CAR_Public/190701.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 1, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 130

                            Headlines

183 RIO RESTAURANT: Delacruz Files Class Suit under ADA
443 LEXINGTON AVE: Ruilova Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA/NYLL
ADDUS HEALTHCARE: Court OKs 2nd Amended Answer in M. Moore Suit
AMAZON.COM INC: Alexa Secretly Records Children, Lawsuits Allege
AMERICA'S TEST KITCHEN: Kittle Sues over Unlawful Disclosure

AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces Gutierrez Suit over Data Breach
AMERIPARK LLC: Removes Pool Suit to S.D. California
AMP: Maurice Blackburn to Lead Shareholder Class Action
APPLE INC: Sued for Disclosing iTunes Listening Data
AQUANTIA CORP: Faces Bushansky Suit over Proposed Merger

ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Cooper Says SEC Filings Misleading
ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Rosenblatt Challenges Sale to Elanco
ARYZTA LLC: Davis Seeks OT Premium Pay, Minimum Wage
ASCENA RETAIL: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action Suit
BADNEWS DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shelhart Claims

BANK OF AMERICA: Frausto Seeks to Certify Class
BARRILLEAUX INC: Underpays Helpers, Williams Suit Alleges
BATCH INC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act in New York
BFC PARTNERS: Scott et al. Seek Minimum Wage, OT Pay
BLUESTONE LANE: Duncan Files Class Suit in S.D. New York

BMW NORTH AMERICA: Keys Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
BRISTOW GROUP: Chapter 11 Suit Automatically Stays Kokareva Suit
BROADCOM INC: 9th Cir. Revives Varjabedian Suit v. Emulex
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Being Sold Cheaply to IFM, Curtis Says
CAPITAL ONE: Cohen et al. Sue over Usurious Interests Rates

CARBON AND CLAY: Boyadjian Says Toothpaste "Misbranded"
CBSC INC: Angeles Files FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Ohio
CENTRAL CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
CHASE BANK: Young Sues Over Illegal Credit Card Interest Charges
CHICAGO, IL: No Due Process over Towing Practices, Santiago Says

COMMUNITY CREDIT: Fails to Provide Repo Notice, Bastian Claims
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Female Science Students' Class Action Pending
DE WAFELBAKKERS: Goodman Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
DENKA PERFORMANCE: Grant of Leave to File SAC in Butler Reversed
DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: Collective Action Conditionally Certified

DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Court Dismisses Ulrich FDCPA Suit
ELDERSERVE HEALTH: Bellin Files Class Suit in S.D. New York
ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Wheby Says Proxy Statement Misleading
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in J. Robinson FDCPA Suit
ERNESLI CORPORATION: Pavoni Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA

EVENTBRITE INC: Robinson Sues Over Misleading IPO-related Reports
EXPEDIA INC: Court OKs Arbitration in J. Church Suit
FIRST AMERICAN: Fails to Secure Website, Dinh Suit Alleges
FORD MOTOR: MyFord Touch Class Action Gets Preliminary Court OK
FORSTER & GARBUS: Kleinman Sues over Debt Collection Practices

FORTEES SALON & SPA: Boice Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage
FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Cox, Perry Seek Overtime Pay
FRED'S INC: Awaits 11th Cir. Ruling in Taylor Case Appeal
FRED'S INC: Settlement in Eddington and Hudson Suit Underway
FRED'S INC: Whitley Class Action Ongoing

FRESENIUS HEALTH: Faces Krozos Labor Suit in California
GATES HUDSON COMMUNITY: Covington Seeks OT Pay for Property Manager
GEORGE'S INC: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Rodriguez Suit
GREAT BAY MARINE: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
GREENBACK OPRARTIONS: Faces Phillips Suit in Sacramento County

GTX INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action in New York
GUARD-SYSTEMS INC: Underpays Security Guards, Rangel Alleges
HERON THERAPEUTICS: Faces Wong Securities Suit in S.D. Calif.
HFF INC: Strenger Class Action Underway
HOPFED BANCORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Parshall Suit

HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Weber Suit over Medicare-Based Plans
IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Jones Suit Alleges ADA Violation
INUVO INC: Parties Agree to Dismiss Akerman Class Suit
INUVO INC: Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Franchi Suit
IPC, INC: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Settlement Class

JP MORGAN: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
KAYREE INC: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Davis et al. Claim
KIA MOTORS AMERICA: Sells Defective Vehicles, Santamaria Claims
L'OREAL USA: Duncan Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
LABCORP: Faces Data Breach Class Action in North Carolina

LASHIFY INC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
LITTLE JOHN: Warner Seeks to Certify Class of Freight Brokers
LOVELY SKIN: Crosson Sues over Web Accessibility Issue
MDL 2887: Flanary et al Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
MDL 2887: Sprengel et al. Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated

MEDICAL NECESSITIES: Certification of Delivery Techs Class Sought
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Imposes Monetary Sanctions in Dionisio Suit
MISSISSIPPI: Court Denies Class Certification in D. Bennett Suit
MOBILE, AL: Diamond Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 11th Circuit
MONSANTO COMPANY: Clayton et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California

MONSANTO COMPANY: Matlock et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Simmons Sues Over Student-Athletes' Injuries
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Declines to Certify TCPA Class
NEW YORK: Mitchell Files Class Suit Over Prisoner Civil Rights
NIDEC MOTOR: Court OKs $1.675MM Prelim Settlement in G. Pounds Suit

NORTHWEST TENNESSEE: Underpays Medical Assistants, Suit Alleges
NRT LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Chinitz Suit Claims
NRT WEST: Chinitz Seeks to Certify Classes
PAY-O-MATIC: Luyando Suit Transferred to Eastern Dist. of New York
PURDUE PHARMA: Canton City Sues over Highly Addictive Opioids

PURDUE PHARMA: Carlson Sues over Negligence on Opioid Distribution
PURDUE PHARMA: Cherry Sues over Unsafe Marketing of Opioids
PURDUE PHARMA: Counties Unite to Negotiate Opioid Lawsuits
PURDUE PHARMA: Cruz Alleges Negligent Marketing of Opioids
PURDUE PHARMA: Ontario Plans to Join BC's Opioid Class Action

PURDUE PHARMA: Paul Sues over Sale of Opioid Drugs
PYXUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Putative Class Suit in North Carolina
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Finch Sues over Data Breach
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Removes Vecchio NYLL Suit to S.D. New York
SAN FRANCISCO: Faces ADA Suit in N.D. California

SCOTTS COMPANY: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Depalma Suit
SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Court Dismisses K. Wallace FAC
SKIN BAR: Duncan Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site
SMARTPAY LEASING: Court Certifies "STOP" Text Message Class
SMITH MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid for Class Cert. without Prejudice

SPACE AGE COMMUNICATIONS: Garza Seeks OT Premium Pay
SPEEDY CASH: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in C. Delisle Suit
SPORTSBET: Responds to Punters' Proposed Class Action
SPRINKLES CUPCAKES: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA
ST. DAVID'S HEALTHCARE: Mock Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Texas

STATE FARM: Court Directs Revised Class Notice Plan in Stuart Suit
STATE FARM: Settlement in Durant Suit Has Final Court Approval
STELLAR DRILLING: Whittington Seeks OT Pay for Mud Engineers
STEVENS TANKER: Cundiff Seeks OT Pay for Dispatchers, Coordinators
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Bens BBQ Files Civil Rights Class Suit

SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS: Cohn Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
TOP 1 PERCENT COACHING: Elston Seeks Overtime Pay, Minimum Wage
TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement in Simerlein Suit Has Final Court Approval
TRANS WORLD: Faces New Suit over VIP Backstage Pass Memberships
TRANS WORLD: Opt-In Discovery in Spack Underway

TRANSUNION RENTAL: Misreports Eviction Record, Clark-Fortunat Says
TRINITY COURIERS: Gomez Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
TUMINO'S TOWING: Court Denies Stay in S. Kiley Suit
UBS AG: Among Defendants in Forex Rate Rigging Class Action
UNILEVER US: Derchin et al Sue over Misleading Ice Cream Labels

UNILEVER US: Duncan Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Does Not Pay Minimum Wage, Gomez Says
VAD D/B/A CM AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Canfield Claims
VEREIT INC: American Realty Capital Properties Suit Adjourned
VIP NAIL: Yugsi Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Napleton Orlando Seeks to Certify Class
WARREN COUNTY, OH: Court OKs Settlement in Suit vs. WCCS
WESTPAC BANKING: Home Loan Customers' Class Action Pending
WESTVILLE RESTAURANT: Underpays Cooks & Porters, Chan et al. Say
WILDLIFE CONSERVATORY: Duncan Files Class Suit under ADA

WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Class Action Plaintiffs Challenge Stay
WLP EXECUTIVE: Bird et al Seek to Certify Hourly Employees Class
ZAYO GROUP: Duggan Says Proxy Statement over Merger Misleading

                            *********

183 RIO RESTAURANT: Delacruz Files Class Suit under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
183 Rio Restaurant Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 183 Rio Restaurant Inc. and Smalls
Live L.L.C., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05700 (S.D. N.Y., June
18, 2019).

183 Rio Restaurant Inc. is a Portuguese Restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
   150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: nyjg@aol.com


443 LEXINGTON AVE: Ruilova Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA/NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES RUILOVA, HUGO TEXIS, BERTIN ALDO GARCIA, ISMAEL GUTIERREZ,
VALENTIN VIVAR, ELIZABETH KELLY, STACY SAMUEL, STEPHANIE PEREZ,
EVAN MILHO, JAMAL KHAN, KEVIN O'BRIEN and CHUCK REYNOLDS, on behalf
of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. 443
LEXINGTON AVE, INC. d/b/a DAVIO'S, 75 ARLINGTON STREET, INC. d/b/a
DAVIO'S, ONE PATRIOT PLACE, LLC d/b/a DAVIO'S, 151 GRANITE STREET
LLC d/b/a DAVIO'S, 55 BOYLSTON STREET, LLC d/b/a DAVIO'S, 427
WALNUT STREET LLC d/b/a DAVIO'S, 111 S. 17TH STREET, INC. d/b/a
DAVIO'S, 201 MAIN STREET LLC d/b/a DAVIO'S, and STEVE DIFILLIPPO,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05205 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019), alleges that
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants
unpaid minimum wage, unpaid wages for all hours worked due to
improper meal break deduction, unpaid wages due to unreimbursed
uniform costs, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendants own and operate a nationwide chain of restaurants
under the common trade name "Davio's," including one location in
New York, four locations in Massachusetts, and two locations in
Pennsylvania.

Davio's Restaurants are operated by Defendants as a single
integrated enterprise.  Davio's Restaurants are engaged in the same
business of operating restaurants that serve Italian food and
steak.  Davio's Restaurants are commonly owned by Steve
Difillippo.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com
                  anne@leelitigation.com


ADDUS HEALTHCARE: Court OKs 2nd Amended Answer in M. Moore Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, issued an Order granting Parties'
Stipulation to File Second Amended Answer in the case captioned
MARY MOORE, ALEXANDRIA ENCINIAS, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated; Plaintiffs,
v. ADDUS HEALTHCARE, INC., an unknown business entity; ADDUS
HOMECARE, INC., an unknown business entity; and DOES 2 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 4:19-CV-01519-HSG. (N.D. Cal.)

The Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in the Superior
Court of California, County of Contra Costa, Case No. MSC18-01989
(FAC).  The Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs' FAC.
The Defendants filed an Amended Answer to Plaintiffs' FAC.

The Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike portions of the Defendants'
amended answer to the Plaintiffs' FAC.

The parties have met and conferred and the Defendants have provided
the Plaintiffs with a copy of the proposed Second Amended Answer
(SAA).

Upon entry of an Order permitting the filing of the proposed SAA,
the Defendants will cause the SAA to be filed and served as soon
thereafter as practicable, but in no event more than seven (7) days
after the Court's entry of an Order permitting said filing.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/yyzhg83q from Leagle.com.

Mary Moore, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated & Alexandria Encinias,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Edwin Aiwazian --
edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC, Stanley Donald Saltzman
-- ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin & Saltzman & Tara Zabehi
-- tara@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC.

Addus Healthcare, Inc., an unknown business entity & Addus HomeCare
Corporation, an unknown business entity, Defendants, represented by
Gary Matthew McLaughlin -- gmclaughlin@akingump.com -- Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Gregory William Knopp --
gknopp@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Victor
A. Salcedo -- vsalcedo@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld
LLP.


AMAZON.COM INC: Alexa Secretly Records Children, Lawsuits Allege
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Seals, writing for Threatpost, reports that two lawsuits are
seeking class-action status, alleging that Amazon records children
and stores their voiceprints indefinitely.

A federal lawsuit is alleging that Amazon is recording children who
use its Alexa devices, without their consent or knowledge.

Alexa is the built-in voice assistant shipped with devices like
Amazon Echo, Amazon Dot, Fire TV and some third-party gadgets.

"Alexa routinely records and voiceprints millions of children
without their consent or the consent of their parents," reads the
complaint, which is seeking class-action status. It was filed in
Seattle this week on behalf of a 10-year-old girl.

Meanwhile, another, almost identical suit was filed this week in
California Superior Court in Los Angeles, on behalf of an
8-year-old boy.

"It takes no great leap of imagination to be concerned that Amazon
is developing voiceprints for millions of children that could allow
the company (and potentially governments) to track a child's use of
Alexa-enabled devices in multiple locations and match those uses
with a vast level of detail about the child's life, ranging from
private questions they have asked Alexa to the products they have
used in their home," the California suit states.

If the allegations are true, the tech giant would be in violation
of laws governing recordings in at least eight states, including
California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New
Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington, which require all parties
to consent to a recording, regardless of their age.

It would also mean that Amazon has been fraudulent in its child
privacy policy, which states, "You choose whether to give us
permission to collect Child Personal Information from your child.
If you have not given us permission to collect Child Personal
Information, we may make available certain voice services intended
for children (e.g., certain Alexa kid skills), and we may process
your child's voice recordings to provide these services, but we
will not store those voice recordings."

The federal lawsuit disputes that Amazon is taking such care. "But
Alexa does not do this," the lawsuit claims. "At no point does
Amazon warn unregistered users that it is creating persistent voice
recordings of their Alexa interactions, let alone obtain their
consent to do so."

The complaints describe how Alexa devices function -- by being
called to service with a wake-word, usually "Alexa." It goes on to
allege that Alexa captures, records and stores all voices
indiscriminately after being woken up, even though the platform is
capable of distinguishing different speakers.

In a media statement, Amazon reiterated its stance: "Amazon has a
longstanding commitment to preserving the trust of our customers
and their families, and we have strict measures and protocols in
place to protect their security and privacy," the company said.
"For customers with kids, we offer FreeTime on Alexa, a free
service that provides parental controls and ways for families to
learn and have fun together."

It's unclear what evidence the plaintiffs have against Amazon; the
federal lawsuit only alleges that "Amazon's intentional and
unlawful recording caused Plaintiff and the Class members injury to
their dignity, well-being and security;" the California litigation
states "Amazon's intentional and unlawful recording violated
Plaintiffs and the Class members' right to privacy in their
confidential communications."

Both plaintiffs are asking for a jury trial, however, so presumably
more details will come to light.

More than 100 million Alexa devices have been sold worldwide, and
this isn't the first privacy complaint  that Amazon has faced over
the home assistant's recording practices.

In December, Amazon admitted that it inadvertently sent 1,700 audio
files containing recordings of Alexa interactions by a customer to
a random person. After a newspaper investigation exposed the snafu,
characterized it as a "mishap" that came down to one employee's
mistake.

And earlier in 2018, a couple said that an Alexa-enabled Echo
device had recorded a conversation of them -- without them knowing
-- and then sent an audio file to one of their contacts.

Other privacy issues around the gadgets have also stirred debate.
In April, reports emerged that employees at Amazon were given broad
access to geolocation information for Alexa users -- thus
uncovering their home addresses and even satellite pictures of
their houses generated from a service such as Google Earth. [GN]


AMERICA'S TEST KITCHEN: Kittle Sues over Unlawful Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against America's Test
Kitchen LP (ATK) for its intentional and unlawful disclosure of its
customers' Personal Reading Information in violation of the
Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (PPPA), and for unjust
enrichment. The case is captioned STEVEN KITTLE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICA'S
TEST KITCHEN LP, a Massachusetts limited partnership, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-11757-TGB-MKM (E.D. Mich., June 13, 2019).

Between June 13, 2016 and July 30, 2016, ATK rented, exchanged,
and/or otherwise disclosed personal information about Plaintiff
Steven Kittle's Cook's Illustrated magazine subscription to data
aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers,
among others, which in turn disclosed his information to aggressive
advertisers, political organizations, and non-profit companies. As
a result, Plaintiff Mr. Kittle has received a barrage of unwanted
junk mail.

ATK's disclosure of Personal Reading Information, and other
personal, demographic, and lifestyle information is not only
unlawful, but also dangerous because it allows for the targeting of
particularly vulnerable members of society. While ATK profits
handsomely from the unauthorized rental, exchange, and/or
disclosure of its customers' Personal Reading Information and other
personal information, it does so at the expense of its customers'
privacy and statutory rights because ATK does not obtain its
customers’ written consent prior to disclosing their Personal
Reading Information. Accordingly, Plaintiff Mr. Kittle seeks: (1)
an injunction requiring Defendant ATK to obtain consent from
Michigan customers prior to the disclosure of their Personal
Reading Information as required by the PPPA; (2) actual damages,
including disgorgement, or $5,000.00, whichever is greater, per
Class member pursuant to PPPA Section 5(a); and (3) costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to PPPA Section 5(b).

ATK is a Massachusetts limited partnership with its principal place
of business at 17 Station Street, Brookline, MA 02445. ATK does
business throughout Michigan and the entire United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and –

     Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
     David W. Hall, Esq.
     HEDIN HALL LLP
     1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
     Miami, FL 33131
     Telephone: (305) 357-2107
     Facsimile: (305) 200-8801
     E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
             dhall@hedinhall.com


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces Gutierrez Suit over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC.;
OPTUM360, LLC; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case 7:19-cv-05212-KMK (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2019) is a
class action lawsuit against the Defendants' unlawful disclosure of
the confidential information of the Plaintiff and the class, and
the millions of patients' financial information, medical
information, personal information, and other protected health
information.

According to the complaint, on June 3, 2019, Defendant Quest
publicly admitted in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") that: "On May 14, 2019, American Medical
Collection Agency (AMCA), a billing collections vendor, notified
Quest . . . and Optum360 LLC, Quest's revenue cycle management
provider," of a massive data breach compromising the Sensitive
Information of 11.9 million Quest patients, and most likely others
(the "Data Breach"). Quest Form 8-K, June 3, 2019.

Quest's SEC filing disclosed that, "between August 1, 2018 and
March 30, 2019 an unauthorized user had access to AMCA's system
that contained information that AMCA had received from various
entities, including Quest Diagnostics, and information that AMCA
collected itself[,] . . . include[ing] financial information (e.g.,
credit card numbers and bank account information), medical
information[,] and other personal information (e.g., Social
Security Numbers)."

Quest apparently allowed hackers to have access to Plaintiff's and
other Class Members' Sensitive Information for some seven months,
and did nothing to let the victims know about the Data Breach for
nearly a year after it began.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated provides diagnostic testing,
information, and services in the United States and internationally.
The company also offers risk assessment services for the life
insurance industry; and health information technology solutions for
healthcare organizations and clinicians. Quest Diagnostics
Incorporated was founded in 1967 and is headquartered in Secaucus,
New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
          Todd  S.  Garber, Esq.
          Chantal Khalil, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP
            FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: 914-298-3281
          E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
                  gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  tgarber@fbfglaw.com
                  ckhalil@fbf glaw.com


AMERIPARK LLC: Removes Pool Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of CARTER POOL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERIPARK,
LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, filed a notice to remove
the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego (Case No. 37-2019 00023222-CU-OE-CTL) to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June
12, 2019. The clerk of court for the Southern District of
California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-01103. The case is assigned to
Judge Larry Alan Burns and referred to Magistrate William V Gallo.

AmeriPark, LLC operates and manages parking facilities in the
United States. The company engages in leasing and outsourcing
parking facilities. AmeriPark, LLC was founded in 1986 and is based
in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Marissa H. Alguire, Esq.
          Steven P. Gallagher, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 688-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 627-6342
          E-mail: marissa.alguire@akerman.com
                  steven.gallagher@akerman.com


AMP: Maurice Blackburn to Lead Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Eliot Hastie, writing for Mortgage Business, reports that the NSW
Supreme Court has selected Maurice Blackburn as the legal firm to
take forward a shareholder class action against AMP.

Following the banking royal commission, five law firms filed class
action lawsuits against the financial services company seeking
compensation on behalf of shareholders.

The class actions were brought forward by Maurice Blackburn, Slater
& Gordon, Phi Finney McDonald and Shine Lawyers following a sharp
fall in AMP's share price after testimony at the royal commission
last year.

During the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking,
Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, several senior AMP
executives gave testimony regarding misconduct relating to
financial advice, with a number of them admitting to a number of
potential crimes.

These included providing false and misleading statements to the
regulator and charging customers for services that were not
provided.

The ASX-listed company later announced the immediate resignation of
its CEO after it lost more than $1 billion in shareholder value
since March 2018, with the losses escalating following the royal
commission hearings.

On May 23, NSW Supreme Court Judge Julie Ward suggested that only
one class action could move forward, and selected the case put
forward by Maurice Blackburn, largely due to its "no win, no pay"
funding model.

"In the present case, the combination of absence of a separate
funding commission, the incentive created by an uplift in fees only
once a specified resolution sum is achieved, the comparable return
based on standardised assumptions and the fact that no common fund
order is being sought seems to me to point in favour of the
[Maurice Blackburn] funding model," Judge Ward said.

An AMP spokesperson welcomed the decision to permit only one class
action to proceed and said they would defend against the
proceedings.

"AMP will continue to vigorously defend the class action
proceeding. AMP denies the allegation that it had information that
was required to be disclosed to the market regarding ‘fees for no
service' and AMP's interactions with ASIC (including in respect of
the Clayton Utz report)," they said.

AMP also noted that Maurice Blackburn had been ordered to pay
millions in security for AMP's legal costs.

"The selected class action has been ordered to pay $5 million in
security for AMP's costs," said AMP.

A class action by Slater & Gordon will be consolidated into the
Maurice Blackburn case but with the latter running the litigation
alone.

Maurice Blackburn's national head of class actions, Andrew Watson,
was pleased with the result and said he looked forward to getting
on with the job.

"We are pleased that the court accepted that Maurice Blackburn's
funding model could help deliver the best returns to group members.
We look forward to getting on with the important job of obtaining a
recovery for affected AMP shareholders."

Class actions typically take a long time to reach a conclusion,
with the next date set for a directions hearing, which is largely a
procedural issue. [GN]


APPLE INC: Sued for Disclosing iTunes Listening Data
----------------------------------------------------
Catie Keck, writing for Gizmodo, reports that a new class-action
lawsuit claims that Apple is "intentionally and unlawfully"
disclosing its customers' iTunes listening data to third parties in
violation of state privacy laws.

The lawsuit from three individuals from two states, Rhode Island
and Michigan, was filed on May 24 in a California district court,
Bloomberg reported on May 24. According to the lawsuit, which was
published by AppleInsider, the company's "disclosures of the
Personal Listening Information of Plaintiffs and the other unnamed
Class members were not only unlawful, they were also dangerous
because such disclosures allow for the targeting of particularly
vulnerable members of society."

The suit alleges that Apple has or is sharing data with third
parties who can "supplement that information with additional
sensitive personal information" that the company discloses about
its customers. Many of these third parties, the suit claims, "have
in turn re-disclosed plaintiffs' and other unnamed class members'
personal listening information to other third parties for further
exploitation and monetization -- all without providing prior notice
to or obtaining the requisite consent from anyone."

As apparent proof of the allegation, the suit points to marketing
entities who sell this information.

"For example, any person or entity could rent a list with the names
and addresses of all unmarried, college-educated women over the age
of 70 with a household income of over $80,000 who purchased country
music from Apple via its iTunes Store mobile application," the suit
states. "Such a list is available for sale for approximately $136
per thousand customers listed."

Sharing data about consumers' listening habits can reveal intimate
information about them, the lawsuit claims, and can put them at
risk of predatory behavior from "fraudulent telemarketers" and
others looking to take advantage of vulnerable groups. The suit
names at least two marketing entities that allegedly sell such
lists.

In addition, the lawsuit claims that Apple, without first obtaining
permission from its customers, shared detailed user listening data
via its developers tools. Issues with the way user listening data
was being shared with developers in the past were raised by Ben
Dodson on his blog in January of 2016 as well as in a bug report to
the company. The suit claims that despite contacting Dodson
informing him that the company was aware of the issue, Apple did
not resolve it until roughly eight months later with the release of
iOS 10.

The class action lawsuit is being brought by the plaintiffs on
behalf of other Apple customers in their respective states who "had
their personal listening information disclosed to third parties by
Apple without their consent." The suit is seeking $250 each for
those Apple customers in Rhode Island and $5,000 each for those in
Michigan.

Apple did not immediately return a request for comment. [GN]


AQUANTIA CORP: Faces Bushansky Suit over Proposed Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AQUANTIA CORP.; LIP-BU TAN; FARAJ
AALAEI; DMITRY AKHANOV; BAMI BASTANI; KEN PELOWSKI; GEOFFREY G.
RIBAR; SAM SRINIVASAN, and ANDERS SWAHN, Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-03302-LHK (N.D. Cal., June 11, 2019) is a class action
brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Aquantia Corp.
against Aquantia and the members of its Board of Directors for
their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and to
enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which
Aquantia will be acquired by Marvell Technology Group Ltd. through
its wholly owned subsidiary, Antigua Acquisition Corp.

