Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these
claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial
majority of existing and anticipated future claims.  Accordingly,
we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely
settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from
insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that
the amounts of recovery are probable."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3DM1em


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Strikes Down $7MM Talc Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan Fisher, writing for Legal NewsLine, reported that in an
encouraging sign for talcum powder manufacturers facing a new wave
of asbestos litigation in New York, a state appeals court has
thrown out a 2017 jury verdict in a talc case because the
plaintiff's experts failed to explain how she could have contracted
cancer from the cosmetic powder.

The decision illustrates the increased scrutiny New York's
Appellate Division is placing on asbestos claims following last
year's Juni decision by the state's highest court, which requires
plaintiffs not only to prove asbestos can cause cancer as a general
proposition but to show how the specific product they are suing
over could have caused their illness.

Talc manufacturers deny their products contain any asbestos fibers
at all, but even if plaintiff experts are to be believed, the
amount of fibers anyone could inhale from using the product would
be miniscule compared with the industrial exposures more commonly
associated with mesothelioma, a deadly cancer of the chest cavity.

The decision in DiScala v. Charles B. Chrystal Co. is particularly
good news for Johnson & Johnson, which earlier was socked with $300
million in punitive damages in a talc case in which the jury also
awarded plaintiff Donna Olson and her spouse $25 million in
compensatory damages. Johnson & Johnson is appealing the decision,
saying plaintiff expert Dr. William Longo lied on the stand about
his testing for asbestos in Johnson's Baby Powder as well as other
legal errors during the trial.

The company faces at least two more upcoming trials in New York's
specialized court for asbestos lawsuits known as NYCAL, which is
accused of being a pro-plaintiff "judicial hellhole" by defendants
and tort reform advocates.

In a two-paragraph decision released June 20, the Appellate
Division reversed an August 2017 decision against Whittaker Clark &
Daniels over cosmetic talc that initially resulted in a $7 million
jury verdict that Judge Martin Shulman later slashed to $2.5
million, after taking into account money the plaintiff received
from prior settlements.

Citing Juni as well as a predecessor decision, Parker v. Mobil Oil
in 2006, the appeals court said the plaintiff "failed to adduce
evidence that the decedent was exposed to sufficient levels of
asbestos in defendant's talc to cause mesothelioma."

"Plaintiff's causation expert merely opined that the decedent's
exposure to unspecified 'detectable' or 'significant' levels of
asbestos in the talcum product she used caused her mesothelioma,"
the court ruled. "Plaintiff was not required to quantify the
decedent's exposure level with exact mathematical precision," it
went on, but the evidence "failed to establish a level of exposure
sufficient to cause the illness."

In Juni, the New York Court of Appeals upheld a 2017 decision by
the Appellate Division throwing out a verdict in favor of a
plaintiff who blamed asbestos dust from Ford Motor Co. automotive
brake pads for causing his mesothelioma. The decision was based on
the earlier Parker decision, which NYCAL judges largely ignored,
requiring plaintiffs to provide some "scientific expression" of how
the product they are suing over could cause their injuries.

Asbestos lawyers typically rely on expert witnesses who testify the
fibers can cause cancer, but under the Parker and Juni decisions,
defense lawyers say, plaintiffs also must present evidence, most
likely from experts like industrial hygienists, to explain how they
inhaled or absorbed enough of the toxin contained in a specific
product to cause disease.

Whittaker Chalk & Daniels was sued by the heirs of Joan Robusto,
who died of mesothelioma. They accused a number of companies of
causing her illness but after most of them settled, the remaining
defendant was accused of selling asbestos-containing talc used in
Shulton's Desert Flower Dusting Powder. In its motion for appeal,
Whittaker Chalk said experts lacked the legal foundation to say the
powder was "regularly and consistently" contaminated with asbestos,
failed to identify any specific lots that were contaminated, and
failed to explain how Robusto could inhale enough fibers from talc
to make her sick.

The lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson also hinge upon expert
testimony by witnesses including Longo who say they have detected
asbestos fibers in samples from previously opened bottles plaintiff
lawyers obtained on eBay and other sources. Johnson & Johnson has
complained there is no accurate chain of custody for the samples or
a way to determine whether they have been contaminated with
asbestos from the ambient air.

The case is N RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. CLAUDINE
DiSCALA, ETC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL
COMPANY, INC., ET AL., Defendants, WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, 9676, 40000/88, 190413/13 (N.Y. App. Div.).

A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y22qzypf from Leagle.com.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York (David G. Keyko, Esq.
-- david.keyko@pillsburylaw.com -- of counsel), for appellant.