According to the complaint, on May 6, 2019, Aquantia and Marvell
issued a joint press release announcing they had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger to sell Aquantia to Marvell. Under the
terms of the Merger Agreement, Aquantia stockholders will be
entitled to receive $13.25 per share in cash for each Aquantia
share they own. The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately
$452 million after adjusting for net cash on Aquantia's balance
sheet.

On May 29, 2019, Aquantia filed a Definitive Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends
that Aquantia stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits and misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Aquantia's financial
projections relied upon by the Company's financial advisor,
Barclays Capital Inc. ("Barclays") in its financial analyses; (ii)
the valuation analyses prepared by Barclays in connection with the
rendering of its fairness opinion; and (iii) Company insiders'
conflicts of interest.

Unless remedied, Aquantia's public stockholders will be forced to
make a voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction
without full disclosure of all material information concerning the
Proposed Transaction being provided to them.

Aquantia Corp., together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops,
and markets advanced high-speed communication integrated circuits
for Ethernet connectivity in the data center, enterprise
infrastructure, access, and automotive markets worldwide. Aquantia
Corp. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
          
               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010


ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Cooper Says SEC Filings Misleading
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Aratana
Therapeutics, Inc. and the members of Aratana's board of directors
for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and United States Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a-9, in connection
with a proposed transaction in which Aratana will be acquired by,
and become a subsidiary of, Elanco Animal Health, Inc. The case is
captioned EUGENE COOPER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARATANA THERAPEUTICS, INC., CRAIG
A. BARBAROSH, DAVID L. BRINKLEY, IRVINE O. HOCKADAY, JR., J.D.,
MERILEE RAINES, LOWELL W. ROBINSON, ROBERT P. ROCHE, JR., CRAIG
TOOMAN, JOHN W. VANDER VORT, J.D., and WENDY YARNO, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01116-UNA (D. Del., June 17, 2019).

Plaintiff Eugene Cooper alleges that Defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by providing Aratana
shareholders with materially incomplete and/or misleading
information in the proxy statement concerning the company's
financial projections, the summary of the fairness analyses of
Barclays, Aratana's financial advisor, and in the proxy's
"Background of the Merger" section.

Aratana is a pet therapeutics company focused on the development
and commercialization of innovative therapeutics for dogs and cats.
It is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
in Leawood, Kansas. Its common stock is listed for trading on the
NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "PETX." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and –

     Carl L. Stine, Esq.
     WOLF POPPER LLP
     845 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (212) 759-4600
     Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
     E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com


ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Rosenblatt Challenges Sale to Elanco
----------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ARATANA THERAPEUTICS, INC., WENDY YARNO,
CRAIG TOOMAN, CRAIG A. BARBAROSH, DAVID L. BRINKLEY, IRVINE O.
HOCKADAY, JR., MERILEE RAINES, LOWELL W. ROBINSON, ROBERT P. ROCHE,
JR., JOHN W. VANDER VORT, ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH INCORPORATED, and
ELANCO ATHENS INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-01030-UNA (D. Del., June 3,
2019), stems from a proposed transaction pursuant to which Aratana
will be acquired by Elanco Animal Health Incorporated ("Parent")
and Elanco Athens Inc. ("Acquisition Sub").

On April 26, 2019, Aratana's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Elanco.  The
Plaintiff contends that the Registration Statement filed in
connection with the Proposed Transaction omits material
information, which renders the Registration Statement false and
misleading.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Registration Statement.

Aratana is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices located in Leawood, Kansas.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Aratana Therapeutics is a pet therapeutics company focused on
developing and commercializing innovative therapeutics for dogs and
cats.

Parent is an Indiana corporation and a party to the Merger
Agreement.  Acquisition Sub is a Delaware corporation, a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, and a party to the Merger
Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


ARYZTA LLC: Davis Seeks OT Premium Pay, Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Aryzta LLC for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The case is captioned DUANE DAVIS, on
behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated,
known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. ARYZTA LLC , AN ILLINOIS LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04070 (N.D. Ill.,
June 18, 2019).

Plaintiff Duane Davis has been employed by Defendant as an hourly
sanitation porter since approximately March 2018. On a regular
basis, Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek without
pay at a rate of time and one-half for such hours. In this
complaint, Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant failed to
include shift differentials in its calculation of overtime rates
paid to him and members of the Plaintiff class. Accordingly,
Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages under the FLSA and prays to
recover back wages earned on or before the date three years prior
to the filing of this action.

Aryzta LLC is an Illinois limited liability corporation that owns
and operates a commercial kitchen and bakery located at 300
Innovation Dr., Romeoville, IL 60446, where it produces and
manufactures food products that are sold by its corporate
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John William Billhorn, Esq.
     BILLHORN LAW FIRM
     53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 401
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Telephone: (312) 853-1450


ASCENA RETAIL: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Ascena
Retail Group (NASDAQ: ASNA) securities between September 16, 2015
and June 8, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Ascena Retail
investors have until August 6, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Ascena Retail investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On May 18, 2015, the Company announced that it would acquire ANN
Inc. for a combination of cash and stock.

On September 19, 2016, the Company filed a Form 10-K for fiscal
year ended July 30, 2016, that reported $733.9 million goodwill
related to ANN, which is a $225.7 million reduction.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.43, or nearly 30%,
to close at $5.69 on September 20, 2016, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on May 17, 2017, the Company revised its third quarter and
full fiscal year 2017 sales and earnings outlook, further noting
that the Company would be taking an unspecified impairment charge.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.76, or nearly 27%,
to close at $2.06 on May 18, 2017, thereby further injuring
investors.

Then, on June 8, 2017, the Company issued a press release regarding
its third quarter financial results, reporting a GAAP loss of $5.29
per diluted share compared to net earnings of $0.08 per diluted
share for the same period in the year prior. The loss included a
$1.324 billion impairment charge to the Company's goodwill and
other intangible assets.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) the Company's acquisition of ANN, Inc., the parent
company of Ann Taylor and LOFT, was a complete disaster for the
Company as ANN's operations were in far worse condition than had
been represented to the public; (2) to mask the true condition of
ANN, Defendants improperly delayed recognizing an impairment charge
to the value of ANN's goodwill and, as a result, Ascena's reported
income and assets were materially overstated and the Company's
financial results were not prepared in conformity with GAAP; (3)
many of the brands acquired in the ANN acquisition were in steep
decline and were also materially overvalued on Ascena's Class
Period financial statement; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Ascena Retail, have information, would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters please contact:

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
         Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
         Website: www.howardsmithlaw.com
         Phone: 215-638-4847
         Toll free: 888-638-4847
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


BADNEWS DELIVERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Shelhart Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLYN SHELHART, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BADNEWS DELIVERY INC.; and TOM
COOPER, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03734 (N.D. Ill., June 7,
2019) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Shelhart was employed by the Defendants as hourly
paid employee.

Badnews Delivery Inc. provides customers with daily newspapers and
periodicals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald R. Brewer, Esq.
          DONALD R. BREWER AND ASSOCIATES
          444 N. Rt. 31 Suite 100
          Crystal Lake, IL 60012
          Tel: (815) 356-6900


BANK OF AMERICA: Frausto Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, IRMA FRAUSTO, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF
AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a business entity, form unknown; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-01983-LB (N.D. Cal., June 14, 2019), The Plaintiffs move
the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who worked for Defendant Bank of America,
      National Association in California as a non-exempt employee
      at any time during the period beginning on February 22, 2014

      and ending when the Court grants class certification, but
      expressly excluding therefrom any individuals who, as of the

      date the Court grants class certification, (a) have filed
      their own separate action as a named plaintiff alleging any
      of the same claims alleged by Plaintiffs, (b) have opted into

      a collective action or are class members in a certified class

      action against Defendant alleging any of the same claims
      alleged by Plaintiffs, and/or (c) have previously released
      all claims against Defendant being alleged by Plaintiffs";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; and

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, Bobby Saadian, Justin F.
      Marquez, Thiago M. Coelho, and Nicol E. Hajjar of Wilshire
      Law Firm, PLC, and Stephen Noel Ilg of ILG Legal Office,
P.C.
      [CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Nicol E. Hajjar, Esq.
          Thiago M. Coelho, Esq.
          Robert Dart, Esq.
          Patty W. Chen, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12 th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  nicol@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  RDart@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  patty@wilshirelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
          George L. Lin, Esq.
          ILG LEGAL OFFICE, P.C.
          1001 Bayhill Drive, 2nd Floor
          San Bruno, CA 94066
          Telephone: 415-580-2574
          Facsimile: 415-735-3454
          E-mail: silg@ilglegal.com
                  glin@ilglegal.com


BARRILLEAUX INC: Underpays Helpers, Williams Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARRILLEAUX, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-CV-00022 (W.D. Tex., June 12, 2019) is an action against
the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Mr. Williams was employed by the Defendant as helper.

Barrilleaux, Inc. provides general oilfield construction services.
The Company offers land clearing, manlifts, sandblasting, welding,
pipeline construction, oilfield location building, and road
boaring. Barrilleaux serves customers in the U.S.. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net


BATCH INC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Batch, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene
Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, ADR
Provider/Plaintiff v. Batch, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05667 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


BFC PARTNERS: Scott et al. Seek Minimum Wage, OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against BFC Partners, L.P.
for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The case is captioned CORY SCOTT,
DONELL COLLIER and RODNEY MORGAN, each on behalf of himself, FLSA
Collective Plaintffs and Class Action Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, -
against – BFC PARTNERS, L.P. and DOE CORPORATIONS 1-5,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03562 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2019).

Plaintiffs Cory Scott, Donell Collier, Rodney Morgan others
similarly situated were hired as Security Guards to provide
24-hour, 7-day per week security during the construction of Empire
Outlets, an outlet shopping mall located on Staten Island that was
owned, operated, managed and/or constructed by Defendant. In their
complaint, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant knowingly and
willfully failed to pay them and others similarly situated their
lawfully earned wages at or above minimum wage in direct
contravention of the FLSA and the NYLL. They also assert that the
Defendant failed to pay them their lawfully earned overtime wages
for all hours worked over 40 hours in a work week.

BFC Partners L.P. is a limited partnership duly organized and
existing under the laws of the state of New York and does business
in city and state of New York, including Richmond County, where
Scott, Collier and Morgan worked. It is a builder, developer and
landlord of commercial and residential real estate in the city of
New York. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brian Heller, Esq.
     Daniel H. Kovel, Esq.
     SCHWARTZ PERRY & HELLER, LLP
     3 Park Avenue, 27th Fl.
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 889-6565


BLUESTONE LANE: Duncan Files Class Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
Bluestone Lane Roasting, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Eugene Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Bluestone Lane Roasting, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05668 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019).

Bluestone Lane is a New York-based, Australian-inspired coffee
chain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com

BMW NORTH AMERICA: Keys Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case, GRETCHEN KEY, an individual, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA,
LLC, a limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-575783 (Filed on May 7, 2019), was
transferred from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Francisco to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on June 13, 2019. The United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03366 to the proceeding.

The class action complaint asserts that BMW of North America has
violated the California Unfair Competition Law of the California
Business and Professions Code. It is subject to removal under the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 because it has 100 or members in
plaintiff's proposed class; at least some members of the proposed
class have a different citizenship from BMW of North America; and
its aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

BMW of North America imports and distributes BMW luxury/performance
vehicles. It offers sedans, coupes, convertibles, SAVs, and sports
wagons; diesel, hybrid, and electric vehicles; and accessories.
[BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq.
     Dyanne Cho, Esq.
     LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
     633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 250-1800
     Facsimile: (213) 250-7900
     E-mail: Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com
             Dyanne.Cho@lewisbrisbois.com


BRISTOW GROUP: Chapter 11 Suit Automatically Stays Kokareva Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristow Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2018, that the consolidated
class action suit entitled, Kokareva v. Bristow Group Inc., has
been automatically stayed as a result of the company's Chapter 11
bankruptcy filing.

Two purported class action complaints, Kokareva v. Bristow Group
Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-0509 and Lilienfield v. Bristow Group Inc.,
Case No. 4:19-cv-1064, were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas (the "Southern District of Texas
Court") on February 14, 2019 and March 21, 2019, respectively.

The complaints, which also name Jonathan E. Baliff and L. Don
Miller as defendants, allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the Company's
disclosures and alleged failure to make timely disclosure of
inadequate monitoring control processes related to non-financial
covenants within certain of its secured financing and lease
agreements.  

On May 17, 2019, the Southern District of Texas Court appointed BRS
Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff and consolidated both actions
under Kokareva v. Bristow Group Inc., Case No. 4:19-cv-0509.

When the Company filed the Chapter 11 Cases on May 11, 2019, the
litigation against the Company was automatically stayed.  

The case was not automatically stayed against the individual
defendants, but the Company intends to request that the stay also
extend to the individual defendants.  

On May 31, 2019, the Lead Plaintiff requested that the Southern
District of Texas Court schedule an initial conference, and the
defendants requested that any conference be postponed until after
the Bankruptcy Court decides whether the stay should extend to the
individual defendants. The Southern District of Texas Court has not
yet set a date for an initial conference.  

The defendants believe that the claims are without merit and intend
to vigorously defend against them.

Bristow Group Inc. provides industrial aviation services to the
offshore energy companies in Europe Caspian, Africa, the Americas,
and the Asia Pacific. The company was formerly known as Offshore
Logistics Inc. and changed its name to Bristow Group Inc. in
February 2006. Bristow Group Inc. was founded in 1955 and is
headquartered in Houston, Texas. On May 11, 2019, Bristow Group
Inc. along with its affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for
reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of Texas.


BROADCOM INC: 9th Cir. Revives Varjabedian Suit v. Emulex
---------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 14, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended May 5, 2019, that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit Court has remanded the case Gary Varjabedian,
et al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., back to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  

On April 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. Central District Court, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et al.
v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG.

The complaint names as defendants Emulex Corporation ("Emulex"),
its directors, AT Wireless and Emerald Merger Sub, and purported to
assert claims under Sections 14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the board of
directors of Emulex failed to provide material information and/or
omitted material information from the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on April 7, 2015 by
Emulex, together with the exhibits and annexes thereto. The
complaint sought to enjoin the tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as well as certain other
equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 28, 2015, the U.S. Central District Court issued an order
appointing the lead plaintiff and approving lead counsel for the
putative class. On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint seeking rescission of the merger, unspecified
money damages, other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On October 13, 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the first amended
complaint, which the U.S. Central District Court granted with
prejudice on January 13, 2016. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the
"Ninth Circuit Court") on January 15, 2016.

The appeal is captioned Gary Varjabedian, et al. v. Emulex
Corporation, et al., No. 16-55088. On June 27, 2016, the
Plaintiff-Appellant filed his opening brief, on August 17 and
August 22, 2016, the Defendants-Appellees filed their answering
briefs, and on October 5, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant filed his reply
brief. The Ninth Circuit Court heard oral arguments on October 5,
2017. On April 20, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court issued an opinion
affirming in part and reversing in part the decision of the U.S.
Central District Court and remanding Plaintiff-Appellant's claims
under Sections 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act to the U.S.
Central District Court for reconsideration. On May 4, 2018, the
Defendants-Appellees filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc with
the Ninth Circuit Court.

On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff-Appellant filed an Opposition to the
Petition for Rehearing En Banc. On September 6, 2018, the Ninth
Circuit Court issued an order denying the Petition for Rehearing En
Banc. On October 11, 2018, Defendants-Appellees filed a Petition
for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court (the
"U.S. Supreme Court").

On January 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. On
April 23, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the writ of
certiorari as having been improvidently granted. On May 28, 2019,
the Ninth Circuit Court remanded the case back to the U.S. Central
District Court.

Broadcom said, "We believe these claims are all without merit and
intend to vigorously defend these actions."

Broadcom Inc. designs, develops, and supplies a range of
semiconductor devices with a focus on complex digital and mixed
signal complementary metal oxide semiconductor based devices and
analog III-V based products worldwide. The company operates through
four segments: Wired Infrastructure, Wireless Communications,
Enterprise Storage, and Industrial & Other.  Broadcom Inc. is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Being Sold Cheaply to IFM, Curtis Says
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Buckeye Partners,
L.P., its general partner, Buckeye GP, LLC, and Buckeye GP's Board
of Directors in connection with their attempt to sell the
Partnership to IFM Global Infrastructure Fund, a wholly owned
subsidiary of IFM Investors, collectively by means of an unfair
process and for an unfair price. The case is captioned HARRY
CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BUCKEYE PARTNERS, L.P., OLIVER G. RICHARD
III, CLARK C. SMITH, FRANK S. SOWINSKI, BARBARA J. DUGANIER, JOSEPH
A. LASCALA, JR., LARRY C. PAYNE, MARTIN A. WHITE, PIETER BAKKER,
BARBARA M. BAUMANN, MARK C. MCKINLEY, and BUCKEYE GP, LLC,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:19-cv-2147 (S.D. Tex., June 13,
2019).

On May 10, 2014, IFM and the Partnership announced that they had
entered into an agreement and plan of merger that will culminate in
IFM, through an affiliated entity, acquiring all of the outstanding
units of Buckeye Partners in an all-cash transaction valued at
approximately $10.3 billion including assumed debt. Buckeye
Partners unitholders are expected to receive $41.50 for each unit
of Buckeye Partners they own. However, the Board violated Buckeye
Partners' partnership agreement and breached their express and
implied contractual duties owed and fiduciary duties to Plaintiff
and other Buckeye Partners unitholders by agreeing to the merger
for grossly inadequate consideration.

On June 7, 2019, the Defendants filed the materially deficient
Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in an effort to solicit unitholders to vote their
Buckeye Partners units in favor of the proposed merger transaction.
The Preliminary Proxy is materially deficient, deprives Buckeye
Partners unitholders of the information they need to make an
intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether to vote
their units in favor of the proposed merger transaction, and is
thus in breach of Defendants' fiduciary duties. The Preliminary
Proxy allegedly omits and/or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (a) the sales process; (b) the
financial projections for Buckeye Partners, provided by Buckeye
Partners to the Partnership's financial advisors Intrepid and Wells
Fargo for use in their financial analyses; and (c) the data and
inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that purport to
support the fairness opinions provided by the Partnership's
financial advisors, Intrepid and Wells Fargo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
     THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
     700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
     Houston, TX 77002
     Telephone: (713) 227-7720

               - and –

     Evan Smith, Esq.
     Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
     Telephone: (610) 667-6200
     Facsimile: (610) 667-9029


CAPITAL ONE: Cohen et al. Sue over Usurious Interests Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM COHEN; SUE PAIVANAS; and CHRISTY OGRODOSKI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CAPITAL ONE FUNDING, LLC; CAPITAL ONE MASTER TRUST; CAPITAL ONE
MULTI-ASSET EXECUTION TRUST; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
CORPORATION, as Trustee of Capital One Master Trust; and DEUTSCHE
BANK TRUST COMPANY DELAWARE, as Trustee of Capital One Multi-Asset
Execution Trust, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03479 (E.D.N.Y., June
12, 2019) alleges violation of the New York General Obligations Law
and New York Banking law.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants charge,
collect, and receive usurious rates of interest from New York
consumers, including Plaintiffs and the class, in excess of New
York's usury cap in violation of the New York General Obligations
Law and New York Banking law.

Capital One Funding, LLC offers financial loaning services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christian Hudson, Esq.
          C. William Frick, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
                  bill@cuneolaw.com
                  christian@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
          Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  gabramson@bm.net
                  pmadden@bm.net


CARBON AND CLAY: Boyadjian Says Toothpaste "Misbranded"
-------------------------------------------------------
RAFFI BOYADJIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARBON AND CLAY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-05129 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2019) alleges that Defendant's
toothpaste brand, My Magic Mud Activated Charcoal Toothpaste, is
misbranded and falsely advertised, in violation of consumer
protection laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's claim that its
toothpaste product whitens teeth is inaccurate and misleads
consumers. At best, the toothpaste product temporarily whitens
teeth by removing surface stains, but it ultimately dulls teeth and
leaves them a yellowish color because the toothpaste product
removes enamel, which is the outer protective layer on a tooth.
According to new research published in the British Dental Journal,
instead of whitening your teeth, charcoal toothpaste actually
damages teeth. Indeed, the study says that the addition of
activated charcoal in toothpaste is merely a "marketing gimmick."

Carbon And Clay Company is a Texas corporation that manufactures
household goods, including toothpastes, powers, and dentifrices.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumeradvocates.com
                  mike@consumeradvocates.com


CBSC INC: Angeles Files FDCPA Class Suit in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBSC, Inc. The case
is styled as Sarah Angeles, a/k/a/ Sarah Faber, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CBSC, Inc.,
d/b/a Centralized Business Solutions Company, and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01405 (N.D. Ohio, June 18, 2019).

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

CBSC, Inc is a debt collection agency in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.




CENTRAL CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned TROY NORTON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00880-LA (E.D Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com

CHASE BANK: Young Sues Over Illegal Credit Card Interest Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIRA YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and JP Morgan
Chase & Co., Case No. 1:19-cv-01026-UNA (D. Del., June 3, 2019),
arises from Chase's alleged routine practice of charging interest
on credit card accounts on transactions that are fully paid by the
billing period due date.

According to the complaint, Chase, like other major credit card
companies, provides consumers an interest-free period, also called
a grace period, to pay off new purchases.  In reality, Ms. Young
contends, Chase routinely denies consumers the grace period on new
purchases to which they are promised.  She argues that this
practice is not only a breach of contract, it is also unfair and
deceptive.

Chase Bank USA, N.A., is a federal bank incorporated under the laws
of the state of Delaware.  Chase is the second largest credit card
issuer in the United States and has approximately $131.23 billion
in outstanding credit card loans to consumers.  JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A., is a national association with its principal office
located in Columbus, Ohio.

Both Chase Bank USA, N.A. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. are wholly
owned subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase & Co., a massive financial
services company principally located in the City and State of New
York.  JP Morgan Chase & Co. is incorporated in Delaware.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          E-mail: bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H Street N.E., Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@wbmllp.com
                  jrathod@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia Gold, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, DC 2009
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielpllc.com


CHICAGO, IL: No Due Process over Towing Practices, Santiago Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREA SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH07023 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., June 11, 2019) sues over the
lack of due process in the impounding and selling of towed motor
vehicles.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant takes
vehicles with no warning or opportunity to contest the claim of
abandonment prior to the seizure. While the Defendant allegedly
sends a notice of impoundment to the owner after it has already
been impounded, the Defendant fails to send the required additional
notice when the Defendants intends on disposing of the vehicle. As
a result, thousands of cars are in effect stolen from citizens of
Chicago and sold without proper notice and due process.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
          Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
          Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq.
          Jeremiah Nixon, Esq.
          Jessica C. Chavin, Esq.
          MYRON M. CHERRY & ASSOCIATES LLC
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-2100


COMMUNITY CREDIT: Fails to Provide Repo Notice, Bastian Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN BASTIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION OF LYNN, Defendant,
Case No. 19-0719 (Mass. Super., June 3, 2019) is an action against
the Defendant for failure to provide the Plaintiff and the class
all appropriate repossession notice and information required by the
Massachusetts law.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the repossession notice
sent by the Defendant is erroneous. The repossession notice
provides that the Defendant will dispose the Plaintiff's vehicle by
private sale without further notice; the proceeds of the sale of
the vehicle shall be applied first to the costs of the sale, second
to the cost of retaking, storing and attorney's fees, and third to
unpaid balance and accrued charges. The repossession notice also
did not inform the Plaintiff of his right to an accounting of the
total amount due to the Defendant.

Community Credit Union of Lynn (CCU) operates as a cooperative
bank. The Bank offers products and services such as savings
accounts, debit and credit cards, personal and business loans, cash
management, online banking, mortgages, equipment financing, and
certificate of deposits. CCU serves customers in the State of
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          Colin D. Creager, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617)338-9400


DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Female Science Students' Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
VTDigger reports that Dartmouth College President Phil Hanlon
earned more than $1.4 million in total compensation in 2017, a 6%
increase from the previous year, according to recently released tax
returns for the college.

The package for Hanlon, who has served as Dartmouth president since
2013, consisted of a base salary of $1 million, $178,000 in
"retirement and other deferred compensation," and also included
first-class or charter travel, travel expenses for his wife as a
companion, and housekeeping services, according to the tax return
for the fiscal year that ended in June 2018, but which also
includes compensation for top college officials in calendar 2017.

By comparison, Christina Paxson, the president of Brown University,
made $1.5 million in 2017, and Princeton University President
Christopher Eisgruber received $992,000 in total compensation. At
Harvard University, then-President Drew Faust made $1.7 million.

Dartmouth, which is the smallest school in the Ivy League, provided
housing both for Hanlon and for Carolyn Dever, the provost who
stepped down at the end of November 2017. Dever was paid around
$804,000 that year.

Former Dartmouth Chief Investment Officer Pamela Peedin, who
stepped down in March 2017, was the second-highest paid employee at
$922,000. In 2016, her compensation totaled $1.3 million.

Members of the investment office, who manage Dartmouth's $5.5
billion endowment, saw the biggest increases in the year, ranging
from 10% to 16%. One exception was Deputy Chief Investment Officer
Kelsey Morgan, whose compensation increased 31% from around
$692,000 to $908,000.

At Princeton, the director of the investment office took in $5.5
million while the chief investment officer at Brown University made
$1.2 million in compensation, though the schools have different
sized endowments and endowment-to-student ratios than Dartmouth.

Asked about the increased compensation for Hanlon and other college
officials, Dartmouth spokeswoman Diana Lawrence said by email, "The
compensation for President Hanlon and the deputy chief investment
officer is competitive with that of their peers at comparable
institutions."

Dartmouth in fiscal year 2018 cut 37 jobs, mostly staff positions,
to devote more money toward faculty.

Total compensation paid to all Dartmouth employees in that period
increased by 1.4%, according to an internal Dartmouth document
obtained by the Valley News.

In 2017, 13 Dartmouth administrators and employees made more than
$500,000, little change from 2016 when 14 employees earned above
that threshold.

Among the other highest-compensated Dartmouth employees were three
managing directors in the investment office: Anand Desai at
$701,000; Megan Hammond at $816,000; and Michael Sullivan at
$806,000. Others included Tuck School of Business Dean Matthew
Slaughter at $870,000; Geisel School of Medicine Dean Duane Compton
at $807,000; Executive Vice President Rick Mills at $709,000; and
Geisel Psychiatry Department Chairman Alan Green at $705,000.

Legal expenses grew by 38%, to $2.9 million, between fiscal year
2017 and fiscal year 2018, but Dartmouth officials declined to say
if the $800,000 increase was related to the internal inquiry, which
began in 2017, of allegations of sexual misconduct involving three
professors in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences.
The three professors have since been ousted, and Dartmouth is now
defending itself in a $70 million class-action lawsuit brought by
nine female science students.

Lawrence indicated Dartmouth was seeking an alternative to a civil
trial and was "exploring mediation" to resolve the claims.
Dartmouth trustees earlier this year approved an operating budget
of just under $1.1 billion for the college. Tuition, room-and-board
in the fall will increase by 3.9%, to $73,578. [GN]


DE WAFELBAKKERS: Goodman Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against De Wafelbakkers,
LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA). The case is captioned
WILLIAM GOODMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, PLAINTIFF, vs. DE WAFELBAKKERS, LLC., DEFENDANT, Case No.
4:19-cv-00427-BRW (E.D. Ark., June 18, 2019).

Plaintiff William Goodman alleges that the De Wafelbakkers, LLC
failed to pay him and all others similarly situated a lawful
minimum wage and overtime wages as required by the FLSA and AMWA.
Plaintiff William Goodman worked for Defendant as an hourly-paid
shift worker at the North Little Rock, Arkansas food production
location.

Headquartered in North Little Rock, Arkansas, De Wafelbakkers, LLC
is a domestic, limited liability company operating under the laws
of the state of Arkansas, manufacturing frozen pancakes distributed
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DENKA PERFORMANCE: Grant of Leave to File SAC in Butler Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons reversing the magistrate
judge's judgment granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a
Second Amended Class Action Petition in the case captioned JUANEA
L. BUTLER, individually and as representative of all others
similarly situated, v. DENKA PERFORMANCE ELASTOMER LLC, ET AL.
Civil Action No. 18-6685. (E.D. La.).

Before the Court is E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's Rule
72(a) appeal of the magistrate judge's order on plaintiff's motion
for leave to file second amended class action petition.

This environmental tort litigation arises from the production of
neoprene at the Pontchartrain Works Facility (PWF) in St. John the
Baptist Parish. During the manufacturing process, neoprene
production allegedly exposes those living in the vicinity of the
PWF to concentrated levels of chloroprene, a likely human
carcinogen.

DuPont, Denka, DEQ, and DOH moved to dismiss the plaintiff's
claims. Meanwhile, while the motions to dismiss were pending, the
plaintiff moved for leave to amend her complaint; the contested
motion to amend was automatically referred to the magistrate judge.
DuPont opposed the motion to amend on the ground of futility,
resorting to the same prescription arguments advanced in its motion
to dismiss.

The Court granted the motions to dismiss with the proviso regarding
the submitted motion for leave to amend pending before the
magistrate judge.  The magistrate judge granted in part and denied
in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended
class action petition.

DuPont now appeals from the portion of the magistrate judge's Order
insofar as it allows the plaintiff to amend her complaint to state
a strict liability claim against DuPont.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may
appeal the ruling of the magistrate judge to the district judge. A
magistrate judge is afforded broad discretion in the resolution of
non-dispositive motions. If a party objects to a magistrate judge's
ruling on a non-dispositive matter, the Court will disturb a
magistrate's ruling only when the ruling is clearly erroneous or is
contrary to law. A finding is clearly erroneous when the reviewing
Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.

The Court dismissed as prescribed the plaintiff's claims against
DuPont. A contested motion to amend the complaint had been argued
and submitted to the magistrate judge at that time. About a month
later, the magistrate judge ruled that the plaintiff's proposed
amended claims against DuPont are prescribed, except for the
plaintiff's strict liability claim. That strict liability claim,
the magistrate judge wrote, was viable because DuPont maintains
ownership of the land and buildings that continue to produce the
chloroprene resulting in toxic and hazardous emissions.

DuPont challenges this ruling as to strict or custodial liability
because it is based on (i) a misstatement of the plaintiff's
allegations regarding DuPont's ownership and (ii) a misapplication
of the standard for garde under Louisiana law.

The Court agrees.

The dispute on appeal concerns whether the plaintiff alleges facts
that, if proved, demonstrate that DuPont maintained ownership of
the neoprene production units, in other words, that the thing which
caused the damages was in the care, custody, and control (garde) of
DuPont.  If so, then the Court must affirm the magistrate judge. If
not, then the magistrate judge erred and the portion of her order
granting leave to amend as to DuPont must be reversed. Because the
plaintiff alleges that, since 2015, only Denka controlled the
neoprene units and operated the allegedly faulty chloroprene
emitting equipment during the neoprene manufacturing process,
reversal is warranted.

The plaintiff alleges that DuPont owned and operated the PWF from
1969 to 2015, then sold it to Denka. During the sale, the plaintiff
alleges, DuPont retained ownership of the entirety of the PWF land
and buildings, including the building where it currently
manufactures Kevlar. The plaintiff also alleges that Denka
purchased DuPont's neoprene manufacturing and production business
and units in 2015. The plaintiff alleges that, since 2015, when
Denka purchased DuPont's neoprene manufacturing and production
business and units, Denka has operated the neoprene units, has
manufactured neoprene, and thereby emitted chloroprene. It is the
health hazards of chloroprene exposure that form the basis of the
plaintiff's causes of action.

As to the strict liability cause of action in particular, the
plaintiff states that each of the Manufacturing Defendants, during
separate periods of time, have had ownership, care, custody, and
control of the neoprene units of the PWF; and DuPont has maintained
care, custody, and control of the PWF since 1969 and the neoprene
units and the PWF contained defects, ruin, and/or vices. The
defects listed include certain allegedly faulty properties of the
valves, tanks, or other aspects of the neoprene units.

Reading the plaintiff's amended allegations in light of the legal
standard for garde, the plaintiff's strict liability claim against
DuPont fails as a matter of law and, therefore, leave to amend this
claim should have been denied as futile. Nowhere in her original or
amended petitions does the plaintiff allege that after 2015 DuPont
retained ownership, direction, control, or anything approximating
garde over the neoprene manufacturing operations or neoprene units
the things that are the objects with respect to the issue of
custody at the PWF.

There are no factual allegations that, if proved, would support
imposition of custodial or strict liability on DuPont. Standing
alone, mere ownership of the land and buildings of the PWF is
insufficient to state a plausible strict or custodial liability
claim against DuPont when the plaintiff's own allegations state
that, since 2015, Denka alone had custody over and operated the
objects allegedly causing the harm, the allegedly faulty neoprene
units operated during the manufacturing process. Because the
challenged amendment would be futile, the Court must reverse that
portion of the magistrate judge's order allowing the plaintiff to
amend her strict liability claim against DuPont.

The plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended class
action petition is granted; the magistrate judge's order is
reversed in relevant part.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order and
Reasons is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y2ho9ctc from
Leagle.com.

Juanea L Butler, Individually and as representative of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Danny Dustin Russell,
Russell Law Firm, LLC, 733 E. Airport Avenue, Suite 201, Baton
Rouge, LA 70806

Denka Performance Elastomer LLC, Defendant, represented by James
Conner Percy -- jpercy@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Brett S.
Venn -- bvenn@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Justin J. Marocco --
jmarocco@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, Michael A. Chernekoff --
mchermekoff@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker & Michael R. Rhea --
mrhea@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker.


DIRECTIONAL PROJECT: Collective Action Conditionally Certified
--------------------------------------------------------------
WOODROW BRATCHER, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, vs. DIRECTIONAL PROJECT
SUPPORT, INC., WILLIAM GARDNER, INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendants, Case
No. 5:18-cv-00631-FB-RBF (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Richard B.
Farrer entered an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective action under the Fair
      Labor Standards Act:

      "all current and former employees of Directional Project
      Support Inc. who were paid on a basis that did not account
      for their actual hours of work but by the day, shift, or
      hybrid basis, and who worked from three years prior to the
      date the Court enters this Order to the present";

   2. directing Defendants to produce the names, last known
      addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of the
      Class Members ("Employee Information");

   3. authorizing the Notice submitted to the Parties' Joint
      Stipulation, may be immediately issued to those individuals
      whose names are being provided as required by this Order.

The Court said, "The Defendants shall provide the Employee
Information in an electronic form that can be used by Plaintiff in
mailing out the Court-approved Notice. This information must be
produced to Plaintiff within 10 days of the entry of this Order. If
Defendants fail to provide the Employee Information within 10 days
of the date this Order is signed, the statute of limitations is
equitably tolled for each day after the tenth day that Defendants
fail to provide the Employee Information, to the extent permitted
by law. The Consent to Join form previously submitted by opt-in
plaintiffs shall be enclosed with the Notice to Potential
Plaintiffs, along with a self-addressed, postage paid return
envelope for U.S. Postal Mailing. The Notice and Consent forms
shall be mailed by first class mail or overnight delivery at
Plaintiffs' attorneys' expense and may also be sent electronically.
The Potential Plaintiffs shall be provided 75 days after the date
the Notice and Consent forms are initially mailed or sent to return
a Consent to Join form opting-in to this litigation. A Consent to
Join that is postmarked on the deadline is considered timely.
Consents received by mail without postmarks shall be considered
timely if received within five business days of the deadline.
Plaintiff shall provide the Court and opposing counsel with a
notice indicating the date on which the Notice forms were initially
mailed so the Court and the Parties are advised of the beginning of
the opt-in period. Within 10 days after the close of the Opt-In
Period, Plaintiffs' counsel will file the consent forms for the
Opt-In Plaintiffs, noting the signed date for each individual on
the Consent to Join form. The case shall remain stayed until the
expiration of 45 days after the close of the opt-in period. Within
30 days after the close of the opt-in period, the parties shall
re-convene mediation with mediator Dennis Clifford or otherwise
enter into good-faith negotiations. If settlement is not achieved
within that 45-day period, the parties shall notify the Court via a
joint advisory, and the Court will set the matter for a hearing.
Extensions of these deadlines may be requested by motion, if
needed."[CC]

DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Court Dismisses Ulrich FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned CARL ULRICH, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS
INTERNATIONAL, doing business as DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC.
Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-15794 (FLW). (D.N.J.).

This putative class action arises out of Plaintiff Carl Ulrich's
claim that Diversified Consultants, Inc., violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), by sending a false or misleading
debt collection letter that failed to effectively inform the
Plaintiff what he must do in order to dispute the alleged debt.  

The Plaintiff alleges that DCI violated 1) 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e
by making false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means
in connection with the collection of the debt that makes the Letter
open to more than one reasonable interpretation, at least one of
which is inaccurate and 2) that DCI violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g, by falsely misstating the consumer's rights by omitting the
requirement that he must request validation and make any dispute of
the debt in writing.

Section 1692g

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated
Section 1692g by falsely misstating the consumer's rights by
omitting the requirement that he must request validation and make
any dispute of the debt in writing. The Plaintiff argues that the
Defendant's Letter is open to more than one reasonable
interpretation, at least one of which is inaccurate.

As such, the Plaintiff maintains that using the word if in the
second sentence of the debt collection Letter implies that the
writing requirement is voluntary, and that when coupled with the
first sentence's failure to contain any mention of the word
writing, it is confusing to the least sophisticated debtor as to
what his actual requirements are for properly disputing the debt,
and thus, in violation of Section 1692g.  

Here, the at-issue validation notice reads as follows:

"Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this
notice that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion
thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notify
this office in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice
that you dispute the validity of this debt, or any portion thereof,
this office will obtain verification of the debt or obtain a copy
of a judgment and mail you a copy of such judgment or verification.
If you request of this office in writing within 30 days after
receiving this notice, this office will provide you the name and
address of the original creditor, if different from the current
creditor."

The Court notes that the language of the validation notice mirrors
the statutory language set forth in 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a). The
Plaintiff takes issue with the word if used in the notice. The
Plaintiff argues that the first sentence of the notice does not
explicitly direct the debtor to submit a dispute in writing, and he
further contends that the next two sentences, despite referencing
an in writing requirement, are nonetheless couched in permissive
terms. In other words, the Plaintiff suggests that such language
leaves the door open for the debtor to conclude that a written
dispute is merely an option, but not required.  

The Court finds that this interpretation is strained even when the
least sophisticated debtor standard is applied. The least
sophisticated debtor standard does not offer relief to the
willfully blind or those who act carelessly. When applying the
least sophisticated debtor standard, the consumer is presumed to
have read the whole Letter.  

In that regard, the consumer would understand that the notification
mentioned in the second sentence refers to the first; that is, read
together, unless the debtor disputes the debt in writing, the debt
would be presumed valid. The use of the word if in the validation
notice, as it was used here, would not confuse a consumer as to how
to dispute the debt because the Letter does not suggest that a
debtor may dispute the debt in any other method besides the
in-writing requirement. Furthermore, the Letter uses language that
mirrors the statutory language provided in Section 1692g(a),
without providing confusing, alternative ways to dispute the debt
that would contradict the validation.  DCI likely relied upon the
plain language of the statute and mirrored such language in its
debt collection letters. As a matter of fairness, Defendant should
not be subjected to statutory liability in this context when it
reasonably relied on the very statute to craft the notice at issue.
Thus, the Court do not deem the language of the Letter to be an
abusive debt collection practice because it closely tracks the
statutory language provided in Section 1692g(a).

Section 1692e

The Plaintiff's Section 1692e claim is premised on the same
allegations as his Section 1692g claim. Because the Plaintiff's
Section 1692g claim fails, similarly, his Section 1692e claim also
fails. Under Section 1692e(10), the use of any false representation
or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to
obtain information concerning a consumer is prohibited. When
allegations under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10) are based on the same
language or theories as allegations under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g,
the analysis of the Section 1692g claim is usually dispositive.
Therefore, for the reasons why the Plaintiff fails to state a claim
under Section 1692g, his claim under Section 1692e also fails for
the same reasons.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y549z3w2 from Leagle.com.

CARL ULRICH, Plaintiff, represented by YAAKOV SAKS, Stein Saks,
PLLC.

DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL, doing business as
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS, INC., Defendant, represented by AARON
RAPHAEL EASLEY, SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC.


ELDERSERVE HEALTH: Bellin Files Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ElderServe Health,
Inc. The case is styled as Rosalind Bellin, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Howard A Zucker, in
his official capacity as Commissioner, New York State Department of
Health and ElderServe Health, Inc. d.b.a. RiverSpring at Home,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05694 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019).

The lawsuit arises under Civil Rights Act.

ElderServe Health, Inc. is a home health care service in New York
City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq.
   Bellin & Associates
   85 Miles Avenue
   White Plains, NY 10606
   Tel: (212) 358-5345
   Fax: (212) 571-0284
   Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com



ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING: Wheby Says Proxy Statement Misleading
--------------------------------------------------------------
EARL M. WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING,
INC., GILL COGAN, DAN MAYDAN, RICHARD KASHNOW, TOM GEORGENS, ERIC
BROWN, JANICE DURBIN CHAFFIN, BILL MUIR, and GUY GECHT, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01094-UNA (D. Del., June 13, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (in connection with the Proxy
Statement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on April 15,
2019, pursuant to which Electronics For Imaging, Inc.will be
acquired by affiliates of Siris Capital Group, LLC. On April 14,
2019, EFI's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with East Private Holdings II, LLC and
East Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, EFI's stockholders will receive $37.00 in cash for each
share of EFI common stock they own.

On June 11, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the
Proposed Transaction for July 15, 2019.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Court Certifies Class in J. Robinson FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned JOSHUA
ROBINSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY d/b/a, Defendant. Civil
Action No. 18-441. (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiff Joshua Robinson brings this putative class action
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), against
Defendant Enhanced Recovery Company, doing business as ERC
(Defendant). In his complaint, the Plaintiff asserts a claim on
behalf of himself and a purported class of similarly-situated
debtors against Defendants for charging an unauthorized convenience
fee to pay his debt by phone, in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

In the instant motion, the Plaintiff moves to certify a class of
similarly-situated individuals based on the allegations in his
complaint. Plaintiff defines the proposed class members as:

     All consumers with a Pennsylvania address that paid a
convenience fee by phone to Defendant for payments for personal,
household, or family debts originating with Comcast Cable
Communications within one year prior to the filing of the
complaint.
  
The Defendant opposes the motion on the following grounds; to wit:
the Plaintiff and his class counsel should not be permitted to
represent the proposed class because this case is a product of an
allegedly improper client referral scheme; the Plaintiff has failed
to satisfy the commonality requirement for class actions; and the
Plaintiff has failed to adequately define the proposed class.  

Here, the Plaintiff seeks certification of the proposed class, as
previously defined, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3). This Rule permits
certification when the court finds that questions of law or fact
common to class members predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members and that a class action is superior to
other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy.

Ascertainability

As a prerequisite to class certification, a plaintiff first must
show by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a reliable
and administratively feasible method for ascertaining the class. To
meet this prerequisite, the class must be defined with reference to
objective criteria. Second, there must be a reliable and
administratively feasible mechanism for determining whether
putative class members fall within the class definition.

This Court finds that the proposed class is sufficiently
ascertainable. The proposed class is limited to Pennsylvania
residents who paid a convenience fee to Defendant for the option of
paying a debt owed to Comcast by phone. Members of the proposed
class can likely be identified through a review of Defendant's
company records. Plaintiff asserts, and Defendant does not dispute,
that based on Defendant's representations made during discovery,
the number of potential class members is approximately 3,184.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff has satisfied the preliminary Rule 23(a)
considerations.

Rule 23(a) Requirements

To determine whether class certification is appropriate and
Plaintiff's motion should be granted, an analysis of each Rule
23(a) factor is required.

Numerosity

Under Rule 23(a)(1), the court must determine whether the potential
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
No minimum number of plaintiffs is required to maintain a suit as a
class action, but generally if the named plaintiff demonstrates
that the potential number of plaintiffs exceeds 40, the first prong
of Rule 23(a) has been met.

The Plaintiff asserts that based on the Defendant's representations
through the discovery process, the number of potential class
members is approximately 3,184. The Defendant does not contest that
Plaintiff has met the numerosity requirement. This Court finds that
the Plaintiff has satisfied the numerosity requirement.

Commonality

Pursuant to Rule 23(a)(2), a court must also determine whether
there are questions of law or fact common to the class, ordinarily
known as commonality. Under the Rule, commonality requires the
plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have suffered the
same injury.

Here, in opposing class certification, the Defendant essentially
argues that the Plaintiff has not established commonality because
the Plaintiff's claims should fail on the merits. In support of
this position, the Defendant reasserts its summary judgment motion
argument; to wit: that the convenience fee charge was permissible
under the FDCPA and constituted a reasonable cost of collection
authorized by the Comcast Agreement as it fell in the category of
any collection agency's fees.

The Court finds that there are several common questions of fact and
law. As noted, the proposed class consists of consumers within
Pennsylvania who paid the Defendant a convenience fee to pay a debt
owed to Comcast over the phone. As such, the factual basis of the
claim is common to all of these potential class plaintiffs. This
legal issue is common to all proposed class members as each class
member's claim will be dependent on the determination of whether
the assessment of the convenience fee was or was not a violation of
the FDCPA.  

Plaintiff has met the commonality requirement.

Typicality

Under Rule 23(a)(3), a court must also determine whether the claims
or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims
or defenses of the class. Typicality and commonality are closely
related and often merge.  

The facts and legal underpinnings of the Plaintiff's case are
typical to those of the proposed class. While there may be some
factual disparities, such as some members having negotiated the
convenience fee as Plaintiff did, these disparities should not pose
a conflict between the Plaintiff and the class members he seeks to
represent. Each class member's claim arises from the same quoted
convenience fee attributed to debts accrued to Comcast. The
Plaintiff's legal theory and the burden of proof are the same as
they would be for each member of the putative class.

Therefore, this Court finds that the typicality requirement is also
satisfied.

Adequacy

Under Rule 23(a)(4), a court must also determine whether the
proposed class representative will fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.

With regard to class representatives, to meet the adequacy
requirement, findings must be made that (1) the Plaintiff's
interests do not conflict with those of the class, and (2) the
proposed class counsel are capable of representing the class.

Here, the Defendant challenges the adequacy of counsel and the
Plaintiff by alleging that counsel participated in an unethical
referral scheme with a non-party credit repair company, through
which the credit repair company made referrals to counsel in
exchange for legal services, and that the Plaintiff, although not
bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct as a non-attorney, has
been irrevocably tainted, because he referred maybe a dozen
prospective clients to the credit repair company.

Based on the submissions before it, this Court finds that the
Plaintiff and counsel will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class, given the alignment of Plaintiff's
interests with that of the class and the qualifications and
experience of counsel.

Rule 23(b)(3) Requirements

Predominance Factor

The predominance requirement tests whether proposed classes are
sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.
Issues common to the class must predominate over individual issues.


In arguing that the Plaintiff has not met the Rule 23(b)
requirements, the Defendant asserts that the proposed class is too
broad because it could encompass consumers who, through negotiating
with the Defendant, paid a convenience fee equal to or less than
the actual costs incurred by the Defendant to offer the
payment-by-phone option. The Defendant notes that the Plaintiff
himself negotiated his convenience fee down from $12.95 to $6.95.
In response, the Plaintiff argues that this argument is miscast as
a predominance issue and unpersuasive. This Court agrees with the
Plaintiff.

The fact that the Defendant can speculate that some putative class
members may have successfully negotiated the convenience fee down
to an amount actually incurred by the Defendant to offer the
pay-by-phone option has no bearing on the viability of the putative
class members' claims. As an analogue, defendants in other cases
have argued that they did not violate Section 1692f(1) by charging
debtors an allegedly impermissible convenience fee to pay by credit
card, or over the phone, because they also offered the debtors
other options of paying without the convenience fee. Courts,
however, have roundly rejected these arguments.
   
Similarly, this Court concludes that if the convenience fee is
found to be a violation of Section 1692f(1), the fact that a class
member might have successfully negotiated it down to an amount that
arguably would not have been a violation of Section 1692f(1) would
not destroy that class member's Section 1692f(1) claim. In any
event, for purposes of predominance, the Court concludes that the
issue common to the class whether they paid a convenience fee after
being quoted $12.95 predominates over individual issues, such as
how much they actually paid. As such, this Court finds that the
questions of law or fact common to class members that involve
liability predominate over questions involving only individual
members.

Superiority

Under the second criterion of Rule 23(b), this Court must find that
a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly
and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

The Third Circuit has noted that the FDCPA specifically provides
for class damages and recognized that a class action is a benefit
to claimants who can share the cost of litigation when their
individual recoveries are relatively small, as is the case here.  

Based on this analysis, this Court finds that the Rule 23(b)
factors weigh favorably for certification. Because of the number
and nature of potential class plaintiffs and the fact that each
member's potential recovery is likely to be small compared to the
cost of litigating the claims individually, maintaining this matter
as a class action is judicially advisable and superior to other
available methods.

This Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23 have been met and
that certification of Plaintiff's proposed class is proper.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2e9v3om from
Leagle.com.

JOSHUA ROBINSON, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL ZEMEL, ZEMEL LAW
LLC & NICHOLAS J. LINKER, ZEMEL LAW LLC, 70 Clinton AvenueNewark,
NJ 07114- 2012

ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, doing business as ERC, Defendant,
represented by WILLIAM F. MCDEVITT --
william.mcdevitt@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz,
Edelman and Dicker, LLP.


ERNESLI CORPORATION: Pavoni Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTO PAVONI, and all others similarly situated v. ERNESLI
CORPORATION d/b/a ZUBI SUPERMARKET a/d/b/a ZUBI FISH HOUSE, a
Florida Corporation, and ERNESTO PEREZ, individually, Case No.
1:19-cv-22252-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 3, 2019), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees for willful violations of overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ernesli Corporation is a Florida corporation.  Ernesli operates a
supermarket and restaurant.  Ernesto Perez has operational control
over the Defendant Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
          2847 Hollywood Blvd.
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 361-8383
          E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

               - and -

          Isaac Mamane, Esq.
          MAMANE LAW LLC
          10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350A
          Miami, FL 33161
          Telephone (305) 773 - 6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


EVENTBRITE INC: Robinson Sues Over Misleading IPO-related Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES ROBINSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. EVENTBRITE, INC., JULIA HARTZ, RANDY BEFUMO,
KATHERINE AUGUST-deWILDE, ROELOF BOTHA, ANDREW DRESKIN, KEVIN
HARTZ, SEAN P. MORIARTY, LORRIE M. NORRINGTON, HELEN RILEY, STEFFAN
C. TOMLINSON, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
ALLEN & COMPANY LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SUNTRUST ROBINSON
HUMPHREY, INC., and STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, Case
No. 3:19-cv-03045 (N.D. Cal., June 3, 2019), alleges violations of
the Securities Act of 1933, in connection with Eventbrite's
September 20, 2018 initial public offering.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus filed in connection with the Offering contained
materially incorrect or misleading statements and/or omitted
material information that was required by law.  The Plaintiff
contends that the Offering Documents failed to disclose that the
migration of creators from subsidiary Ticketfly LLC to Eventbrite
was progressing more slowly than stated, forcing the Ticketfly
integration to take longer than expected and that, as a result, the
Company would face headwinds in revenue and growth.