Levy Konigsberg, LLP, New York (Renner K. Walker, Esq., of
counsel), for respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Corp. Defends PI Suits at March. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Parsons Corporation remains a defendant in lawsuits alleging
personal injuries as a result of contact with asbestos products at
various project sites, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "We are subject to certain lawsuits, claims and
assessments that arise in the ordinary course of business.
Additionally, the Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits
alleging personal injuries as a result of contact with asbestos
products at various project sites.  We believe that any significant
costs relating to these claims will be reimbursed by applicable
insurance and, although there can be no assurance that these
matters will be resolved favorably, management believes that the
ultimate resolution of any of these claims will not have a material
adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of
operations, or cash flows.  We record a liability when we believe
that it is both probable that a loss has been incurred and the
amount of loss or range of loss can be reasonably estimated.  When
using a range of loss estimate, the Company records the liability
using the low end of the range.  The Company records a
corresponding receivable for costs covered under its insurance
policies."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/boaZGp


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rankin Couple Sues AW Chesterton in St. Louis Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following cases categorized as "asbestos" cases were on the
docket in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court on June 6:

   * James Rankin; Nanette Rankin v. A W Chesterton Company; Air &
Liquid Systems Corporation; Allied Paint & Wallpaper Company Inc.;
Ameron International Corp.; Aurora Pump Company; Borg Warner Morse
Tec LLC; Brand Insulations Inc; Bw Ip Inc; Cbs Corporation;
Certainteed Corporation; Cleaver Brooks Inc; Copes Vulcan Inc;
Crane Co; Crown Cork and Seal Company Inc.; Flowserve Corporation;
Flowserve US Inc.; Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation; General
Electric Company; General Gasket Corporation; Gorman Rupp Company;
Goulds Pumps Incorporated; Greene Tweed & Co Inc; Hercules Inc;
Industrial Holdings Corporation; Ingersoll Rand Company; Invensys
Systems Inc; J M Manufacturing Company Inc.; J P Bushnell Packing;
John Crane Inc; Kelly Moore Paint Company Inc.; L and J Plumbing
Supply; Lamons Gasket Company; M W Custom Papers LLC; Mckesson
Corporation; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Milwaukee Valve
Company Inc.; Missouri Drywall Supply Inc; Mueller LLC Co.; Mueller
Steam Specialty Co; Nooter Corporation; Pneumo Abex LLC; Ric Wil
Incorporated; Riley Stoker Corporation; Sprinkmann Sons
Corporation; Trane US Inc.; Union Carbide Corp.; Western Auto
Supply Company, Case No. 1922-CC06003.  Brian Joseph Cooke, Esq.,
is the petitioner's attorney.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. Betty Sues Armstrong, et al., in St. Louis Cour
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The following cases categorized as "asbestos" cases were on the
docket in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court on June 11:

   * Sanders Betty; Sanders Timothy v. Armstrong International
Inc.; Cleaver Brooks; Crown Cork & Seal USA Inc.; Fmc Corporation;
Gardner Denver Inc; General Gasket Corporation; Goulds Pumps LLC;
Grinnell LLC; Imo Industries Inc.; Ingersoll Rand Company;
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; The William Powell Company;
Trane US Inc., Case No. 1922-CC07399.  Matt C. Morris, Esq., is the
plaintiff's attorney.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: S. Weber Files Asbestos Suit in Calif. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern California Record reported that the following cases
categorized as "asbestos" cases were on the docket in the Superior
Court of California for San Francisco County on June 6:

   * Steven Weber; Weber III v. General Electric Company, Case No.
CGC19276787.  Alan Richard Brayton, Esq., is the Plaintiff's
attorney.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Faces 745 Active Cases at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation still defends itself against 745
active asbestos-related cases involving approximately 2,315
plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "As of March 31, 2019, U.S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 745 active cases involving approximately
2,315 plaintiffs.  The vast majority of these cases involve
multiple defendants.  At December 31, 2018, U.S. Steel was a
defendant in approximately 755 cases involving approximately 2,320
plaintiffs.  About 1,540, or approximately 67 percent, of these
plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which
permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs.  Based upon U.S.
Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the actual
number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U.S.
Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of
plaintiffs.

"Historically, asbestos-related claims against U.S. Steel fall into
three groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were exposed
to asbestos on the premises of U.S. Steel facilities; (2) claims
made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured by U.S.
Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and maritime laws
by employees of former operations of U.S. Steel.

"The amount U.S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not
material to U.S. Steel's financial condition.  However, U.S. Steel
is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related
claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates
at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of
bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos
claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4)
uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease
process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to
address asbestos-related claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ssf0mo


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Co. Had 800 PI Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Company continues to defend itself against approximately
800 personal injury lawsuits related to asbestos matters as of
March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "We have been named a defendant in
asbestos-related personal injury litigation.  To date, the costs
resulting from the litigation, including settlement costs, have not
been significant.  As of March 31, 2019, there were approximately
800 such lawsuits.  We believe that we have substantial insurance
coverage, subject to applicable deductibles and policy limits, with
respect to asbestos claims.

"We have valid defenses to these asbestos-related personal injury
claims and intend to continue to defend them vigorously.  Should
the volume of litigation grow substantially, it is possible that we
could incur significant costs resolving these cases.  We do not
expect the resolution of pending asbestos litigation and
proceedings to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated
financial condition or liquidity.  In any given period or periods,
however, it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/uklRIp



                            *********

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 ***