Eventbrite was founded in 2006, incorporated in Delaware in March
2008, and is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
Eventbrite operates a ticketing and event technology platform.
According to the Company, its platform "integrates components
needed to seamlessly plan, promote and produce live events, thereby
allowing event creators to reduce friction and costs, increase
reach and drive ticket sales."  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Defendants Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Allen, RBC Capital,
SunTrust, and Stifel served as underwriters for the Offering.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
          Rhiana Swartz, Esq.
          Jonathan Zimmerman, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
                  rswartz@scott-scott.com
                  jzimmerman@scott-scott.com


EXPEDIA INC: Court OKs Arbitration in J. Church Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Defendant’s Motion
to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned JOSEPH CHURCH,
Plaintiff, v. EXPEDIA INC., et al., Defendants. Case No.
C18-1812JLR. (W.D. Wash.).

Before the court is Defendants Expedia, Inc. (Expedia), EAN.com,
LP, Travelscape, LLC, and Hotels.com L.P.'s (Defendants) motion to
compel arbitration and to either dismiss the case or stay it
pending the completion of arbitration.  

Mr. Church filed a similar putative class action based on the same
Reservations.com hotel room booking in the District of South
Carolina. Mr. Church alleged breach of contract, constructive
trust, unjust enrichment, and conversion and misappropriation
claims against two entities doing business as Reservations.com (the
Reservations.com Defendants), and three of the four Defendants in
the present suit.  Mr. Church, on behalf of himself and others
similarly-situated, filed the present putative class action law
suit, alleging (1) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (2) conversion and
misappropriation (3) unjust enrichment and (4) constructive trust.


The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) mandates that district courts
shall direct the parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to
which an arbitration agreement has been signed. Thus, the court
must grant a motion to compel arbitration if there is a valid
agreement to arbitrate and the dispute falls within the scope of
that agreement.  

Here, there is no dispute that there is a valid agreement to
arbitrate between Mr. Church and the Reservations.com Defendants in
Church I, Church v. Hotels.com L.P., No. 2:18-cv-18 (D.S.C.) .
Indeed, the federal district court for the District of South
Carolina so held, and Mr. Church has expressly accepted that ruling
for purpose of this motion. Thus, the issues here are (1) whether
Defendants are third-party beneficiaries to that agreement so that
the arbitration provision applies to the parties and Mr. Church's
claims here, and (2) whether Defendants may invoke the terms of the
arbitration agreement under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.  

Because the court finds in the affirmative on the first issue, it
does not reach the second.

Third-Party Beneficiaries

The Defendants argue that they may enforce the Terms' arbitration
provision as third-party beneficiaries of the agreement.  Under
Washington law, a third-party beneficiary is entitled to enforce an
arbitration clause if both contracting parties intend that a
third-party beneficiary contract be created. Such a contract is
created if performance under the contract would necessarily and
directly benefit the third party.  

Here, the Terms explicitly acknowledge that Reservations.com's
affiliates include affiliated companies, suppliers, and partners.
Mr. Church acknowledges in his complaint that Defendants are
suppliers of Reservations.com and further acknowledges that
Reservations.com indicates on its website that it has a
partnership' with Expedia.  Further, the Terms explicitly state
that Mr. Church acknowledge[s] that the rates displayed on
[Reservations.com] are a combination of the rates and fees charged
by the service provider such as a hotel or hotel supplier and the
service fee charged by us on our behalf.

Thus, by agreeing to the Terms, Mr. Church agreed that part of his
payment could go to a hotel supplier in this case, allegedly,
Defendants. Indeed, this is the precise scenario Mr. Church alleges
in his complaint when he states that one of the Defendants namely,
Expedia charged his credit card directly for the combined room rate
and Tax & Fees charge. It is hard to imagine a more direct benefit
under a contract than a provision providing for the payment of
money.  

Mr. Church also complains that the Terms refer only to unknown
suppliers and partners and do not expressly name Defendants.
However, Defendants are third-party beneficiaries because
performance under the Terms required the parties to confer a
benefit upon Defendants; it is unnecessary that Defendants be cited
in the agreement by name.

Finally, Mr. Church's contention that the Term's arbitration clause
applies exclusively to claims between Resevations.com and its
customers does not withstand scrutiny. His sole basis for this
argument is a five-word phrase in the Dispute Resolution section of
the Terms, which states: This section has a significant impact on
your rights, especially when it comes to how disputes between you
and us get resolved. Given that the term between you and us appears
in the context of a phrase that is qualified by the term
especially, the term between you and us does not limit arbitrations
to signatories, even on its face.

Reading the contract as a whole, and given the broad interpretation
courts lend to the terms arising out of or relating to, Mr.
Church's claims against Defendants fall within the definition of
the term Claim and are subject to the Terms' arbitration clause.

The court concludes that the Defendants are third-party
beneficiaries of the Terms, and Mr. Church's claims fall within the
scope of the Terms' arbitration provision. The Defendants ask the
court to dismiss the action or, in the alternative, stay the
litigation pending the arbitration of Mr. Church's claims.  Under
Ninth Circuit precedent, the court may either stay the action or
dismiss it outright when, as here, the court determines that all of
the claims raised in the action are subject to arbitration. Because
the court finds that arbitration is the proper forum for all of Mr.
Church's claims, the court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) in favor of
arbitration and without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Opinion is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y5bwy4z2 from Leagle.com.

Joseph Church, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ian W. Freeman --
Freeman@WGFLLAW.com -- WALKER GRESSETTE FREEMAN LINTON LLC, pro hac
vice, James L. Ward, Jr., MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER LLC, 321 WingoWay,
Suite 103, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464, pro hac vice, John P. Linton,
Jr., WALKER GRESSETTE FREEMAN LINTON LLC, PO Box 22247; Charleston
SC 29413-2247, pro hac vice, Ranee Saunders, MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER
LLC, 1539 Health Care Dr.Rock Hill, SC 29732, pro hac vice, Ted
Wojcik -- twojcik@aalrr.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, pro
hac vice, Andrew M. Volk -- andrew@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Jessica Thompson -- jessicat@hbsslaw.com --
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Shayne C. Stevenson, HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com --  HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Expedia Inc, EAN.com LP, Travelscape LLC & Hotels.com LP,
Defendants, represented by Emily Dodds Powell
-emilyp@calfoeakes.com -- CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC, Patricia A.
Eakes -- pattye@calfoeakes.com -- CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY PLLC &
Angelo J. Calfo -- angeloc@calfoeakes.com -- CALFO EAKES &
OSTROVSKY PLLC.


FIRST AMERICAN: Fails to Secure Website, Dinh Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
BEN DINH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION; FIRST
AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-01105-AG-DFM (C.D. Cal., June 4, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for data breach. The Defendants failed to secure its
website which contains the Plaintiff and the class sensitive
personal information.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allowed the data breach
to occur, despite it being caused by a relatively common website
design error called Insecure Direct Object Reference, which occurs
when a link to a webpage with sensitive information is created and
intended to only be seen by a specific party, but there is no
method to actually verify the identity of who is viewing the link.
As a result, anyone who discovers a link to one document can view
it - and can discover any of the other documents hosted on the site
by simply modifying the link.

As a result of Defendants' willful failure to prevent the data
breach, the Plaintiff and Class members are more susceptible to
identity theft and have experienced, will continue to experience,
and face an increased risk of financial harms, in that they are at
substantial risk of identity theft, fraud, and other harm.

First American Financial Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
provides financial services. It operates through Title Insurance
and Services, and Specialty Insurance segments. First American
Financial Corporation was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in
Santa Ana, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
          Ian M. Silvers, Esq.
          BISNAR CHASE LLP
          1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          Facsimile: (949) 752-2777
          E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
                  jbeligan@bisnarchase.com
                  isilvers@bisnarchase.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Esensten, Esq.
          Jordan S. Esensten, Esq.
          ESENSTEN LAW
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 279-3090
          Facsimile: (310) 207-5969
          E-mail: resensten@esenstenlaw.com
                  jesensten@esenstenlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: MyFord Touch Class Action Gets Preliminary Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a MyFord
Touch class action lawsuit has been preliminarily approved after
years of both sides arguing in front of a California federal
judge.

The lawsuit started as a proposed nationwide class action, but by
the end included Ford and Lincoln customers in only seven states:
California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio,
Virginia and Washington.

According to the lawsuit, the Ford or Lincoln vehicles must be
equipped with MyFord Touch or MyLincoln Touch systems, and the
vehicles must have been sold or leased by Ford dealers before
August 9, 2013.

Customers complained they suffered with MyFord Touch systems that
crashed, blacked out, froze, failed to respond to voice or touch
commands and backup camera displays that failed or showed previous
images.

Ford denies any wrongdoing and agreed to settle the lawsuit to put
the matter to bed.

The class action settlement says customers will be able to obtain
for free the latest version 3.10 or later MyFord Touch software
update, but Ford points out the software update has already been
free to the public through the Ford website.

Customers can download and install the updates or contact Ford
dealers for assistance, and dealers will further assist customers
with any related software issues for one year after installation.

Affected customers in the seven states may also receive
compensation based on eligibility requirements and if a customer
can provide evidence they sought one or more repairs to the MyFord
Touch system.

Within the first 180 days of the preliminary approval order of the
class action, a customer may receive $100 if their system was
repaired once, $250 if repaired twice and $400 if the customer
sought three or more repairs.

For repairs made after the warranty expired, a customer will have
180 days of the preliminary approval order to submit a valid claim
showing they paid for repairs to the system.

The customer may receive a full reimbursement of the paid-for
repair by providing evidence the repair occurred within one year
after the expiration of the MyFord Touch extended warranty.

An eligible customer may also receive $45 if they experienced two
or more cases where the system didn't work properly.

The agreement also says original owners and lessees of Ford and
Lincoln vehicles will receive $55 if they received one or more
MyFord Touch software warranty repairs. Additionally, a Ford
customer who does not submit an official claim may still receive
$20 to $55.

As part of the settlement agreement, Ford has agreed to pay $16
million to attorneys for the plaintiffs.

Ford customers who want to exclude themselves from the MyFord Touch
class action settlement, or who want to object to the settlement
terms, may do so by September 20, 2019.

The deadline to submit valid claims is September 24, 2019, and the
Court will hold a final fairness hearing November 21, 2019.

Ford and Lincoln owners and lessees who want to know more should
visit www.MyFordTouchClassAction.com.

The MyFord Touch class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division - In Re: MyFord Touch Consumer Litigation.

The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Baron & Budd, P.C., DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, and Chimicles
Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP. [GN]


FORSTER & GARBUS: Kleinman Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM KLEINMAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP; and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03305-ENV-SJB (E.D.N.Y., June 4, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Eric N. Vitaliano and
referred to Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORTEES SALON & SPA: Boice Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Fortees Salon &
Spa, LLC and Edward Osunlalu for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act. The case is
captioned Yukino Angela Boice, Plaintiff, v. Fortees Salon & Spa,
LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company; Edward Osunlalu, a
single man; and InfinitiHR West, LLC; Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-04484-JJT (D. Ariz., June 14, 2019). Plaintiff Angela Boice
alleges that the Defendants failed to pay their commissioned,
non-exempt stylists, cosmetologists, and estheticians with proper
overtime wage despite working in excess of 40 hours per week. Her
complaint also challenges Defendants' practice of failing to
accurately record work time. In addition, Plaintiff asserts that
the Defendants have violated the FLSA by not paying her and other
similarly situated workers the full applicable minimum wage for all
hours worked during their regular workweeks.

Fortees is an Arizona limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Maricopa County, Arizona. Edward Osunlalu owns
and supervises Fortees. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Pruitt, Esq.
     Nathaniel J. Hill, Esq.
     Grant S. Cragun, Esq.
     JACKSON WHITE ATTORNEYS AT LAW
     40 North Center Street, Suite 200
     Mesa, AZ 85201
     Telephone: (480) 464-1111
     Facsimile: (480) 464-5692
     E-mail: centraldocket@jacksonwhitelaw.com
             mpruitt@jacksonwhitelaw.com
             nhill@jacksonwhitelaw.com
             gcragun@jacksonwhitelaw.com


FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Cox, Perry Seek Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Francesca's
Holdings Corp. and Francesca's Collections, Inc. for violations of
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA) and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law. The case is captioned
LEAH COX and D' SHAUNTA PERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, -against- FRANCESCA'S
HOLDINGS CORP. and FRANCESCA’S COLLECTIONS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02167 (S.D. Tex., June 14, 2019).

Plaintiffs Cox and Perry allege that the Defendants failed to
compensate their employees, including them and the members of the
FLSA Collective, at a rate not less than one and one-half times the
regular rate of pay for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime
wages for hours worked above 40 in a workweek, as required by law,
and liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA.

Francesca's Holdings Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal places of business located at 8760 Clay Road, Houston,
Texas. The company has more than 700 specialty retail stores or
boutiques that sells apparel, jewelry, accessories and gifts.
Francesca's Collections, Inc. is a Texas corporation and
wholly-owned subsidiary of Francesca's Holdings Corp. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
     Tamra C. Givens, Esq.
     Logan A. Pardell, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Telephone: (561) 447-8888
     Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
     E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
             pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com
             tgivens@shavitzlaw.com
             lpardell@shavitzlaw.com

             - and -

     Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
     Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
     David A. Roth, Esq.
     Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
     Janine Kapp, Esq.
     HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
     192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 545-1199
     Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
     E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
             cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
             droth@hgrlawyers.com
             rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com
             jkapp@hgrlawyers.com


FRED'S INC: Awaits 11th Cir. Ruling in Taylor Case Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Fred's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended May 4, 2019, that the appeal in the class action suit
entitled, Tiffany Taylor, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. Fred's Inc. and Fred's Stores of Tennessee,
Inc., is pending.

On March 30, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Tiffany Taylor, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Fred's, Inc. and
Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the United Stated
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama Southern
Division (the "Taylor Complaint").

The Taylor Complaint alleges that the Company wrongfully and
willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
("FACTA"). On April 11, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Melanie Wallace,
Sascha Feliciano, and Heather Tyler, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc.
was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County in the state of
Georgia. The complaint alleges that the Company wrongfully and
willfully violated FACTA.

On April 13, 2017, a lawsuit entitled Lillie Williams and Cussetta
Journey, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the Superior Court
of Fulton County in the state of Georgia. The complaint also
alleges that the Company wrongfully and willfully violated FACTA.

The complaints are filed as class actions, with the class being
open for five (5) years before the date the complaint was filed.
The complaint seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees, punitive
damages, an injunctive order, and other such relief that the court
may deem just and equitable.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Taylor Complaint, and
this Motion has been granted by the Court.

Plaintiff's counsel has appealed the Taylor Complaint, which appeal
is pending before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company filed, and the Court granted Motions to Remove and
Motions to Transfer the Williams and Wallace matters to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Since the
Williams and Wallace matters were removed and transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the
Company has filed a Motion to Consolidate the Williams and Wallace
matters.

When the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in the
Taylor case, the court simultaneously denied the Motion to
Consolidate, in light of the dismissal in Taylor. In the Wallace
and Williams actions, the District Court entered an order staying
both cases until the U.S Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
decides on the appeal.

Fred's said, "Oral argument for the appeal was heard before the
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit at the end of January 2019,
and we await the Court's ruling. Future costs and liabilities
related to this case may have a material adverse effect on the
Company; however, the Company has not made an accrual for future
losses related to these claims as future losses are not considered
probable and an estimate is unavailable."

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

Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general
merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service
pharmacies. Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered
in Memphis, Tennessee.


FRED'S INC: Settlement in Eddington and Hudson Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Fred's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended May 4, 2019, that the settlement in the Abel Eddington and
Judy Hudson lawsuit is currently being administered.

On March 3, 2018, a lawsuit entitled Abel Eddington and Judy
Hudson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Fred's Inc., and Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was
filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of
Texas, Marshall Division. The complaint alleged that the Company
committed various Federal and state wage and hours violations.

The complaint was filed as class action and sought back wages,
attorneys' fees, and all other damages allowable by law. The
Company denied these allegations and believes it acted
appropriately in its wage and hour calculations and payments.

The Company and the named plaintiffs have settled the case, and the
settlement is currently being administered.

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

Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general
merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service
pharmacies. Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered
in Memphis, Tennessee.



FRED'S INC: Whitley Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------
Fred's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended May 4, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Roxie Whitley.

On March 16, 2018, a lawsuit entitled Roxie Whitley, individually
and as next friend of Baby Z.B.D., and Chris and Diane Denson,
individually and as next friends of Baby L.D.L., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, 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
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Endo
Health Solutions Inc.; Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Allergan PLC;
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. n/k/a Actavis, Inc.; Watson
Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis LLC; Actavis Pharma, Inc. f/k/a Watson
Pharma, Inc.; and Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. was filed in the
Circuit Court of Fayette County, Tennessee for the 25th Judicial
District at Somerville.

The complaint fails to allege any wrong-doing by the Company. The
Complaint is filed as a class action seeking various remedies
allowed under Federal and state laws. The Company denies any
purported wrong-doing.

On May 9, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Standing, a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Product Liability Causes
of Action, a Motion to Dismiss for Statute of Limitations, and a
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim on which Relief may
be Sought (collectively, the "May 9, 2018 Motions"). The Court has
not ruled on the May 9, 2018 Motions.

On May 9, 2018 this matter was transferred to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio as part of the
National Prescription Opiate Litigation Multidistrict Litigation.

Fred's said, "Future costs and liabilities related to this case may
have a material adverse effect on the Company; however, the Company
has not made an accrual for future losses related to these claims
as future losses are not considered probable, and an estimate is
unavailable. The Company has multiple insurance policies which the
Company believes will limit its potential exposure."

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

Fred's, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, sells general
merchandise through its retail discount stores and full service
pharmacies. Fred's, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered
in Memphis, Tennessee.


FRESENIUS HEALTH: Faces Krozos Labor Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Fresenius Health
Partners, Inc., Fresenius Medical Care Pharmacy Services, Inc., and
San Diego Dialysis Services, Inc. for violations of several
provisions of the California Labor Code, including overtime, wage
statement, and minimum wage provisions. The case is captioned TANYA
KROZOS, in a Representative capacity only, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
FRESENIUS HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, FRESENIUS
MEDICALCARE PHARMACY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, SAN
DIEGO DIALYSIS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00030551-CU-OE-CTL (Cal.
Super., San Diego Cty., June 13, 2019).

Plaintiff Tanya Krozos also alleges that the Defendants failed to
reimburse Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees for necessary
business expenditures in violation of, inter alia, Labor Code
section 2802. Defendants failed to provide all compensation due at
termination of employment in violation of, inter alia, Labor Code
sections 201 through 203.

Fresenius Health Partners, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fresenius
Medical Care North America, specializes in intensive care
coordination and disease management services for kidney patients.
Fresenius Medical Care North America's national retail pharmacy,
Fresenius Medical Care Pharmacy, provides dialysis patients with
all of their prescriptions, over-the-counter medications and
diabetic testing supplies directly through the mail at no
additional cost. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William B. Sullivan, Esq.
     Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
     Ryan T. Kuhn, Esq.
     Andrea J. Torres Figueroa, Esq.
     SULLIVAN LAW GROUP, APC
     2330 Third Avenue
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 702-6760
     Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
     E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com      
             yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
             ryan@sullivanlawgroupapc.com
             atorres@sullivanlawgroupapc.com


GATES HUDSON COMMUNITY: Covington Seeks OT Pay for Property Manager
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Gates Hudson
Property Management, LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act
(DCMWRA), and the District of Columbia Wage Payment Collection Law
(DCWPCL). The case is captioned DIONNE COVINGTON, Plaintiff, v.
GATES HUDSON COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01789 (D.D.C., June 18, 2019). Defendant employed Plaintiff
Dionne Covington as an assistant property manager and misclassified
her as an exempt employee. Defendant also misclassified other
assistant property managers as exempt employees.

Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant willfully
violated the FLSA and DCMWRA by failing to pay Plaintiff and other
assistant property managers overtime. She also claims that the
Defendant willfully violated the DCWPCL by failing to pay Plaintiff
and other assistant property managers wages owed, including
overtime wages, on the next regular payday or within seven days
from the date Plaintiff and/or other assistant property managers
ended employment with Defendant.

Gates Hudson Property Management, LLC is a property management
company that manages properties in the Washington, D.C. area. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rani Rolston, Esq.
     ALAN LESCHT & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1825 K Street, NW, Suite 750
     Washington, D.C. 20006
     Telephone: (202) 463-6036
     Facsimile: (202) 463-6067
     E-mail: rani.rolston@leschtlaw.com


GEORGE'S INC: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Rodriguez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, EVANGELINE RODRIGUEZ and JASON
DAVIDSON, Indvidually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated,
the Plaintiff, vs. GEORGE'S, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
5:19-cv-05035-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Timothy L. Brooks
entered an order:

   1. certifying a class  pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act:

      "all Supervisors and/or Area Managers who worked in
shipping,
      warehouse, portioning, debone, marination, rec/tubs, or par-
      fry, at Defendant's Further Processing Plant on Porter
      Avenue at any time after February 19, 2016, who earned less
      than $100,000 in any year after 2015";

   2. approving proposed notice, consent to join form, email text,

      and electronic consent to join form;

   3. approving proposed  schedule for distributing these document

      to the class and for filling signed consent forms with the
      Court;

   4. directing Defendant's counsel to provide Plaintiff's counsel

      the names and currrent and/or last known mailing addresses
      of all potential class members no later than 10 days after
      the entry of this order, and the last known emali address,
      if avaiable, of any class members whose notice is returned
      as undeliverable."[BN]

GREAT BAY MARINE: Bishop Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Great Bay Marine, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Cedric Bishop and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Great Bay Marine, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05703 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019).

Great Bay Marine is the New Hampshire Seacoast's only year-round
and largest full-service boating facility.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
   150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: nyjg@aol.com


GREENBACK OPRARTIONS: Faces Phillips Suit in Sacramento County
--------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Greenback Oprartions LLC. The case is captioned as SUSAN PHILLIPS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. GREENBACK OPRARTIONS LLC; MILESTONE RETIREMENT
COMMUNITIES LLC; and DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
34-2019-00257727-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 4,
2019).

Milestone Retirement Communities, LLC provides senior housing and
retirement living accommodations. Its services include independent
living, assisted living, memory and dementia care, respite care and
short stay, and enhanced care programs. The company was founded in
2008 and is based in Vancouver, Washington with locations in
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Arizona, California, Nevada, Colorado,
Oklahoma, and Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walter L. Haines, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WALTER L. HAINES, INC.
          10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2070
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 996-8937


GTX INC: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, Former Louisiana
Attorney General, Charles C. Foti, Jr., have commenced a securities
class action lawsuit against GTx, Inc. (GTXI). KSF filed suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case
No. 1:19-cv-04103-UA) for shareholders of GTx who held shares on
the record date April 15, 2019 ("Class Period") and were harmed by
GTx and its Board for alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
merger of the Company with Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc.

About the Lawsuit

On March 7, 2019, the Company announced a merger agreement,
subsequently amended April 30, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement"),
whereby a wholly-owned GTx subsidiary will merge with Oncternal,
with Oncternal surviving as a wholly-owned GTx subsidiary, and with
each common Oncternal share converted into the right to receive
approximately 0.5137 shares of GTx's common stock.

The complaint alleges that the S-4 Registration Statement filed in
connection with the merger provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about GTX's financials and the transaction,
violating Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, concerning:
(a) GTx and Oncternal financial projections; (b) the Proposed
Transaction process; and (c) potential Board member conflicts of
interest.

What You May Do

GTx shareholders may discuss their legal rights without obligation
or cost. Contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com) toll free at 1-877-515-1850. To serve
as a lead plaintiff by overseeing lead counsel, you must apply to
the Court no later than sixty (60) days from publication date of
this notice. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The
ultimate resolution of any securities class action is strengthened
through the involvement of aggrieved shareholders and lead
plaintiffs who have large financial interests. KSF also encourages
anyone with information regarding GTx's conduct during the period
in question to contact the firm.

                 About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

To learn more about KSF you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN]


GUARD-SYSTEMS INC: Underpays Security Guards, Rangel Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXIS RANGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GUARD-SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
19STCV19613 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 4, 2019) is an
action against the Defendant for unpaid regular hours, overtime
hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods.

Mr. Rangel was employed by the Defendant as security guard.

Guard-Systems Inc. offers security services. The Company offers
security services for buildings, malls, government, healthcare, and
educational facilities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
           ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
           1180 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 610
           Los Angeles, CA 90035
           Telephone:  (310) 277-0614
           Facsimile:  (310) 277-0635
           E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

                - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com

                - and -

          David S. Winston, Esq.
          WINSTON LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 320
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (424) 288-4568
          Facsimile: (424) 532-4062
          E-mail: david@employmentlitigators.com


HERON THERAPEUTICS: Faces Wong Securities Suit in S.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY JIMORTHY WONG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. HERON THERAPEUTICS, INC., BARRY D. QUART, and
ROBERT E. HOFFMAN, Case No. 3:19-cv-01038-LAB-LL (S.D. Cal., June
3, 2019), is brought over violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 alleging that the Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies.

Heron is a biotechnology company that engages in developing
treatments to address unmet medical needs.  Heron's product
candidates utilize its proprietary Biochronomer drug delivery
technology, which delivers therapeutic levels of a range of
short-acting pharmacological agents over a period from days to
weeks with a single administration. It is developing HTX-011, an
investigational, long-acting, and extended-release formulation of
the local anesthetic bupivacaine in a fixed-dose combination with
the anti-inflammatory meloxicam for post-operative pain
management.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Heron had
failed to include adequate Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls
("CMC") and non-clinical information in its NDA for HTX-011; (ii)
the foregoing increased the likelihood that the FDA would not
approve Heron's NDA for HTX-011; and (iii) as a result, Heron's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

Heron was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.  The Company was formerly known as A.P. Pharma, Inc.
and changed its name to Heron in January 2014.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


HFF INC: Strenger Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------
HFF, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission filed on June 18, 2019, that the company is
defending against a class action suit entitled, Stuart Strenger v.
HFF, Inc., et al.

On March 18, 2019, HFF, Inc. ("HFF") entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Jones Lang LaSalle
Incorporated ("JLL"), JLL CM, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
JLL ("Merger Sub"), and JLL CMG, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of
JLL ("Merger LLC"), pursuant to which, among other things, on the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub
will merge with and into HFF, with HFF surviving the Merger as a
wholly owned subsidiary of JLL (the "Merger").

The Merger Agreement also provides that, immediately following the
effective time of the Merger, HFF, as the surviving corporation in
the Merger, will merge with and into Merger LLC with Merger LLC
surviving the subsequent merger (the "Subsequent Merger", and,
together with the Merger, the "Mergers").

On May 31, 2019, HFF filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") a definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A
(the "Proxy Statement") relating to the Merger Agreement.

A complaint styled as a putative class action captioned Stuart
Strenger v. HFF, Inc., et al, No. 1:19-cv-05404 was filed in the
United States District Court of the Southern District of New York
naming members of the HFF board of directors as defendants.

This complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement contained
materially incomplete and misleading information in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") concerning the valuation analyses performed by
and financial projections utilized by HFF's financial advisor,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley") and the fees to be paid
to Morgan Stanley.

The defendants believe that this action is without merit, and that
no further disclosure is required under applicable law.
Nonetheless, to specifically moot the plaintiff's claims, to avoid
the risk of the litigation delaying or adversely affecting the
Mergers and to minimize the expense of defending the Strenger
matter, the defendants are making supplemental disclosures (the
"litigation-related supplemental disclosures") related to the
Mergers.

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

HFF, Inc. provides commercial real estate and capital market
services to the consumers and providers of capital in the
commercial real estate industry in the United States. The company
was founded in 1982 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


HOPFED BANCORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Parshall Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HopFed Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 17, 2019, that an
agreement in principle has been reached to settle the class action
suit entitled, Parshall v. HopFed Bancorp, Inc., et al., No.
19-CI00470.

On May 14, 2019, a purported stockholder of HopFed Bancorp, Inc.
("HopFed") common stock filed a putative stockholder class action
against HopFed, the members of the HopFed board of directors, and
First Financial Corporation ("First Financial"), in the Christian
County Circuit Court, Commonwealth of Kentucky (the "Action").

The complaint is captioned as follows: Parshall v. HopFed Bancorp,
Inc., et al., No. 19-CI00470 (Christian Cnty. Cir. Ct. filed May
14, 2019) (the "Complaint").

The Complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the members of the HopFed board of directors for, among other
things, allegedly undervaluing HopFed and omitting material
information from the proxy statement/prospectus (as amended or
supplemented, the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus") forming a part of
the registration statement on Form S-4 (as amended or supplemented,
the "Registration Statement") filed on April 11, 2019 with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the
proposed merger of HopFed with and into First Financial (the
"Merger").

The Complaint also asserts a claim for aiding and abetting the
HopFed board of directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties
against HopFed and First Financial. Among other remedies, the
Action seeks to enjoin the Merger or rescind the Merger or recover
damages in the event the Merger is completed.

The court has not acted on this Complaint, and no relief has been
granted in the Action as of this time.

The defendants believe that the Complaint is without merit and no
further disclosure is or was required under applicable law to
supplement the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

However, to eliminate the burden, expense, and uncertainties
inherent in litigation, and to avoid any possible delay to the
closing of the Merger that might arise from further litigation,
counsel for all parties to the Action reached an agreement in
principle to settle the Action, pursuant to which First Financial
would file agreed-upon supplemental disclosures with the SEC (the
"Supplemental Disclosures").

First Financial made the Supplemental Disclosures in an amendment
to the Registration Statement filed on June 6, 2019 with the SEC.
It is expected that any potential settlement will not affect the
merger consideration to be paid to HopFed stockholders or the
timing of the HopFed special meeting of stockholders to be held on
July 23, 2019.

As part of the agreement in principle, it is anticipated that the
parties will agree to use their reasonable best efforts to complete
confirmatory discovery, including depositions of representatives of
HopFed and First Financial, and potentially others, as well as the
production of documents, and to attempt in good faith to agree upon
the final terms of a settlement and such other documentation as may
be required to obtain court approval of the settlement and
certification of the class.

There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into any stipulation of settlement or similar documents, or that
the court will approve any settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such settlement.

HopFed Bancorp, Inc. operates as the bank holding company for
Heritage Bank USA, Inc. that provides commercial banking services
in the United States. HopFed Bancorp, Inc. was founded in 1879 and
is headquartered in Hopkinsville, Kentucky.


HORIZON HEALTHCARE: Weber Suit over Medicare-Based Plans
--------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WEBER, on his own behalf and on behalf of his wife, Jill
Weber, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a HORIZON BLUE
CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-13728-ES-MAH (D.N.J., June 13, 2019), seeks to enjoin
Horizon's acts and practices which violates the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Horizon systematically violated the terms of the Class members' R&C
plans, and its own fiduciary duties, by setting the allowed amounts
for ONET services below the R&C rates identified by FAIR Health.

Most of the health plans administered by Horizon, including
Plaintiff's, cover health care services received from
out-of-network ("ONET") providers (who are not contracted with
Horizon and have not agreed to accept payments below their billed
charges).

With respect to such ONET services, the written terms of Horizon's
plans articulate one of two different reimbursement methodologies,
either (a) the plan states that ONET benefit payments are based on
a percentage of Medicare rates ("Medicare-based plans"); or (b) the
plan states that ONET benefit payments are based on a percentage of
"Reasonable and Customary charges," or "R&C" ("R&C Plans"). The
case is focused solely on Horizon's calculation of ONET benefits
under R&C Plans.

Despite the fact that Plaintiff is insured by a Horizon R&C plan,
Horizon used (and continues to use) a Medicare-based methodology to
determine and pay his ONET benefits. By doing so, Horizon violated
the written terms of Plaintiff's plan, deprived Plaintiff of
benefits that were owed, and violated Horizon's fiduciary duties
under ERISA.

The Plaintiff Weber is a retired research scientist with Roche
Pharmaceuticals ("Roche"), a division of F. Hoffman-La Roche AG,
who resides in Nutley, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is a participant
in an insurance plan offered by Roche, which is administered by
Horizon. The plan, which is governed by ERISA, covers both
Plaintiff and his wife, who is a plan beneficiary.

Horizon is in the business of insuring and administering health
plans, many of which are governed by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974. Among other things, this means that Horizon
is responsible for interpreting written plan terms, making coverage
determinations, and causing benefit payments to be made. As such,
Horizon is a fiduciary under ERISA.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          John W. Leardi, Esq.
          Nicole P. Allocca, Esq.
          BUTTACI LEARDI & WERNER LLC
          212 Carnegie Center, Suite 202
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: 609 799 5150

               - and -

          D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          Nell Z. Peyser, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          485 Madison Avenue, 10th floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: 212 704 9660

IDEAVILLAGE PRODUCTS: Jones Suit Alleges ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Ideavillage Products Corp. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Kahlimah Jones, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Ideavillage
Products Corp. doing business as: www.GetFlawlessBrows.com,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03573 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019).

IdeaVillage Products Corp. develops and markets consumer products.
The company offers various electronic, outdoor, personal care,
travel/auto, apparel, toy/game, and houseware products, such as
body hair removers, temporary metallic jewelry tattoos, trimmers,
compression sleeves, lower back support products, socks, snacking
solutions, HD vision wrap arounds and glasses, ceramic knives,
handheld sewing machines, and self-edging paint rollers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com




INUVO INC: Parties Agree to Dismiss Akerman Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Inuvo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that the plaintiff in
Akerman v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., filed a stipulation of dismissal,
dismissing the entire action, except with respect to a fee and
expense request.  

On December 19, 2018 and December 20, 2018, respectively, Peter
D'Arcy and Morris Akerman, both of whom claim to be stockholders of
Inuvo, filed separate putative class action lawsuits, captioned
D'Arcy v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-02023- UNA, in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware; and Akerman v.
Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-02407, in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada.

The two lawsuits each named Inuvo and the members of Inuvo's board
of directors as defendants. The D'Arcy action also names
ConversionPoint and various entities created to effect the merger
as defendants.

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

On December 21, 2018, Domenic Spagnolo, another purported
stockholder of Inuvo, filed a substantially similar lawsuit,
captioned Spagnolo v. Inuvo, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-12099, in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


This lawsuit also challenges the adequacy of disclosure under the
same sections of the Exchange Act against Inuvo and its directors.

Each of the foregoing lawsuits seeks, among other relief, an
injunction preventing the parties from consummating the merger
transactions, damages in the event the merger transactions are
consummated, and an award of attorneys' fees.

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

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

Inuvo intends to vigorously contest any continued litigation, and
any fee petitions brought by Plaintiffs' counsels. On February 4,
2019, Inuvo filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to
stay, the Akerman and Spagnolo actions pending the resolution of
the first-filed D'Arcy case.

Then, on March 4, 2019, Inuvo filed a second motion to dismiss the
Spagnolo action based on a failure to state a claim under the law.
In the Spagnolo action, the court issued an order giving Plaintiff
Spagnolo an opportunity to amend his complaint in response to the
second motion to dismiss, or alternatively, serve his opposition to
the motion to dismiss by March 25, 2019.

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

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

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

On March 25, 2019, Plaintiff Spagnolo filed a motion for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses. Inuvo's opposition was filed on
April 23, 2019. Plaintiff Spagnolo's reply was filed May 9, 2019.

In the Akerman action, following the filing of the company's
amended S-4 Registration Statement on March 15, 2019, Plaintiff
Akerman filed a stipulation of dismissal, dismissing the entire
action, except with respect to a fee and expense request.

No deadline has been set for Plaintiff Akerman to file a fee and
expense request.

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


INUVO INC: Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Franchi Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Inuvo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2019, that Adam Franchi filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal.

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

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

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

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

The company believes the allegations in the lawsuits have been
mooted by the filing of our amended S-4 Registration Statement on
March 15, 2019. ConversionPoint and Inuvo intend to vigorously
contest any continued litigation, and any fee petitions brought by
Plaintiffs' counsel.

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

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

Inuvo and ConversionPoint believe the claims asserted in the
lawsuits are without merit. On February 5 and 14, 2019, Inuvo filed
motions to dismiss, or in the alternative to stay, the Franchi and
Thomas actions, respectively, pending the resolution of the
first-filed D'Arcy action. A hearing on the Franchi motion is yet
to be scheduled.

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


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

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

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


IPC, INC: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC.,
individually, and as the representatives of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Physicians Healthsource, the Plainitff,
v. IPC, INC d/b/a PLATINUMCODE., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-00301-MRB (S.D. Ohio), Physicians
Healthsource asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class and preliminarily approving the Class
      Settlement Agreement;

   2. appointing Physicians Healthsource as the representative of
      the class and Matthew E. Stubbs of Montgomery Jonson, LLP as

      counsel for the class;

   3. approving the proposed Notice of Class Action and Proposed
      Settlement; and

   4. setting a date for the final approval hearing.

The case arises from an alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, a federal law that has been in effect for decades.
Under the TCPA, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act in 2005,
it is "unlawful" to send an unsolicited advertisement to someone's
fax machine unless the sender has an "established business
relationship" with the recipient. The JFPA provides statutory
damages of $500.00 for each violation.

Per the terms of the proposed settlement ("the Class Settlement
Agreement"), the parties have agreed to the certification of a
class consisting of the 6,552 successful recipients of the IPC Fax.
Additionally, IPC has agreed to pay up to $625,000.00 to settle the
claims of the Class Members. In consideration for a release of
claims by the Class Members , IPC has agreed to make available a
sum of $625,000 ("the Settlement Fund") as well as provide a credit
of $100.00 (via the delivery of a coupon) toward the purchase of
cohesive bandages from IPC to each of the Settlement Class
Members.

After deducting the proposed Attorney Fee Award, proposed Named
Plaintiff Award, and anticipated expenses, the remaining Settlement
Fund will be approximately $423,250. This amount would then be
distributed to the Class Members on a pro rata basis, up to a
maximum of $100.00 per Class Member. Class Counsel anticipates that
all Class Members who submit valid claims will receive $100.00, as
the claims rate would have to approach 65% for their payments to be
less than $100.00. Class Counsel anticipates that a substantial
portion of the Settlement Fund will be exhausted by the claims of
the Settlement Class Members, Attorney Fee Award, Named Plaintiff
Award, and award for expenses.[CC]

Attorneys for Physicians Healthsource, Inc. are:

          Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
          George D. Jonson, Esq.
          Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY JONSON, LLP
          600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241-4722
          Facsimile: (513) 768-9227
          E-mail: mstubbs@mojolaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ross Good, Esq.
          Ryan Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847 368-1500
          Facsimile: 847 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

JP MORGAN: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned JAMES ELLIS and DARRYL ELLIS,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00879-JPS(E.D Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiffs as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com

KAYREE INC: Underpays Exotic Dancers, Davis et al. Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
CANDISS DAVIS; and LAKESHA HUDSON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KAYREE, INC. D/B/A
CLUB PARADISE II, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00055 (E.D. Va., June
4, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as exotic dancer.

Kayree, Inc. d/b/a Club Paradise II is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Virginia. The Company operates an
exotic dance club. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


KIA MOTORS AMERICA: Sells Defective Vehicles, Santamaria Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Kia Motors America,
Inc. for fraud by omission, for violations of Sections 1793.1 and
1793.2 of the California Civil Code, and for breaches of express
written warranty and implied warranty of merchantability in
connection with the undisclosed GDI engines' defects of certain Kia
vehicles. The case is captioned JORGE VENTURA SANTAMARIA,
Plaintiff, vs. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV20694 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 13, 2019). Plaintiff Jorge Ventura Santamaria
alleges that Kia committed fraud by allowing the certain Kia
vehicles to be sold to Plaintiff without disclosing that their GDI
engines were defective and susceptible to sudden and catastrophic
failure.

Kia Motors America, Inc. is a wholesale vehicle distributor and is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kia Motors Corporation. The company is
incorporated and headquartered in the California with its principal
place of business at 111 Peters Canyon Road, Irvine, California. It
manufactures and distributes Kia vehicles and sells them throughout
the United States through its network of dealerships. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


L'OREAL USA: Duncan Alleges Violation under Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------------
L'Oreal USA, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Eugene Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05661 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019).

L'Oreal USA, Inc. manufactures and markets cosmetics for consumer
and professional markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


LABCORP: Faces Data Breach Class Action in North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
A data breach class action has been filed against Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings d/b/a LabCorp and Laboratory
Corporation of America d/b/a LabCorp for negligence, breach of
implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and for violations of
the North Carolina Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA). The case is captioned GENE HIVELY, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. LABORATORY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS d/b/a LABCORP and LABORATORY
CORPORATION OF AMERICA d/b/a LABCORP, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-CV-609 (M.D.N.C., June 18, 2019). Plaintiff Gene Hively
alleges that LabCorp failed to properly monitor its vendors to
ensure that proper data security safeguards were being implemented
by those vendors throughout the breach period so as to properly
safeguard class members' sensitive information. He asserts that
LabCorp had obligations created by HIPAA, industry standards,
common law, and representations made to class members, to keep
class members' sensitive information confidential and to protect it
from unauthorized access and disclosure.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings d/b/a LabCorp is
incorporated in Delaware. Its principal place of business is in
Burlington, North Carolina. LabCorp is a leading provider of
medical diagnostic testing services. It performs medical tests that
aid in the diagnosis or detection of diseases, and that measure the
progress of or recovery from a disease.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos E. Mahoney, Esq.
     GLENN, MILLS, FISHER & MAHONEY, P.A.
     Durham, NC 27702-3865
     Telephone: (919) 683-2135
     E-mail: cmahoney@gmfm-law.com

             - and -

     Narendra K. Ghosh, Esq.
     PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP
     100 Europa Dr., Suite 420
     Chapel Hill, NC 27517
     Telephone: (919) 942-5200
     E-mail: nghosh@pathlaw.com

             - and -  

     Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
     J. Gerard Stranch, Esq.
     BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
     The Freedom Center
     223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Telephone: (615) 254-8801
     E-mail: joeyl@bsjfirm.com
             gerards@bsjfirm.com


LASHIFY INC: Duncan Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
------------------------------------------------------
Lashify, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Eugene
Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Lashify, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05669
(S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019).

Lashify offers luxury DIY lash extensions at home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


LITTLE JOHN: Warner Seeks to Certify Class of Freight Brokers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit MICHELLE WARNER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LITTLE
JOHN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.; CHRISTOPHER DALE; and STEVEN
DALE, the Defendants, Case 5:19-cv-05042-PKH (W.D. Ark.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting her motion for class certification; and

      "all similarly situated freight brokerage "Agent" or
      "Freight Broker" working for Little John Transpiration
      Services, Inc., Christopher Dale, and Steven Dale was
      improperly misclassified as an exempt employee not
      entitled to overtime under the Arkansas Code"; and

   2. approving her Notice, for her appointment as Class
      Representative, and for the appointment of Keith, Miller,
      Butler, Schneider, & Pawlik, PLLC as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiff is an employee of the Defendant, Little John
Transportation Services, Inc. The Plaintiff brings this action, in
relevant part, for back pay on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated who were denied overtime pay in violation of
Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-40-211 ("AWMA"); for a
declaratory judgment that Defendants committed the violations; and
for a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants from
continuing such practices in the future.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          George M. Rozzell IV, Esq.
          Jenna R. Fogleman, Esq.
          KEITH, MILLER, BUTLER,
             SCHNEIDER & PAWLIK, PLLC
          224 S. 2nd St.
          Rogers, AR 72756
          Telephone: 479 621 0006
          Facsimile: 479 631 6890
          E-mail: grozzell@arkattorneys.com
                  jfogleman@arkattorneys.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Christy Comstock, Esq.
          WALES & COMSTOCK
          3608 North Steele Boulevard, Suite 101
          Fayetteville, AR 72703

               - and -

          Daniel Herrington, Esq.
          FRIDAY, ELDREDGE, AND CLARK, LLP
          400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201

LOVELY SKIN: Crosson Sues over Web Accessibility Issue
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Lovely Skin, Inc.
for alleged violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, New
York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law. The case is captioned ARETHA CROSSON, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff,
- against - LOVELY SKIN, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03549
(E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2019).

Plaintiff Aretha Crosson brings this civil rights action against
Lovely Skin for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by her and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
Defendant has been denying blind and visually-impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Lovely Skin provides to their non-disabled customers
through http//:www.Lovelyskin.com. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in Lovely Skin's policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Her
complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.

Lovely Skin, Inc. is a Nebraska foreign business corporation doing
business in New York with its principal place of business located
in Omaha, Nebraska. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2887: Flanary et al Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Janice Flanary, Ashli Rogers, and Robert Stapleton, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs.  HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., the Defendant, vs.
Kristina Johnson, Cliff Palifrone, and Theresa Erickson, the
Movants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00243 (Filed April 2, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
(Kansas City) on June 17, 2019. The District of Kansas Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02322-JAR-TJJ to proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. The suit
alleges Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation. The lead case is Case
No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          Facsimile: (513) 345-8294

MDL 2887: Sprengel et al. Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Jenna Sprengel, Kelli Coppi, and Laura Freeman, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated , the Plaintiffs, vs.
HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., and Hill's Pet Nutrition Sales, Inc.,
the Defendants, vs. Kristina Johnson, Cliff Palifrone, and Theresa
Erickson, the Movants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00074 (Filed Feb. 15,
2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas (Kansas City) on June 13, 2019. The District of
Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02303-JAR-TJJ to
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Chief District Judge Julie
A. Robinson. The suit alleges Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation.
The lead case is Case No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Dennis A. Costigan, Esq.
          Motley Rice LLC
          55 Cedar Street, Suite 100
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 457-7700

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Umar Sattar, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  us@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Vincent L. Greene, IV, Esq.
          Fidelma L. Fitzpatrick, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          55 Cedar Street, Suite 100
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: 457-7730
          Facsimile: 457-7708

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

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

Attorneys for the Movant are:

          Thomas J. Enright, Esq.
          ENRIGHT LAW LLC
          696 Reservoir Avenue
          Cranston, RI 02910
          Telephone: (401) 526-2620
          Facsimile: (401) 457-7117

MEDICAL NECESSITIES: Certification of Delivery Techs Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit CHARLES JENKINS-QUEEN, Individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated current and former
employees, the Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL NECESSITIES AND SERVICES, LLC,
a Tennessee Corporation FLSA Opt-In Collective Action, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01294 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff moves
the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a class of "similarly situated
      current and former Delivery ("Delivery Techs") employed by
      Medical Necessities  ("Defendant") during the last three
      years, defined as:

      "all current and former employees of Medical Necessities who
      worked as a Delivery Technician, or any other position that
      involved the delivery or on-site repair of medical equipment,

      for more than forty hours in any week during the previous
      three years from the filing of the Complaint";

   2. simultaneously authorizing Court-supervised notice to those
      individuals, in accordance with Section 16(b) of the Fair
      Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. section 216(b); and

   3. directing that Court-supervised Notice to be ordered in
      accordance with 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) use Plaintiffs'
      proposed Notice so that putative Opt-In Plaintiffs may be
      properly notified of their right to join this putative FLSA
      collective action.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
current and former employees are:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          James L. Holt, JR., Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, 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
                  jholt@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com

               - and -

          Nina Parsley, Esq.
          PONCE LAW
          400 Professional Park Drive
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Imposes Monetary Sanctions in Dionisio Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order imposing Monetary Sanctions on
Plaintiffs in the case captioned VIRGINIA DIONISIO, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, et al. Defendants. Case No.
1:19-cv-0190-DAD-JLT. (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff initiated this matter individually and on behalf of a
class of all others similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. and Midland Funding LLC, for unlawful debt
collection practices. In the complaint, Plaintiff indicated she was
bringing this class action on behalf of a class of California
consumers under Section1692 et seq. of Title 15 of the United
States Code, commonly referred to as the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.

The Court issued an order to the Plaintiff to show cause why
sanctions should not be imposed for her failure to prosecute the
action, because the Plaintiff failed to serve the summons and
complaint upon the Defendant, or file proof of service therefore.


In response, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement, reporting
the parties have settled this matter.

The Court issued an Order after Notice of Settlement. The Court
noted Plaintiff anticipated filing dismissal documents, but due to
the nature of the claims presented in the Complaint, the Plaintiff
must obtain court approval to settle this class action.

The Plaintiff failed to seek approval of the settlement of class
claims and instead filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with
Prejudice.

Civil Contempt

Civil contempt consists of a party's disobedience to a specific and
definite court order by failure to take all reasonable steps within
the party's power to comply. When there has been contempt, a court
can levy contempt sanctions pursuant to its inherent powers. The
inherent powers of federal courts are those that are necessary to
the exercise of all others.

Twice the Court has ordered Plaintiff and Mr. Stieglitz to address
the claims of the class and to seek approval of the settlement
terms made on behalf of the class. They have not done so and have
completely ignored the Court's orders. The Court finds Plaintiff
and Mr. Stieglitz have failed to take reasonable steps to comply
with the Court's orders  and are in contempt of the Court's
orders.

Sanctions

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide:
Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with any order of the
Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all
sanctions within the inherent power of the Court. District courts
have inherent power to control their dockets and in exercising that
power, a court may impose sanctions.

The Ninth Circuit determined the Court has authority to order
coercive fines and remedial sanctions for civil contempt.

The Ninth Circuit explained a district court should apply the least
coercive sanction (e.g., a monetary penalty) reasonably calculated
to win compliance with its orders. If the fine, or any portion of
the fine, is coercive, it should be payable to the court, not the
complainant.

The Plaintiff and Mr. Stieglitz have demonstrated a willingness to
defy the Court's orders such that sanctions are warranted to coerce
the them into compliance with the court's order. As such, the Court
finds monetary sanctions in the amount of $250.00 each are
appropriate. An additional $100.00 per day $50.00 as to Ms.
Dionisio and $50.00 as to Mr. Stieglitz shall accrue each business
day after June 17, 2019 that they fail to comply with the Court's
orders to address the claims of the class in this action.

Rule 41 Dismissal

The Plaintiff and Mr. Stieglitz have voluntarily dismissed Ms.
Dionisio's individual claims, yet they have repeatedly failed to
address the claims of the class. Thus, the Court declines to close
the action. If the claims of the class are intended to be dismissed
without prejudice, the Plaintiff must file a notice explaining this
fact. If Plaintiff has settled the claims of the class, as she has
indicated impliedly in her filings, she must file a motion for
approval of the settlement terms before this action will be closed
by the Court.

The Court finds the Plaintiff and her counsel are in civil contempt
of court for failure to comply with the orders. Accordingly, the
Court orders coercive monetary sanctions on Plaintiff in the amount
of $250.00 and on her attorney, Jonathan Stiegliz, in the amount of
$250.00.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxha4g9h from
Leagle.com.

Virginia Dionisio, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Aaron
Stieglitz -- jstieglitz@nelsonhardiman.com -- Law Office of
Jonathan A. Stieglitz.


MISSISSIPPI: Court Denies Class Certification in D. Bennett Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi, Greenville Division, issued an Order denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned
DEVIN BENNETT, Plaintiff, v. CAPTAIN NORRIS MORRIS, ET AL.,
Defendants. No. 4:12CV108-MPM-DAS. (N.D. Miss.).

The plaintiff argues that he and other Mississippi Death Row
inmates are similarly situated, that he needs access to additional
discovery, and that an appointed attorney and experts are essential
to the resolution of this case. The motion is not well taken and
will be denied.

Trial courts have broad discretion in determining whether or not to
certify a class action. Rule 23. Class Actions, 1 Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, Rules and Commentary Rule 23.  

This case has proceeded with a single plaintiff, off and on, since
2012. The issues in the case involve matters with which the
plaintiff is personally familiar and about which he may testify in
a hearing should the case proceed that far. The case has moved to
the Summary Judgment stage, and the court is loath to change its
trajectory at this juncture. The instant motion  to certify a class
of plaintiff consisting of Mississippi Death Row inmates is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/yxfst9db from Leagle.com.

Devin A. Bennett, Plaintiff, pro se.

Superintendent Earnest Lee, Sued in his official and individual
capacity, Deputy Commissioner E. L. Sparkman, Sued in his official
and individual capacity & Doris McDonald, Sued in her official and
individual capacity, Defendants, represented by John Chadwick
Williams, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Civil Litigation
Division & Benny McCalip May, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION.

Commissioner Christopher Epps, Defendant, pro se.

Pelicia Hall, MDOC Commissioner, Marshal Turner, MSP Superintendent
& Timothy Morris, MSP/Unit 29 Warden, Defendants, represented by
John Chadwick Williams, MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Civil
Litigation Division.


MOBILE, AL: Diamond Appeals Class Cert. Denial to 11th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Arnita Diamond filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Anitra Diamond v. Kimberly Hastie, Case No.
1:15-cv-00204-KD-C, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 24, 2019, the
District Court denied the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

On April 14, 2015 (amended on August 18, 2017 and September 22,
2017), Named Plaintiff Anitra Diamond, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
alleging that Defendant Kimberly Hastie, formerly license
commissioner, unlawfully obtained, used and/or disclosed personal
information of Mobile, Alabama citizens (email addresses) from
motor vehicle records in violation of the Drivers' Privacy
Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2721, et. seq. (DPPA) (Count I)
and in violation of their privacy rights under Title 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 (Count II).

The appellate case is captioned as Anitra Diamond v. Kimberly
Hastie, Case No. 19-90008, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner ANITRA DIAMOND, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kasie M. Braswell, Esq.
          BRASWELL MURPHY, LLC
          105 N. Conception St., Suite 100
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 438-7503
          Facsimile: (251) 438-7949
          E-mail: kasie@braswellmurphy.com

               - and -

          Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq.
          Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, PC
          PO BOX 4160
          218 Commerce St.
          Montgomery, AL 36103
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: archie.grubbs@beasleyallen.com
                  dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Daniel Brian Murphy, Esq.
          ALFORD BOLIN, LLC
          224 Dauphin St.
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 432-1600

Defendant-Respondent KIMBERLY HASTIE, in her individual capacity,
is represented by:

          Joe Carl Jordan, Esq.
          BUZZ JORDAN, PC
          1111 Dauphin St.
          Mobile, AL 36604
          Telephone: (251) 432-5400
          E-mail: buzz@rossandjordan.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Clayton et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KEITH CLAYTON; and CANDACE CLAYTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00196, was removed from the Eastern District of
Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on July 4, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:19-cv-03075 to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the
Hon. Vince Chhabria.

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was
formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to
Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in
2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018,
Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Jessica L. Richman, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 723-4627
          Facsimile: (516) 723-4727
          E-mail: jrichman@yourlawyer.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Matlock et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled KEVIN T. MATLOCK; and KATHY G.
MATLOCK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00756, was removed from the Eastern District of Missouri,
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on July 4, 2019. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03076 to the proceeding. The Case is assigned to the Hon.
Vince Chhabria.

Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was
formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to
Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in
2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018,
Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer
Aktiengesellschaft. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Simmons Sues Over Student-Athletes' Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION and
WOFFORD COLLEGE, Case No. 1:19-cv-02209-JPH-DML (S.D. Ind., June 3,
2019), seeks to obtain redress for injuries allegedly sustained as
a result of the Defendants' reckless disregard for the health and
safety of generations of Wofford student-athletes.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCAA is not organized
under the laws of any State, but is registered as a tax-exempt
organization with the Internal Revenue Service.

The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics, including the football
program at Wofford.  According to the NCAA, more than 1,200
schools, conferences and affiliate organizations collectively
invest in improving the experiences of athletes, on the field, in
the classroom, and in life.

Wofford College is a private university located at 429 North Church
St., in Spartanburg, South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Declines to Certify TCPA Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit SUSAN FENNELL, the Plaintiff, v.
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendant, Case 6:17-cv-02083-RBD-DCI
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Dalton entered an order on June 13,
2019, declining to certify a class of:

   "all persons within the United States whose (1) cellular
   telephone number was called by [Navient]; (2) with an automatic

   telephone dialing system; (3) without consent; and (4) from
   December 4, 2013 to October 31, 2018."

The Court denied the motion for class certification without leave
to amend.

Fennell asserts that the calls to her cell phone "included delays
in time before the telephone call was transferred to a
representative to speak," "sounded like an artificial or
pre-recorded voice," and "started with a delay in time before the
representative joined the line to leave a message." Fennell
contends the use of the ATDS to call her violates the TCPA and
brings this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated.

Based on discovery, Fennell contends Navient placed 9,645,524 debt
collection calls to at least 27,397 customers who told Navient to
stop calling during the class period in violation of the TCPA.[CC]

NEW YORK: Mitchell Files Class Suit Over Prisoner Civil Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthony J. Annucci,
Acting Commissioner. The case is styled as Dontie S. Mitchell and
those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Anthony J. Annucci, Acting
Commissioner, Jeff McKoy, Deputy Commissioner, Christopher Miller,
Superintendent, David Barringer, Deputy Superintendent and Imam
Elmi, Coordinating Chaplain, Defendants, Case No.
9:19-cv-00718-MAD-DEP (N.D. N.Y., June 12, 2019).

The lawsuit arises under Prisoner Civil Rights.

The Defendants are government representatives acting under their
official capacity. Anthony J. Annucci is the Acting Commissioner,
New York State Department of Corrections and Community
Supervision.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


NIDEC MOTOR: Court OKs $1.675MM Prelim Settlement in G. Pounds Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Preliminary Approval on Class
Action Settlement in the case captioned GURTHA POUNDS, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated and as an "aggrieved
employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Plaintiff(s), v. NIDEC
MOTOR CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendant(s). Case No. 2:17-cv-02527-JAM-KJN. (E.D.
Cal.).

The Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement and the
Settlement Class based upon the terms set forth in the Settlement
filed in support of the Motion. All capitalized terms used herein
shall have the same meaning as defined in the Settlement. The Court
has determined there is sufficient evidence to suggest that (a) the
terms of the Settlement might be fair, adequate, and reasonable to
the Settlement Class and (b) the Settlement falls within the range
of reasonableness and appears to be presumptively valid, subject
only to any objections that may be raised at the final hearing and
final approval by this Court. The Court will make a determination
at the hearing on the motion for final approval of class action
settlement (Final Approval Hearing) of whether the Settlement is
fair, adequate and reasonable to the Settlement Class.

The Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement was the product
of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations conducted at arm's
length by the Parties. In making this preliminary finding, the
Court considered the nature of the claims set forth in the
pleadings, the amounts and kinds of benefits which shall be paid
pursuant to the Settlement, the allocation of Settlement proceeds
to the Settlement Class, and the fact that the Settlement
represents a compromise of the Parties' respective positions. The
Court further preliminarily finds that the terms of the Settlement
have no obvious deficiencies and do not improperly grant
preferential treatment to any individual Class Member. Accordingly,
the Court preliminarily finds that the Settlement was entered into
in good faith.

The essential monetary terms of the Settlement are as follows:

   a. Defendant NMC's payment of a Gross Settlement Amount (GSA) of
$1,675,000;

   b. Plaintiff's Incentive Award of up to $30,000;

   c. Class Counsel's fees of not more than one-third of the GSA,
or $558,278;

   d. Class Counsel's costs and expenses not to exceed $30,000;

   e. The Claims Administrator's costs not to exceed $15,000;

   f. Civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys
General Act
(PAGA) of $20,000, of which 25% or $5,000 will be payable to the
Settlement Class and 75% or $15,000 will be payable to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA).

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5lnb7ly from Leagle.com.

Gurtha Pounds, on behalf of herself, and others similarly situated,
and as an aggrieved employee on behalf of other aggrieved
employees", Plaintiff, represented by Caroline Tahmassian --
caroline@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm, David Glenn Spivak
-- david@spivaklaw.com -- The Spivak Law Firm & Walter L. Haines --
whaines@uelglaw.com -- United Employees Law Group, PC.

Nidec Motor Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kenneth Dawson Sulzer -- ksulzer@constangy.com --
Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete LLP, Sayaka Karitani --
skaritani@constangy.com -- Constangy Brooks Smith & Prophete, LLP &
Kimberly T. Bernstein -- kbernstein@constangy.com -- Constangy,
Brooks, Smith, & Prophete LLP.


NORTHWEST TENNESSEE: Underpays Medical Assistants, Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY BRISENTINE; APRIL BRISENTINE and AMBER REEVES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situates, Plaintiff v.
NORTHWEST TENNESSEE FOOT CLINIC PLLC; and DR. ELIZABETH LU,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01122-JDB-jay (W.D. Tenn., June 11,
2019) sues over unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wage, related
penalties and damages, and failure to pay the Plaintiffs for all
hours worked.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as medical
assistants.

Northwest Tennessee Foot Clinic PLLC is engaged as a heath care
provider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bailey H. Dorsey, Esq.
          Laura Ann E. Bailey, Esq.
          Alan G. Crone, Esq.
          Bailey H. Dorsey, Esq.
          THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
          88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 737-7740
          Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
          E-mail: lbailey@cronelawfirmplc.com
                  acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
                  bdorsey@cronelawfirmplc.com


NRT LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Chinitz Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
RONALD CHINITZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NRT LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-03309
(N.D. Cal., June 11, 2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited calls.

NRT LLC provides residential and commercial real estate brokerage
services in the United States. The company also offers mortgage,
title, insurance, escrow, warranty, REO, relocation, property
management, development, marketing, and concierge services. The
company was incorporated in 1997 and is based in Madison, New
Jersey. NRT LLC operates as a subsidiary of Realogy Holdings Corp.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L. Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          Tanya Koshy, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          483 Ninth St., Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
                  tkoshy@tzlegal.com


NRT WEST: Chinitz Seeks to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RONALD CHINITZ, individually, and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs.
NRT WEST, INC., d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-06100-NC (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on August 14, 2019, for certification
of these classes:

   National Do Not Call Registry Class ("DNC Class"):

   "all persons in the United States who: (a) received more than
   one call made by one of Defendant's real estate agents on
   Defendant's behalf or by another agent of Defendant on
   Defendant's behalf; (b) promoting Defendant's goods or
   services; (c) in a 12-month period; (d) on their residential
   telephone line; (e) whose residential telephone number(s)
   appear on the NDNCR; (f) at any time since October 4, 2014";

   National Internal Do Not Call Class ("Internal DNC Class"):

   "all persons in the United States who: (a) received more than
   one call made by one of Defendant's real estate agents on
   Defendant's behalf or by another agent of Defendant on
   Defendant's behalf; (b) promoting Defendant's goods or
   services; (c) in a 12-month period; (d) on their residential
   telephone line; (e) who made a request not to receive calls
   from or on behalf of Defendant; (f) at any time since
   October 4, 2014"; and

   National Artificial or Prerecorded Message Residential Class
   ("Prerecorded Message Class"):

   "all persons in the United States to whom: (a) one of
   Defendant's real estate agents on Defendant's behalf, or
   another agent of Defendant on Defendant's behalf, initiated
   one or more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting
   Defendant's goods or services; (c) to a recipient's residential
   telephone line; (d) through the use of an artificial or
   prerecorded voice; (e) at any time since October 4, 2014."

Excluded from the DNC Class, the Internal DNC Class, and the
Prerecorded Message Class are: (a) Defendant, Defendant's board
members, executive-level officers, and attorneys, and immediately
family members of any of the foregoing persons; (b) governmental
entities; (c) the Court, the Court's immediate family, and the
Court staff; and (d) any person that timely and properly excludes
himself or herself from the Class in accordance with Court-approved
procedures.

NRT West, Inc. and its parent company NRT LLC operate through
thousands of real estate agents across the country who represent
consumers when they buy and sell real estate.  According to the
complaint, to bring in new business, NRT's real estate agents "cold
call" residential telephone numbers directly. In addition, they use
prerecorded messages to cold call people. In their zeal to find
clients and get more commissions, NRT's real estate agents call
potential customers who are on the National Do Not Call Registry
("NDNCR"); they fail to maintain a company-specific do-not-call
list adequately; and they place calls using artificial or
prerecorded messages. Each of these practices violates the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.[CC]

Counsel for the Ronald Chinitz and the Proposed Class are:

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

               - and -

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          Tanya S. Koshy, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
                 tkoshy@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street, Northwest, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com

PAY-O-MATIC: Luyando Suit Transferred to Eastern Dist. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Carmen Luyando, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PAY-O-MATIC CHECK CASHING
CORP., THE PAY-O-MATIC CORP., and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-100, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-11114 (Filed Nov. 28, 2018), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court Southern District of New
York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York (Brooklyn) on June 17, 2019. The Eastern District of New York
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03571-FB-SMG to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Frederic Block.

The Plaintiffs, current and/or former non-exempt employees employed
by Defendants, bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf
of the proposed collective and Rule 23 classes against Defendants
for violations of: the minimum wage and overtime requirements under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the minimum wage and overtime
requirements under New York Labor Laws.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes:

          Benjamin D. Weisenberg, Esq.
          THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
          401 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 571-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0505
          E-mail: benjamin@ottingerlaw.com

Counsel for the Defendants are:

          Albert John Millus, Jr., Esq.
          Miriam Schindel, Esq.
          HINMAN, HOWARD, AND KATTELL, LLP
          700 Security Mutual Building
          80 Exchange Street
          Po Box 5250
          Binghamton, NY 13902
          Telephone: (607) 723-5341
          Facsimile: (607) 723-6605
          E-mail: amillus@hhk.com
                  mschindel@hhk.com

               - and -

          Isaac J. Burker, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Kozak, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS, LLP
          44 South Broadway, 14th floor
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 872-8060
          Facsimile: (914) 946-1216
          E-mail: isaac.burker@jacksonlewis.com
                  Jonathan.Kozak@jacksonlewis.com

PURDUE PHARMA: Canton City Sues over Highly Addictive Opioids
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.,
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and other opioid manufacturers and
distributors for public nuisance and for their violations of the
Federal and North Carolina RICO statutes, negligence, and unlawful
and deceptive trade practices. The case is captioned CITY OF
CANTON, a municipal corporation, CHATHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA
L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; 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.; DEPOMED,
INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.;
ALLERGAN PLC. f/k/a ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS, INC. f/k/a WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; ACTAVIS LLC;
ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC. f/k/a WATSON PHARMA, INC., MALLINCKRODT PLC;
MALLINCKRODT LLC; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION; CARDINAL
HEALTH, INC.; and McKESSON CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-op-45462-DAP (N.D. Ohio, June 14, 2019).

Plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers aggressively promoted and
pushed highly addictive, dangerous opioids and falsely represented
to doctors that patients would rarely succumb to drug addiction.
These pharmaceutical companies have aggressively advertised to and
persuaded doctors to prescribe highly addictive, dangerous opioids
-- turning patients into drug addicts for their own corporate
profit. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this civil action to
eliminate the hazard to public health and safety caused by the
opioid epidemic, to abate the nuisance caused thereby, and to
recoup monies that have been spent, or will be spent, because of
Defendants' false, deceptive, and unfair marketing and/or unlawful
diversion of prescription opioids.

Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Purdue Pharma L.P. is a
limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware. The
company manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such
as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla
ER, and Targiniq ER in the United States. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd, an Israeli corporation. Teva USA is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Garry Whitaker, Esq.
      GARRY WHITAKER LAW, P.C.
      One North Marshall Street, Ste. 350
      Winston-Salem, NC 27101
      Telephone: (336) 777-1195
      Facsimile: (336) 777-8906
      E-mail: GarryWhitaker@GarryWhitakerLaw.com

              - and -             

      Paul D. Coates, Esq.
      PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC
      3203 Brassfield Rd.
      Greensboro, NC 27410
      Telephone: (336) 282-8848
      Facsimile: (336) 282-8409
      E-mail: pcoates@pckb-law.com

              - and -

      William Bennet Atwater, Jr., Esq.
      ATWATER LAW FIRM
      122 S. Chatham Ave.
      P.O. Box 629
      Siler City, NC 27344
      Telephone: (919) 663-2850
      Facsimile: (919) 663-3790
      E-mail: batwater@pinehurst.net

              - and –

      Donald R. Vaughan, Esq.
      DONALD R. VAUGHAN AND ASSOCIATES
      612 W. Friendly Avenue
      Greensboro, NC 27401
      Telephone: (336) 273-1415
      Facsimile: (336) 273-1445
      E-mail: don.vaughan@vaughanlaw.com

              - and -

      George B. Daniel, Esq.
      GEORGE B. DANIEL, P.A.
      139 E. Main Street
      Yanceyville, NC 27379
      Telephone: (336) 694-5473
      Facsimile: (336) 694-6601
      E-mail: gdaniel@danielthomaslaw.com

              - and -

      J. Anderson Davis, Esq.
      Samuel L. Lucas, Esq.
      Lee B. Carter, Esq.
      BRINSON, ASKEW, BERRY, SEIGLER,
         RICHARDSON & DAVIS, LLP
      P.O. Box 5007
      Rome, GA 30162-5007
      Telephone: (706) 291-8853
      Facsimile: (706) 234-3574
      E-mail: adavis@brinson-askew.com
              slucas@brinson-askew.com
              lcarter@brinson-askew.com

              - and –

     Robert H. Smalley, Esq.
     McCAMY, PHILLIPS, TUGGLE & FORDHAM, LLP
     P.O. Box 1105
     Dalton, GA 30720-1105
     Telephone: (706) 508-4292
     Facsimile: (706) 278-5002
     E-mail: rsmalley@mccamylaw.com
          
             - and –

     Robert K. Finnell, Esq.
     THE FINNELL FIRM
     1 West Fourth Ave., Suite 200
     Rome, GA 30162-0063
     Telephone: (706) 235-7272
     Facsimile: (706) 235-9461
     E-mail: bob@finnellfirm.com

             - and -

     John W. Crongeyer, Esq.
     CRONGEYER LAW FIRM, PC
     2170 Defoor Hills Road
     Atlanta, GA 30318
     Telephone: (404) 542-6205
     Facsimile: (404) 872-3745
     E-mail: jw552020@gmail.com

             - and -

     William Q. Bird, Esq.
     Paul I. Hotchkiss, Esq.
     BIRD LAW GROUP, P.C.
     2170 Defoor Hills Road
     Atlanta, GA 30318
     Telephone: (404) 873-4696
     Facsimile: (404) 872-3745
     E-mail: billbird@birdlawgroup.com
             pih@birdlawgroup.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Carlson Sues over Negligence on Opioid Distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.
and other manufacturers and distributors of opioids in the United
States for several causes including nuisance, gross negligence, and
civil conspiracy. The case is captioned Desiree Carlson,
individually and as next friend and guardian of Baby J.S., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al, Case No. 1:19-op-45487-DAP (N.D. Ohio,
June 14, 2019).

Baby J.S. and his mother are victims of the opioid crisis that has
ravaged Pennsylvania, causing immense suffering to those born
addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced to deal with
the aftermath. At birth, Baby J.S. was diagnosed with Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome, a condition suffered by babies of mothers
addicted to opioids. Baby J.S.'s mother was allegedly prescribed
Defendants' opioids prior to Baby J.S.'s gestation, resulting in
her opioid addiction and Baby J.S.'s opioid exposure during
gestation. Moreover, Plaintiff Desiree Carlson brings 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. 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.

Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Purdue Pharma L.P. is a
limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware. The
company manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such
as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla
ER, and Targiniq ER in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     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 W. 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
             assistant@khrlawoffices.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Cherry Sues over Unsafe Marketing of Opioids
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.
and other opioid manufacturers and distributors in the United
States for nuisance, gross negligence, civil conspiracy, and
products liability in connection with unsafe marketing, labeling,
distribution, and dispensing practices of highly addictive
prescription opioids. The case is captioned Angela Cherry,
individually and as next friend and guardian of Baby Z.C.T., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-op-45490-DAP
(N.D. Ohio, June 14, 2019).

Baby Z.C.T. and his mother are victims of the opioid crisis that
has ravaged Arizona, causing immense suffering to those born
addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced to deal with
the aftermath. At birth, Baby Z.C.T. was diagnosed with Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome (NAS), a condition suffered by babies of
mothers addicted to opioids. Moreover, Plaintiff Angela Cherry
brings 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. Plaintiffs further seek
equitable relief in the form of medical monitoring, in order to
provide this class of infants with monitoring of developmental
issues confronting them as they mature, in addition to equitable
relief in the form of funding for services and treatment. The
ongoing and robust medical monitoring and treatment of
opioid-related NAS-diagnosed children is medically necessary.
Further, this is a rapidly transforming field, as multiple members
of multiple disciplines and support systems, ranging from medical
providers to psychologists to behavioral therapists to childcare
providers, are coming together to determine the best protocols for
improving the outcomes after a diagnosis.

Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Purdue Pharma L.P. is a
limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware. The
company manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such
as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla
ER, and Targiniq ER in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     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 W. 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
             assistant@khrlawoffices.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Counties Unite to Negotiate Opioid Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Heisig, writing for Cleveland.com, reports that attorneys for
cities and counties suing drug companies have proposed a
class-action structure to negotiate and try to settle thousands of
pending federal lawsuits over the nation's opioid epidemic.

The proposal, unveiled in court filings, would create a mechanism
for more than 24,000 city, county and other municipal governments
to join together and create a front to negotiate with companies in
the large swath of federal litigation currently pending in front of
a federal judge in Cleveland.

"The purpose of certifying a Negotiation Class is to establish and
maintain an identified, unified, and durable nationwide body of
cities and counties that can credibly claim to negotiate in the
best interest of all the class governmental interests," the motion
states.

Preliminary feedback about the proposed structure alternately drew
praise and criticism on Friday.

The lawsuits largely accuse drug manufacturers like Purdue Pharma
and pharmaceutical distributors such as the Ohio-based Cardinal
Health of exacerbating the opioid epidemic.

Tens of thousands of people have died nationwide in recent years.
Northeast Ohio has been hit particularly hard as heroin, fentanyl
and prescription painkillers are in abundant supply.

Drug companies have argued against lawsuits by saying prescription
painkillers such as Oxycontin have legitimate medical uses approved
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The companies have also
said they are committed to ensuring prescription painkillers are
used properly.

Lawsuits continue to be filed in state and federal courts, mostly
from local and county governments. The attorneys' hope is to give
the drug companies a set group of governments to negotiate with,
instead of having lawsuits trickle in and continue to make
negotiations unwieldy. Some governments opted to not sue, while
others have not yet filed suit.

The class structure would only be used for negotiation and purposes
for the large group, according to the motion. Governments that
don't want to participate would not be required to do so.

"It is neither aimed at being the vehicle for litigation or
settlement," the motion states.

Lawyers note that the proposed structure is novel. However, if
approved, it may help lead to achieving the goals laid out by U.S.
District Judge Dan Polster in Cleveland. The judge said from the
outset that he would like to see all lawsuits in front of him and
otherwise resolved to put money toward combatting the opioid
epidemic.

None of the parties have reached settlements in the federal
litigation. The state of Oklahoma, which sued in state court,
reached a $270 million settlement with Purdue Pharma in March, and
an $85 million settlement with Teva last month, on the eve of a
trial.

The Oklahoma trial, in which Johnson & Johnson is the sole
remaining defendant, is ongoing.

There are thousands of lawsuits filed. Of those, the vast majority
are filed by county and municipal governments. Any class would not
include other entitles that have filed suit, including hospitals,
Native American tribes and representatives of infants born with
opioids in their system.

The first federal trial is set for October in Cleveland. It will
involve claims made by Cuyahoga and Summit counties.

Defense attorneys wrote in a court filing in April that an expert
for the plaintiffs estimated that it would take $480 billion to
properly address the opioid epidemic nationwide. For just Cuyahoga
and Summit counties, the cost would be $7.2 billion, another expert
opined.

Purdue Pharma issued a statement that did not directly state its
thoughts on any class-action structure, but said "the company is
committed to working with all parties toward a resolution that
helps bring needed solutions to communities and states to address
this public health crisis."

"We continue to work collaboratively within the ... process
outlined by Judge Polster," the statement continues.

Cardinal Health said in a statement that it is defending itself
from liability in the lawsuits and criticized the proposed
class-action structure.

"As we have said previously, an appropriate settlement could be an
option to resolve the lawsuits rather than continuing to litigate,"
Cardinal Health said. "The settlement process class is, however, a
novel and untested approach that is likely to face extended legal
challenges and lead to years of collateral litigation. This will
disrupt any potential resolution and distract from efforts to
address the opioid crisis."

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, whose office is pursuing separate
opioid lawsuits in state court, said in a statement that the
proposed structure is "an extraordinary process and a novel
approach.

"We're examining it very closely to make sure it is fair and
appropriate for Ohioans and complies with the law," Yost said.
[GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Cruz Alleges Negligent Marketing of Opioids
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Purdue Pharma L.P.
and other opioid manufacturers and distributors for public
nuisance, negligence, civil conspiracy, and products liability in
connection with the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of
highly addictive opioids in the United States. The case is
captioned GLORIA CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN
OF BABY C.E.L., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P. ET AL, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-op-45466-DAP (N.D. Ohio, June 14, 2019).

Baby C.E.L. and his mother are victims of the opioid crisis that
has ravaged Massachusetts, causing immense suffering to those born
addicted to opioids and great expense to those forced to deal with
the aftermath. At birth, Baby C.E.L. was diagnosed with Neonatal
Abstinence Syndrome, a condition suffered by babies of mothers
addicted to opioids. Baby C.E.L. was forced to endure a painful
start to their life; crying excessively, arching their back,
refusing to feed, and shaking. Accordingly, Plaintiff Gloria Cruz
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. 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.

Headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, Purdue Pharma L.P. is a
limited partnership organized under the laws of Delaware. The
company manufactures, promotes, sells, and distributes opioids such
as OxyContin, MS Contin, Dilaudid/Dilaudid HP, Butrans, Hysingla
ER, and Targiniq ER in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     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 W. 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
     Email: 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
             assistant@khrlawoffices.com


PURDUE PHARMA: Ontario Plans to Join BC's Opioid Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Ontario government says it
plans to join British Columbia's proposed class action lawsuit
against dozens of opioid manufacturers.

Attorney General Caroline Mulroney says the province will introduce
legislation that, if passed, would enable Ontario's participation
in the suit launched late last year.

She says Ontario would invest any potential awards won from the
litigation into frontline mental health and addiction services.

British Columbia filed the proposed class action against dozens of
pharmaceutical companies in a bid to recoup the health-care costs
associated with opioid addiction.

The untested suit alleges the companies falsely marketed opioids as
less addictive than other pain drugs and helped trigger an overdose
crisis that has killed thousands since OxyContin was introduced to
the Canadian market in 1996.

It names the maker of OxyContin -- Purdue Pharma Inc. -- as well as
other major drug manufacturers, and also targets pharmacies,
including Shoppers Drug Mart Corp. and its owner Loblaw Companies
Ltd., claiming they should have known the quantities of opioids
they were distributing exceeded any legitimate market.

In a separate Ontario case launched earlier in May, lawyers
representing patients who became addicted to opioids filed a
statement of claim seeking more than $1.1 billion in various
damages from nearly two dozen companies.

That suit alleges the companies were negligent in how they
researched, developed and marketed opioids starting in the 1990s.
[GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Paul 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.R.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 A.R.P. was born
addicted to opioids. Prenatal exposure to opioids cause severe
withdrawal symptoms and lasting developmental impacts. The first
days of Baby A.R.P.'s life were spent in excruciating pain as
doctors weaned the infant from opioid addiction. Baby A.R.P. will
require years of treatment and counseling to deal with the effects
of prenatal exposure. Baby A.R.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 A.R.P. was diagnosed with Neonatal Abstinence
Syndrome ("NAS"), a condition suffered by babies of mothers
addicted to opioids. Baby A.R.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 A.R.P. spent their first days in a Neonatal
Intensive Care Unit writhing in agony as they went through
detoxification.

Baby A.R.P.'s mother was prescribed Defendants' opioids prior to
Baby A.R.P.'s gestation, resulting in her opioid addiction and Baby
A.R.P.'s opioid exposure during gestation. Baby A.R.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 A.R.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 CHLOE PAUL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND
AND GUARDIAN OF BABY A.R.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-45467-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

PYXUS INTERNATIONAL: Faces Putative Class Suit in North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pyxus International, 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 company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit filed before
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina.

On June 7, 2019, the Company and certain of its officers were named
as defendants in a complaint filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

The complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of
investors who purchased the Company's common stock between June 7,
2018 and November 8, 2018.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws provisions with respect to fraud and material
misrepresentation, which purported misconduct was revealed by the
Company's November 8, 2018 announcement that sales and other
operating revenues for the quarter ended September 30, 2018 had
decreased approximately 12% over the prior year quarter and the
announcement on November 9, 2018 by the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the Company had settled charges that it had
materially misstated its financial statements from 2011 through the
second quarter of 2015 due to improper and sufficient accounting,
processes and control activities, deferred crop costs and revenue
transactions in Africa.

The complaint alleges that members of the purported class were
harmed by the decline in the trading price of the Company's common
stock on the dates of these announcements. The complaint seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.

Pyxus International, Inc., an agricultural company, engages in the
provision of various agricultural products, ingredients, and
services to businesses and customers. It offers products in the
leaf tobacco, e-liquids, industrial hemp, and cannabis industries.
The company was formerly known as Alliance One International, Inc.
and changed its name to Pyxus International, Inc. in September
2018. Pyxus International, Inc. was founded in 1873 and is based in
Morrisville, North Carolina.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Finch Sues over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Quest Diagnostics,
Inc., American Medical Collection Agency, Inc., Optum360, LLC for
negligence and for breaches of implied contract and fiduciary duty
in connection with a data breach of patients' sensitive personal
information, medical information and  other protected health
information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996. The case is captioned ASHLEY FINCH, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC.,
and OPTUM360, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02306-JAR-TJJ (D.
Kan., June 13, 2019).

Plaintiff Ashley Finch brings this class action lawsuit on behalf
of a Kansas Statewide class to address Defendants' inadequate
safeguarding of class members' sensitive information. Accordingly,
Plaintiff seeks remedies including but not limited to compensatory
damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive
relief including improvements to Defendants’ data security
systems, future annual audits, and free credit monitoring services
funded by Defendants.

Quest Diagnostics Inc. is incorporated in Delaware. Its principal
place of business is in Secaucus, New Jersey. American Medical
Collection Agency, Inc. is incorporated in Minnesota. Its principal
place of business is in Elmsford, New York. Optum360, LLC is
incorporated in Delaware. Its principal place of business is in
Eden Prairie, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd C. Werts, Esq.
     Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
     LEAR WERTS LLP
     2003 West Broadway, Suite 107
     Columbia, MO 65203
     Telephone: 573-875-1991
     Facsimile: 573-875-1985
     E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
             werts@learwerts.com
  
             - and -
     
     Ryan M. Callahan, Esq.
     CALLAHAN LAW FIRM, LLC
     222 W. Gregory Blvd., Ste. 210
     Kansas City, MO 64114
     Telephone: 913-601-1620
     E-mail: ryan@callahanlawkc.com

             - and -

     Lynn Toops, Esq.
     COHEN & MALAD LLP
     One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Telephone: (317) 636-6481
     Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
     E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Removes Vecchio NYLL Suit to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled MARIA VECCHIO, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC.,
EXAMONE WORLD WIDE, INC., and EXAMONE LLC, Case No. 652069/2019,
was removed on June 3, 2019, from the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05194 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "[a]ll persons who were
employed in the State of New York by Defendants as Mobile
Examiners."  The Plaintiff's Complaint seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread of hours pay, statutory
damages, liquidates damages, attorneys' fees and costs based on the
following causes of action: (1) failure to pay Plaintiff and
members of the putative class minimum and overtime wages for all
hours worked pursuant to New York Labor Law and the corresponding
New York Department of Labor regulations; (2) failure to pay
Plaintiff and members of the putative class spread of hours pay;
and (4) failure to provide wage notices pursuant to New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiff is currently prosecuting another lawsuit in the
District Court entitled Maria Vecchio, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., ExamOne World
Wide, Inc., ExamOne, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-05165-ER-KNF.  The
Federal Action was also filed on behalf of the exact same class
(Mobile Examiners who visit patients (most commonly insurance
applicants) at their homes or places of business, and conduct
physical examinations and basic lab work for the purposes of
insurance and benefits eligibility and underwriting) under federal
law based on the exact same underlying alleged facts and
circumstances.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danielle J. Marlow, Esq.
          Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: dmarlow@napolilaw.com
                  SBadala@napolilaw.com

Defendants Quest Diagnostics, Inc., ExamOne World Wide, Inc. and
ExamOne LLC are represented by:

          Robert P. Lewis, Esq.
          BAKER MCKENZIE LLP
          452 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 891-3532
          Facsimile: (212) 310-1600
          E-mail: robert.lewis@bakermckenzie.com


SAN FRANCISCO: Faces ADA Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------
STUDENT A, by and through Parent A; STUDENT B, by and through
Parent B; STUDENT C, by and through Parent C; STUDENT D, by and
through Parent D; STUDENT E, by and through Parent E, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAN
FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; and VINCENT MATTHEWS, In His
Official Capacity as the Superintendent for the San Francisco
Unified School District, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03101-SK
(N.D. Cal., June 4, 2019) alleges violation of the Americans With
Disabilities Act. The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Sallie
Kim.

San Francisco Unified School District, established in 1851, is the
only public school district within the City and County of San
Francisco, and the first in the state of California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Guy Burton Wallace, Esq.
          Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
          Travis C Close, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
          Konecky Wotkyns LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com
                  mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com
                  tclose@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Alexis Michelle Alvarez, Esq.
          Jinny Kim, Esq.
          LEGAL AID AT WORK
          180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 864-8848
          Facsimile: (415) 593-0096
          E-mail: aalvarez@legalaidatwork.org
                  jkim@legalaidatwork.org

               - and -

          Shawna L Parks, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAWNA L. PARKS
          4470 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite 107-347
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (323) 389-9339
          Facsimile: (323) 389-9239
          E-mail: sparks@dralegal.org


SCOTTS COMPANY: Court Denies Summary Judgment in Depalma Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion denying both Parties' Motion for Summary Judgment
in the case captioned DOMINICK DEPALMA, etc., Plaintiffs, v. THE
SCOTTS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant. Civ. No. 13-7740 (KM) (JAD
(D.N.J.).

Defendant The Scotts Company, LLC (Scotts) seeks an order that the
administrative exemption from Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA)
coverage applies to the plaintiff sales managers. Plaintiffs seek
an order that the executive and administrative exemptions do not
apply to the plaintiff sales managers.

FLSA Exemptions

The FLSA establishes federal minimum-wage, maximum-hour, and
overtime guarantees that cannot be modified by contract. Generally,
an employer must pay its employees at least a minimum hourly wage
for work performed and must pay one and one-half times the
employee's regular wage for hours worked in excess of forty hours
per week. Exempt from the coverage of FLSA, however, are
white-collar salaried employees, meaning any person employed in a
bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity.

FLSA exemptions are to be given a fair (as opposed to narrow)
interpretation.

Executive exemption

The Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on the executive
exemption, arguing that Sales Managers did not customarily and
regularly supervise two or more employees, as required by 29 C.F.R.
Section 541.100(a)(3).

In opposition, the Defendant counters that there is at least an
issue of fact as to whether the Sales Managers are subject to the
executive exemption, or in the alternative that they are subject to
the combination exemption.

An employee qualified under the executive exemption is one:

"(1) Compensated on a salary basis at a rate of not less than $455
per week (2) Whose primary duty is management of the enterprise in
which the employee is employed or of a customarily recognized
department or subdivision thereof (3) Who customarily and regularly
directs the work of two or more other employees and(4) Who has the
authority to hire or fire other employees or whose suggestions and
recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or
any other change of status of other employees are given particular
weight."

On these motions, subsection (a)(3) is the primary focus. Under
(a)(3), an employee must customarily and regularly direct the work
of two or more employees. Customarily and regularly refers to
supervision that is more than occasional but may be less than
constant. A customary and regular activity includes work normally
and recurrently performed every workweek; it does not include
isolated or one-time tasks.

29 C.F.R. Section 541.100(a)(3)

The thrust of the Plaintiffs' argument against the executive
exemption is that the Sales Managers supervised the M&Cs for an
inadequate amount of time to satisfy 29 C.F.R. Section
541.100(a)(3). In support, the Plaintiffs cite depositions and the
declaration and summary chart submitted by Plaintiff's Counsel,
Seth R. Lesser.  The summary chart is purportedly based on data
provided by Defendant in discovery. In particular, Plaintiffs point
to spreadsheets identifying the hours worked by M&Cs who worked
concurrently with the Plaintiffs.
  
The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' reliance on their
counsel's declaration and summary chart is contrary to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 56(c)(4), Local Civil Rule 7.2(a), and Federal
Rule of Evidence 701(c).  

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) requires that declaration submitted in
relation to a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out
facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the
affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.
Loc. Civ. R. 7.2(a), too, requires personal knowledge, and states
that any legal arguments or summations included in a declaration
will be disregarded by the court and may subject the signatory to
the appropriate censure, sanctions or both.

Here, the Court agrees with the Plaintiffs. It is true that some
courts have exercised their discretion to exclude summary charts
under, for example, Loc. Civ. R. 7.2(a), but the Court is not bound
to do so. The reasons for offering a summary are manifest. Exhibits
14 and 15 contain data so voluminous that it was impractical even
to file it electronically on the docket.

The proponent, counsel for the plaintiffs, has gained personal
familiarity with the underlying data furnished by Scotts; the
underlying data would be admissible in evidence; and the
calculations, which involve little more than arithmetic, are within
the ken of a lay person. As required by Fed. R. Evid. 1006, the
underlying data are available to indeed, were produced by the
defendant. As contemplated by that Rule, the defendant may of
course challenge any perceived inaccuracies. If the summary remains
the subject of disagreement, it might be the subject of conflicting
testimony, perhaps even expert testimony, at trial. The background
principle remains that the underlying data in Exhibits 14 and 15
could be placed in evidence.  The indicia of admissibility, and the
fact that the chart summarizes defendant's own data, persuade me
that the Court may consider the chart, at least on summary judgment
for the purpose of determining whether there is a triable issue of
fact.

The Defendant argues with some force that the summary chart is
based on incomplete data and that its analysis is flawed. First,
the Defendant's expert disputes some of Mr. Lesser's calculations.
Second, the Defendant argues that the summary chart uses incomplete
or improperly formatted data.

Specifically, the Defendant says (1) the chart is missing a
plaintiff, Mr. Jonathan Bridges; (2) the chart arbitrarily focuses
on a 2-week pay period rather than individual work weeks; and (3)
the chart does not consider data dating from after 2016. Plaintiffs
retort that the chart is relevant and that Defendants' criticisms
do not imply that it cannot be considered.
  
The parties' dispute over the contents and significance of the
summary chart, directly implicates the key issue of how many hours
the Plaintiffs spent supervising M&Cs. The Court will therefore
deny both sides' motions for summary judgment on the issue of the
executive exemption.

Combination Exemption

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs invoke the combination
exemption.

The applicable regulation, 29 C.F.R. Section 541.100(a)(2), sets
forth the primary duty requirement of the executive exemption.
However, even if an employee does not satisfy the executive
exemption's primary duty requirement, the employee may qualify for
a so-called combination exemption. That means that if an employee
satisfies (a)(1), (a)(3) and (a)(4), but not (a)(2), the employee
may still qualify as exempt, if that employee satisfies the
combination primary-duty test.  

The Court therefore will not reach the issue of the combination
exemption at this time.

Administrative exemption

The Plaintiffs and Scotts have both moved for summary judgment on
the administrative exemption from FLSA coverage, which is distinct
from the executive exemption. Issues of fact also preclude summary
judgment on the issue of whether these Sales Managers fall under
the administrative exemption.

The administrative exemption applies to an employee:

"(1) Compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less
than $455 per week (2) Whose primary duty is the performance of
office or non-manual work directly related to the management or
general business operations of the employer or the employer's
customers and (3) Whose primary duty includes the exercise of
discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of
significance."

The Defendants assert that the Sales Managers' primary duty was
managing their territory. The Plaintiffs respond that their primary
duty was merchandising. The Plaintiffs state that they performed
merchandising work a majority of the time, and cite the testimony
of certain plaintiffs that they spent 80%-90% of their time on
merchandising.  The Defendants dispute these facts and also argue
that they are not material to the Plaintiffs' primary duties.  

To be sure, time spent on exempt work is not the sole test of a
primary activity, but it is surely probative. The primary duty test
looks at the character of the employees' job as a whole. The time
spent on a particular activity, whether exempt or non-exempt, is a
useful tool in weighing that activity's importance in the balance.
The Court therefore decline to award either side summary judgment
when there is a live factual dispute as to how much time the
Plaintiffs spent merchandising.

The motion for summary judgment of the Plaintiffs on FLSA
employee-exemption issues is denied, and the motion for summary
judgment of Defendant Scotts on FLSA employee-exemption issues is
also denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5kndaoa from Leagle.com.

DOMINICK DEPALMA, Plaintiff, represented by ALEXIS HELENE CASTILLO,
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP, 2 International Dr Ste 350, Rye Brook,
NY 10573-1066, DEREK T. BRASLOW, THE BRASLOW LAW FIRM, LLC, 230
Sugartown Road, Suite 20, Wayne, PA 19087, HARRIS L. POGUST --
hpogust@pogustmillrood.com -- POGUST, BRASLOW & MILLROOD, LLC,
SARAH OLIVIA SCHINDLER, POGUST BRASLOW & MILLROOD & SETH RICHARD
LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP, 2 International Dr Ste 350,
Rye Brook, NY 10573-1066

JOSEPH LESZCZYNSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All other
Similarly Situated Current and Former Employees, Plaintiff,
represented by ALEXIS HELENE CASTILLO, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP,
DEREK T. BRASLOW, THE BRASLOW LAW FIRM, LLC, HARRIS L. POGUST,
POGUST, BRASLOW & MILLROOD, LLC & SARAH OLIVIA SCHINDLER, POGUST
BRASLOW & MILLROOD.

THE SCOTTS COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, represented by JUSTIN TAYLOR
QUINN, ROBINSON MILLER LLC & KEITH J. MILLER, ROBINSON MILLER LLC,
One Newark Center, 19th Floor. Newark, NJ 07102


SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Court Dismisses K. Wallace FAC
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint in  the case captioned
KRYSTAL WALLACE, Plaintiff, v. SHARKNINJA OPERATING, LLC,
Defendant. Case No. 18-cv-05221-BLF. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Krystal Wallace filed this putative consumer class action
asserting warranty, unfair competition, and related claims arising
from an alleged defect in the Ninja Blenders manufactured by
Defendant SharkNinja Operating LLC.  

The Court heard the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).  The Court stated its ruling on the record, granting the
motion to dismiss with leave to amend and providing direction as to
those areas of the pleading which needed amendment.  

The Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (SAC), asserting the
same five claims set forth in the FAC. Although the Court has not
evaluated the sufficiency of the SAC, based on an initial review it
appears that Plaintiff has amended her pleading in response to the
issues articulated by the Court at the hearing.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the FAC is granted
with leave to amend, as stated on the record and memorialized
herein.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y696uezm from Leagle.com.

Krystal Wallace, Plaintiff, represented by Cody Robert Padgett --
Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law, APC, Tarek H.
Zohdy -- Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Lawyers, APC,
Trisha Kathleen Monesi -- trisha.monesi@capstonelawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC & Mark A. Ozzello --
mark.ozzello@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law, APC.

Sharkninja Operating, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability
company, Defendant, represented by Amir M. Nassihi --
anassihi@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. & Scott Donald
Kaiser -- skaiser@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy and Bacon LLP, pro hac
vice.


SKIN BAR: Duncan Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site
------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE DUNCAN AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED
v. SKIN BAR NYC, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-05188 (S.D.N.Y., June 3,
2019), arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web
site--http://www.skinbarnyc.com/--tobe fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Skin Bar NYC, LLC, is a Domestic Limited Liability Company
organized under the laws of New York with its principal office in
New York City.

The Defendant operates its spa location, as well as its Web site,
and those affiliated or directly linked, and advertises, markets,
offers and sells its spa services within the state of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick St., 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
          E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com

               - and -

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


SMARTPAY LEASING: Court Certifies "STOP" Text Message Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit SHAWN ESPARZA, on behalf of herself, and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SMARTPAY LEASING,
INC., the Defendant, Case 3:17-cv-03421-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William Alsup entered an order:

   1. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for
      class certification;

   2. appointing Shawn Esparza as class representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel Ronald Marron, Alexis Wood,
      and Kas Gallucci of the Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron as
      class counsel.

This class is certified under FRCP 23(b)(3):

   "STOP" Text Message Class: All persons within the United States

    (i) to whose cellular telephone number (ii) SmartPay Leasing,
    Inc. sent a text message (iii) using its vendor Twilio, Inc.'s

    platform (iv) from September 29, 2015 to June 13, 2017, (v)
    after texting the word "STOP."

This class definition shall apply for all purposes, including
settlement.[CC]

SMITH MEDICAL: Court Denies Bid for Class Cert. without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit William P. Sawyer, M.D., the Plaintiff,
v. Smith Medical Partners, LLC, et al. Defendant, Case No.
1:19−cv−03803 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Edmond E. Chang
entered an order on denying a motion for class certification
without prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on Friday, June 14,
2019, the Plaintiff has filed a motion for class certification, but
it is premature because none of the necessary discovery has been
finished. To the extent that Plaintiff filed the motion to prevent
mootness if the defense were to offer full relief, that is no
longer necessary, because the Seventh Circuit has overruled the
precedent on which that threat was based. Chapman v. First Index,
Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) (overruling Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011)). The motion is
denied without prejudice.

SPACE AGE COMMUNICATIONS: Garza Seeks OT Premium Pay
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Space Age
Communications, Inc. and Creative Broadband Solutions, LLC for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is
captioned GENEVIVE GARZA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF, vs. SPACE AGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
and CREATIVE BROADBAND SOLUTIONS, LLC, DEFENDANTS, Case No.
5:19-cv-00700 (W.D. Tex., June 17, 2019). The complaint alleges
that the Defendants failed to pay overtime premium for hours that
Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week. It also asserts that the
Defendants purposely classified Plaintiff and other cable
installers as independent contractors. After deducting for expenses
related to the operation of Plaintiff's vehicle in the course of
performing job duties for Defendants, Plaintiff's pay regularly
fell below the minimum wages required by the FLSA and AMWA.

Space Age Communications, Inc. is a domestic, for-profit
corporation.  The company conducts business within the state of
Texas, providing telecommunication installation and construction
services within the state of Texas, as well as outside of the State
of Texas. Its principal address is 1823 Knickerbocker Road, San
Angelo, Texas. Based in San Marcos, Texas, Creative Broadband
Solutions, LLC is a domestic limited liability company that
provides cable and satellite television installation services
within the state of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPEEDY CASH: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in C. Delisle Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion for
Arbitration in the case captioned CINDY DELISLE and ROBERT
DOUGHERTY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. SPEEDY CASH, Defendant. Case No.
3:18-CV-2042-GPC-RBB. (S.D. Cal.).

Speedy Cash offers loans through its physical stores, as well as
through online loan portals. Plaintiffs Cindy Delisle and Robert
Dougherty (Plaintiffs) filed a First Amended Complaint alleging a
putative class action against Defendant Speedy Cash on behalf of
themselves and all others similar situated.  Plaintiffs assert
claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL)  and
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

The Loan Agreements entered into by Plaintiffs were drafted by
Speedy Cash, and both Plaintiffs aver that they were not given an
opportunity to negotiate any terms. The Loan Agreements contain an
arbitration provision, which obligated both Speedy Cash and its
customer to arbitrate any claim, dispute or controversy between you
and us, that arises from or relates in any way to this Agreement or
any services you request or we provide under this Agreement.

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies when arbitration
agreements meet two conditions: (1) the agreement is in writing and
(2) the agreement is part of a contract evidencing a transaction
involving commerce.

Here, it is undisputed that the Arbitration Provision is in
writing, is part of a contract evidencing a transaction involving
commerce within the meaning of the FAA, and encompasses the claims
alleged by the Plaintiffs in this action.  

Plaintiffs allege that the Arbitration Provision is unenforceable
and invalid under California law for being procedurally and
substantively unconscionable. The Court notes that the party
asserting a state-law defense against arbitration, here,
Plaintiffs, bears the burden of proving the defense applies.  

Choice of Law Dispute

At the threshold, the Court notes that the parties dispute whether
Kansas's or California's law should govern issues related to
contract formation and validity. The choice-of-law issue matters
because California law provides heightened protections against
unconscionable contracts, whereas Kansas law is less protective.  

Speedy Cash posits that Kansas law applies because the Arbitration
Provision expressly stipulates that Kansas law is to be applied
with respect to the enforceability of the Arbitration Provision.
Plaintiffs argue that California law should be applied under
Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.4th 459, 466 (1992),
because California has materially greater interest than Kansas in
the enforcement of its more protective laws.

Here, the Court finds that Kansas, as the chosen state, has a
substantial relationship to Speedy Cash and that a reasonable basis
exists for the parties' choice of law. Speedy Cash maintains its
headquarters in Kansas, and Plaintiffs acknowledge that Speedy Cash
maintains ten branch offices there. That fact is sufficient to
sustain the parties' stipulated chosen state for the first part of
the Nedlloyd analysis.  

Next, the Court addresses the second prong of the Nedlloyd
analysis, i.e., whether Kansas's law is contrary to a fundamental
policy of California. Plaintiffs assert California has a material
and fundamental interest in maintaining a pathway to public
injunctive relief in unfair competition cases, as evinced by UCL
section 17204 and as reaffirmed by the California Supreme Court in
McGill. Speedy Cash does not dispute that California considers the
availability of public injunctive relief an issue of fundamental
importance; it argues only that McGill is inapplicable to this case
or preempted on the merits.   

Because the parties do not dispute that California has a weighty
interest in maintaining the availability public injunctive relief
for UCL claims, and because both the Plaintiffs in this case
obtained their loans in California and press claims under
California consumer protection statutes, the Court determines that
California has a materially greater interest than Kansas in
employing its laws to resolve the instant dispute.

The Court will apply California law.

The Arbitration Provision is Unconscionable

Plaintiffs provide two main arguments for why the Arbitration
Provision cannot stand. First, they argue that the Arbitration
Provision is procedurally unconscionable. Second, they argue that
the waiver of public injunctive relief in Section 5 is
substantively unconscionable under McGill, which, if true, would
nullify the entirety of the Arbitration Provision.

The Court addresses these arguments in turn.

Procedural Unconscionability

Procedural unconscionability concerns the manner in which the
contract was negotiated and the respective circumstances of the
parties at the time.

Plaintiffs argue that the Loan Agreements were procedurally
unconscionable because they were provided to them on a take it or
leave it basis, and that they were not afforded an opportunity to
review their terms before signing. Similarly, they contend that
because Speedy Cash was the party with the only negotiating power,
the Loan Agreements are classic, and unconscionable contracts of
adhesion. Speedy Cash argues that there was no procedural
unconscionability or unfair surprise because the Arbitration
Provision permitted Plaintiffs to opt-out of binding arbitration
within 30 days of signing the contract.

It is undisputed that neither Ms. Delisle nor Mr. Dougherty
exercised their rights to reject arbitration within the 30
allotted. But that fact alone is not dispositive. Speedy Cash cites
Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1075-76 (9th
Cir. 2013), for the proposition that the 30-day opt-out provision
immunizes the Arbitration Provision from a procedural
unconscionability challenge. However, as discussed in Mohammed v.
Uber Techs., Inc., 848 F.3d 1201, 1211-11 (9th Cir. 2016), opt-out
provisions which would require plaintiffs to waive statutory causes
of action before they knew any such claims existed" are
unenforceable.
  
Here, Plaintiffs were required to opt out of arbitration before any
dispute existed. The Court finds that there were elements of
procedural unconscionability, notwithstanding the 30-day opt out
provision.

Substantive Unconscionability

Substantive unconscionability focuses on the terms of the agreement
and whether those terms are so one-sided as to shock the
conscience. In California, mandatory waivers of non-waivable
statutory rights are viewed as inherently suspect, since they
present the sort of one-sided and overly-harsh terms that render an
arbitration provision substantively unconscionable. Because the
parties' contentions turn on whether the rule in McGill, i.e., that
predispute waivers of public injunctive relief is unenforceable as
matter of California public policy is preempted by the FAA, the
Court now turns to examine the decision in detail.

The Arbitration Provision prohibits public injunctive relief in any
forum

Plaintiffs locate the waiver of public injunctive relief in Section
5(D). Section 5(D) disallows Plaintiffs from acting as a private
attorney general in court or in arbitration.  Defendants, on the
other hand, locate the waiver in Section 5(E), which prohibits
Plaintiffs from joining or consolidating claim(s) involving you
with claims involving any other person.  Regardless of which
specific subsection of Section 5 applies, there is no disagreement
among the parties that the Arbitration Provision encompasses this
dispute and that it prohibits Plaintiffs from seeking public
injunctive relief in any forum, arbitral or judicial.

McGill is not preempted by the FAA

Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot avail themselves of the
rule in McGill because McGill is preempted by the FAA under AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), because public
injunctive relief is hostile to the fundamental attributes of
arbitration. Plaintiffs contend that McGill is not preempted,
largely for the same reasons as stated by the Ninth Circuit in
Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir.
2015), with respect to waivers of California Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA) actions.

The Court holds that McGill is not subject to preemption.

FAA Preemption Principles

While the FAA contains no express preemptive provision and does not
"reflect a congressional intent to occupy the entire field of
arbitration, it does preempt state law to the extent that it
`stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the
full purposes and objectives of Congress. The Supreme Court has
held that the FAA was enacted in response to counteract widespread
judicial hostility to arbitration agreements and embodies a liberal
federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, notwithstanding any
state substantive or procedural policies to the contrary. The FAA
espouses this principle through Section 2, which provides that a
written provision in a contract to settle by arbitration a
controversy thereafter arising out of such contract shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
law or equity for the revocation of any contract.

At the same time, the final clause of Section 2, the FAA's savings
clause, permits agreements to arbitrate to be invalidated by
generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or
unconscionability, but not by defenses that apply only to
arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an
agreement to arbitrate is at issue. To fall within the saving
clause, the state-law invalidity doctrine must be a ground for the
revocation of any contract and generally applicable, in the sense
that the state law must not single out arbitration agreements for
unfavorable treatment.  Even if a state-law rule is generally
applicable, it is preempted if it stands as an obstacle to the
accomplishment of the FAA's objectives.

McGill

In McGill, the California Supreme Court considered the
enforceability of a contractual provision waiving the right to seek
public injunctive relief in any forum.

The first part of the opinion held that waivers of public
injunctive relief were contrary to California law. McGill
determined that by definition, the public injunctive relief
available under the UCL, the CLRA, and the false advertising law is
primarily for the benefit of the general public, rather than to
resolve private disputes. Thus, McGill concluded that predispute
contracts purporting to waive the right to seek the statutory
remedy of public injunctive relief in any forum are contrary to
public policy and thus unenforceable under California law.

In the second part, as an initial matter, McGill observed that the
rule precluding waivers of statutes intended for public benefit,
i.e., California Civil Code Section 3513 was one of general
application and did not derive its meaning from the fact that an
agreement to arbitrate is at issue. Thus, because it operated
equally in arbitral and judicial fora, its application to waivers
of public injunctive relief fell within the FAA's savings clause
for generally-applicable contract invalidation doctrines.  

McGill's Reception in Federal Court

Courts siding with McGill have taken pains to furnish the
Concepcion analysis missing in McGill.They have generally relied on
Sakkab, 803 F.3d 425, as a reference point for their preemption
analysis. In Sakkab, the Ninth Circuit was asked to decide whether
the rule in Iskanian v. CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th
348 (2014), which invalidated as against public policy waivers of
PAGA actions, was subject to preemption. Sakkab examined whether
the Iskanian rule conflicted with the FAA's purposes, and "whether
the waived claims mandate procedures that interfere with
arbitration.

Sakkab determined that Iskanian was not preempted because
arbitrations under PAGA do not by necessity mandate onerous
procedures that would interfere with the fundamental attributes of
arbitration. Unlike class actions, PAGA does not provide a right
for others to join in the action, so there was no need to protect
absent employees' due process rights in PAGA arbitrations and
accordingly no cumbersome class action procedures, like notice and
certification requirements, which would impede the arbitration of
PAGA claims.

Courts that have considered claims for public injunctive relief
under section 17204 have found them highly similar to PAGA claims
for preemption purposes and extended the reasoning in Sakkab to
McGill.  

As is true of PAGA claims, claims seeking public injunctive relief
do not necessarily require the procedural complexities of class
claims.There is no notice to the public, no opportunity for others
to join, and no concern for others' due process rights. Because the
issues of class notice and multi-faceted elements which inform
class certification particularly under Rule 23(b)(3) do not obtain
where a public injunction is sought under 17200, there are no
concerns here about forcing the procedures of class actions onto
arbitration.  

Because any logic which immunizes a contract defense precluding
PAGA waivers from preemption applies with equal force to a rule
prohibiting public injunctive relief waivers, most district courts
have applied Sakkab to the McGill rule.

Speedy Cash's preemption arguments are addressed by Sakkab

With Sakkab on the books, McGill's survival is almost ineluctable;
all of the preemption arguments raised by Speedy Cash find some
retort in Sakkab.

For example, Speedy Cash claims that arbitrating public injunctive
claims would sacrifice arbitration's informality and render it akin
to a class action which is slower, more costly, and more likely to
generate procedural morass. It argues that public injunction
proceedings may necessitate a sprawling evidentiary inquiry
relating to injury for non-parties, and the likelihood of future
injury to the public.

But as Sakkab pointed out in the PAGA context, the potential
complexity of PAGA actions is a direct result of how an employer's
liability is measured under the statute potential complexity should
not suffice to ward off arbitration' where, as here, the complexity
flows from the substance of the claim itself, rather than any
procedures required to adjudicate it as with class actions.

Here, the requested injunction is for a cessation of loans extended
at a higher than 90% APR, and corrective advertising. Thus, in the
instant case, the public evidentiary inquiry will likely be
particularly straightforward, consisting, e.g., of advertising
common to all relevant markets and  customer agreements common to
all relevant markets.  

Speedy Cash also asserts that claims for public injunctive relief
interfere with fundamental attributes of arbitration because they
greatly increases risks to defendants. The idea is that claims for
public injunctive relief could fundamentally alter Speedy Cash's
core business practices in a way that individual claims would not.
The greater risk inheres because the risk of an error, which the
defendant might be able to stomach in an individualized arbitral
proceeding will often become unacceptable when magnified in a
public injunctive relief setting where no judicial review is
possible.  

Speedy Cash's attempt to distinguish PAGA actions from public
injunctive relief under section 17204 is also unavailing. Speedy
Cash insists that Sakkab was uniquely predicated on the fact that
there is no need to protect absent employee's due process rights in
PAGA arbitrations.  But, as other courts have held, there is little
difference between PAGA and public injunctive relief in this
regard; neither is subject to the procedural morass which clings to
Rule 23.  If anything, PAGA actions bear a stronger similarity to
class actions than public injunctive relief; they are
representative actions wherein third parties are affected as they
may be bound by a PAGA judgment.

In contrast, despite the intended public impact of public
injunctive relief, litigants under section 17204 file the lawsuit
or action on his or her own behalf, not `on behalf of the general
public.

As the foregoing demonstrates, Sakkab effectively controls the
instant dispute over waivers of public injunctive relief.
Accordingly, the Court will follow the path charted by its sister
courts and conclude that McGill is not preempted under Concepcion.

Speedy Cash's motion to compel arbitration and to stay proceedings
is DENIED.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/yxjhbbno from Leagle.com.

Cindy Delisle, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Ahren A. Tiller --
ahren.tiller@blc-sd.com -- BLC Law Center, APC, Joshua B. Swigart
--  josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart, Jason A. Ibey
-- jason@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC & Nicholas Ryan
Barthel -- nicholas@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group APC.

Robert Dougherty, Plaintiff, represented by Ahren A. Tiller, BLC
Law Center, APC.
Speedy Cash, Defendant, represented by James Barton Manley, Jr. --

james.manley@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice,
Lindsey Bowen Mann --  lindsey.mann@troutman.com -- Troutman
Sanders LLP, pro hac vice, Paul L. Gale -- paul.gale@troutman.com
-- Troutman Sanders & William Alexander Smith --
alex.smith@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP, pro hac vice.


SPORTSBET: Responds to Punters' Proposed Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Fraser Coast Chronicle reports that Sportsbet has paid out punters
after being dragged into a betting controversy by fuming punters.

The online bookmaker initially voided mulit-bets which included no
player getting more than 40 disposals in AFL matches over the
weekend.

A Twitter page named "Sportsbet Lawsuit" sprouted up claiming it
had "enquired" with Slater and Gordon to launch a class action. One
punter posted a screenshot of a multi bet worth $30,223 in winnings
that hadn't been paid out.

Sportsbet admitted they made a "rare pricing error" and confirmed
they would be paying out customers at the correct odds.

"We made a rare pricing error," a Sportsbet spokesman told
news.com.au.

"We picked the error up early -- well in advance of the AFL round -
and notified our customers and returned their funds in line with
our terms and conditions.

"In recognition of missing the mark, we're going to reinstate our
customers' bets and pay them at the correct odds. We apologise to
the small number of customers who were impacted."

It comes barely a week after Sportsbet grabbed headlines over an
election payout slip-up.

The agency, and most of Australia, was so sure of a Labor win it
opted to reward punters two days ahead of the votes being counted.

Over $1.3 million was paid out to those who threw money behind Bill
Shorten and the Labor Party.

It's worth noting one of the main reasons betting agencies pay out
punters early is so they reinvest the money into another event, a
tactic that has proved extremely successful.

But the real loss to the agency came from paying out those who bet
on Scott Morrison and the Coalition to win.

At one point, odds on the Coalition had hit $7.50.

Seven out of every 10 bets relating to the federal election were
put on Labor winning, with Sportsbet previously boasting that
punters had backed the party into "Winx-like odds of $1.16". [GN]


SPRINKLES CUPCAKES: Duncan Alleges Violation under ADA
------------------------------------------------------
Sprinkles Cupcakes NY, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Eugene Duncan and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sprinkles Cupcakes NY, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-05662 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019).

Sprinkles Cupcakes Inc. operates a chain of bakeries. The company
offers cupcakes, cupcake mixes, and other retail items. It also
provides custom sugar decorations for corporate events and wedding
parties. The company was founded in 2005 and is based in Beverly
Hills, California. It has locations in Beverly Hills, Chicago,
Dallas, Georgetown, The Grove, Houston, La Jolla, Los Angeles, New
York, Newport Beach, Palo Alto, and Scottsdale.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com



ST. DAVID'S HEALTHCARE: Mock Suit Moved to Western Dist. of Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Melanie Mock on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. St. David's Healthcare
Partnership, L.P., a Texas Limited Liability Partnership, the
Defendant, Case No. D-1-GN-19-002790, was removed from the 419th
District Court of Travis County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas (Austin) on June 13, 2019. The
Western District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00611-RP to the proceeding. The suit seeks a demand of
$5,000,000,000. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Robert
Pitman.

St. David's Healthcare provides medical and surgical hospital
services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Barry L. Kramer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BARRY KRAMER
          9550 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 253
          Las Vegas, NV 89123
          Telephone: (702) 778-6090

               - and -

          Daniel E. Blumberg, Esq.
          Peter F. Bagley, Esq.
          BLUMBERG BAGLEY PLLC
          2304 Interstate 20 West, Suite 190
          Arlington, TX 76017
          Telephone: (817) 277-1500
          Facsimile: (817) 277-1170
          E-mail: peter@blumbergbagley.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          James Patrick Bredehoft, Esq.
          William M. Katz, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON & KNIGHT, LLP
          One Arts Plaza
          1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 969-1395
          Facsimile: (214) 969-1751
          E-mail: patrick.bredehoft@tklaw.com
                  william.katz@tklaw.com

STATE FARM: Court Directs Revised Class Notice Plan in Stuart Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Texarkana Division, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Order Approving
Class Notice Plan and Class in the case captioned Notice. JAMES
STUART and CAREDA L. HOOD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY, Defendant. Case No. 4:14-cv-4001. (W.D. Ark.).

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant unlawfully depreciated
labor in calculating their payment obligations under the parties'
homeowner's insurance contracts. The Plaintiffs allege that
Arkansas law in place at the time prohibited an insurance company
from depreciating the cost of labor. The Plaintiffs claim that, by
depreciating this cost in initial actual cash value payments made
to insureds, the Defendant breached its contract with the
Plaintiffs.

For any class certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3), courts must direct to class members the best notice that
is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice
to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort.
Because an action maintained as a class suit under Rule 23 has res
judicata effect on all members of the class, constitutional due
process requires that the class be provided the best notice
practicable, reasonably calculated, under all of the circumstances,
to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and
afford them an opportunity to present their objections and must
afford a reasonable time for those interested to make their
appearance.

To that end, the class notice must clearly and concisely state in
plain, easily understood language the following: (1) the nature of
the action (2) the definition of the class certified (3) the class
claims; (4) that a class member may enter an appearance through an
attorney if so desired (5) that the court will exclude from the
class those members who request exclusion (6) the time and manner
for requesting exclusion and (7) the binding effect of a class
judgment on members.   Providing class notice is not an exact
science, however, and the specific mechanics of the notice process
are left to the discretion of the court, subject only to the broad
`reasonableness' standards imposed by due process.

The Defendant objects to portions of the Plaintiffs' proposed Class
Notice Plan. Specifically, the Defendant takes issue with the
following five aspects of the proposed plan: (1) the placement of a
banner on the Defendant's website (2) that class members may only
opt out of the class via letter (3) the length of the opt-out
period (4) the requirement that the Defendant must compile the
class members' information, including each policy number, in a
digital spreadsheet format resembling the Plaintiffs' Exhibit D;
and (5) that the proposed Class Notice Plan does not address who
bears the cost of the notice process.

The Court will discuss each challenged item in turn.

Website Banner

The major fighting point of Plaintiffs' proposed Class Notice Plan
is the requirement that the Defendant place a banner on its
website, located at the top of the screen after an existing
customer logs into the payment portal, which will be accessible
both via computer and on Defendant's mobile app. The website banner
would state that a class action lawsuit may affect the rights of
State Farm insureds who received an actual cash value payment for a
covered loss to a dwelling or structure in Arkansas between May 1,
2010, and December 6, 2013. The banner would also link to the class
website maintained by the third-party administrator.

The Defendant objects on several grounds, arguing that the website
banner: (1) is unnecessary because individual notice may be
accomplished for most, if not all class members; (2) is unfairly
prejudicial and could have significant negative effects on the
Defendant's business; (3) would be seen by an overly inclusive
group of customers and could confuse Defendant's nationwide
customer base; and (4) is inconsistent with notice plans this Court
has approved in prior labor depreciation class action cases.

The Plaintiffs argue that the website banner is not unnecessary
because it would serve as a supplemental form of notice. Plaintiffs
also argue that Defendant has provided no evidence that a website
banner would negatively impact Defendant's business and that
Defendant has already generated ample media coverage and publicity
of this case by appealing the Court's class certification order.

Individual notice is required for all members who can be identified
through reasonable effort. However, publication notice is often
used as a supplement to individualized notice.  Although
publication notice has traditionally been accomplished through
newspaper ads, the Internet is increasingly becoming an acceptable
avenue for accomplishing publication notice. Publication notice via
the Internet is a useful supplement to individual notice, might be
provided at a relatively low cost, and will become increasingly
useful as the percentage of the population that regularly relies on
the Internet for information increases. Accordingly, many courts
include the Internet as a component of class certification and
class notice programs.

District courts within the Eighth Circuit have approved the use of
targeted banner ads on high-traffic, third-party websites in
nationwide class action cases. However, it seems to be unsettled in
this circuit whether a class notice plan can call for a website
banner to be placed on the defendant's own website. The parties
cite to various cases from nonbinding jurisdictions regarding the
propriety of requiring a defendant do so, but neither party points
the Court to authority from any court within the Eighth Circuit
discussing the same.

Upon careful consideration and for the reasons that follow, the
Court finds that Defendants have not offered a sufficient reason to
warrant removal of the website banner from Plaintiffs' proposed
Class Notice Plan, and the Court will address each argument in
turn.

The Court finds meritless Defendant's contention that the website
banner could be viewed by Defendant's customers nationwide and,
thus, is improperly overinclusive. Placement of a banner ad on a
nationally accessible website is a form of publication notice.
Thus, this argument fails to warrant removal of the website banner
from the proposed Class Notice Plan.

In sum, the Court finds that inclusion of the proposed website
banner constitutes reasonable notice, as contemplated by Rule 23.
The Court declines to modify this aspect of the proposed Class
Notice Plan.

Opt-Out Method

The Plaintiffs' proposed Class Notice Plan allows class members to
opt out of the class only by mailing to the third-party
administrator a letter stating the case name, the class member's
name, address, telephone number, and signature, along with a
sentence expressly stating that the individual wishes to be
excluded from the class.  

The Defendant objects, arguing that class members should also be
able to opt out of the class via email. The Defendant argues that
allowing opt outs only via letter creates an unnecessary hurdle to
opting out. Defendant also argues that the ability to opt out via
email will be convenient for class members who might wish to opt
out but have neither the time nor the inclination to go to the post
office and pay money to send an opt-out letter.

The Plaintiffs argue that allowing opt outs only by mail is a
standard practice in class actions before this Court and other
courts. Plaintiffs argue further that Defendant has agreed in
other, unrelated class action cases to a letter-only opt-out
process. Accordingly, Plaintiffs argue that their opt-out process
is proper and should be utilized as proposed.

"[D]ue process requires at a minimum that a class member be
provided with an opportunity to remove himself from the class by
executing and returning an opt out' or request for exclusion' form
to the court." Rule 23 is not instructive on the precise mechanism
required to accomplish this.  

The Court is not convinced that a letter-only opt-out mechanism
would present an unnecessary hurdle that would deprive the class
members of their due process rights to notice. Upon receiving
notice, all class members would have an opportunity to remove
themselves from the class by timely sending in a letter that
complies with the opt-out requirements of the proposed Class Notice
Plan.  Therefore, Plaintiffs' proposed opt-out mechanism provides
necessary due process to class members and an additional email
opt-out component is unnecessary in this case.

The Court declines to modify this aspect of the proposed Class
Notice Plan.

Opt-Out Period

The Plaintiff's proposed opt-out period lasts for sixty days,
beginning after the third-party administrator begins the mailing
and publication notice process. Defendant objects, arguing that the
proposed opt-out period is too short. To illustrate, Defendant
poses various hypothetical situations in which a class member
receives notice roughly a month into the notice process, such as
seeing only the fourth and final newspaper publication or receiving
the mailed individual notice only after the first mailing attempt
is returned as undeliverable.

For each hypothetical situation, Defendant states that the class
member would have just over a month to decide whether to opt out of
the class, which Defendant argues is an inadequate period to make
that decision and act accordingly. Defendant argues that the Court
should instead place the opt-out deadline at least ninety days from
the date of mailing class notice.

The Plaintiffs argue that their proposed opt-out deadline comports
with various deadlines set by the Court in other cases. Plaintiffs
also argue that, even in Defendants' hypothetical situations, the
class member receiving notice would have at least thirty days to
decide whether to opt out, which provides sufficient due process.

Notice to a class must inform them that they may opt out of the
class and notice must also indicate the time and manner for
requesting exclusion.  Class members must be given a reasonable
time to opt out, with courts usually establishing a period of
thirty to sixty days or longer if appropriate following mailing or
publication of notice.

Upon consideration, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs. The sixty day
opt-out period in the proposed Class Notice Plan provides enough
time for class members to decide whether to opt out of the class.
Even in Defendant's hypothetical situation where a class member
receives notice roughly a month after the initial mailing date, the
class member would still have at least thirty days to decide
whether to opt out and to mail a letter requesting exclusion if
they so desire. Plaintiffs' proposed opt-out period satisfies the
requirements of due process in light of the circumstances of this
case.  

The Court declines to modify this aspect of the proposed Class
Notice Plan.

Policy Number and Electronic Format

The proposed Class Notice Plan provides that Defendant shall
compile, in an electronic format substantively similar to
Plaintiffs' Exhibit D, the following information for all persons
who meet the Class Definition from the period of May 1, 2010,
through December 6, 2013: first and last name, last known mailing
address, last known email address, policy and claim numbers, and
date of covered loss.

The Defendant objects to the extent that it must provide each class
member's policy number, and to the extent that it must compile the
information in a format substantively similar to the Plaintiffs'
Exhibit D. The Defendant states that it and Plaintiffs previously
agreed that it would provide the above-listed information, with
exception of policy numbers, and that Plaintiffs are now
unnecessarily demanding the policy numbers.

The Plaintiffs argue that their request for policy numbers is not
overly burdensome to the Defendant, as it has already gathered the
policy numbers when responding to discovery requests. Plaintiffs
also state that Defendant could easily append the policy numbers to
the existing data.

The Plaintiffs have offered no argument or explanation as to why
Defendant must provide the requested data in the specific
column-and-row spreadsheet format seen in Exhibit D to the proposed
Class Notice Plan. Defendant has made no attempt to explain or
illustrate what its reasonably usable spreadsheet format is or how
it differs from Plaintiffs' Exhibit D, but the Court presumes that
it is an electronic format that would be usable by the third-party
administrator.  

Changing course now, the Court finds that Defendant shall provide
each class member's policy number in addition to the other
requested information. Defendant provides no compelling argument
why it cannot also provide the policy numbers and, in light of
Defendant's concession that it already gathered the policy numbers
to respond to discovery requests, the Court agrees that it will be
a relatively simple task for Defendant to add the policy numbers to
the existing information.

Thus, the Court declines to modify this particular aspect of the
proposed Class Notice Plan.

Cost of Notice Plan

The proposed Class Notice Plan does not specify who will bear the
cost of the notice process.

The Defendant objects to this omission and asks the Court to modify
the plan to specify that Plaintiffs shall bear the entire cost of
the notice process. Plaintiffs state that they are willing to pay
for the notice process on the front end, to be assessed against
Defendant as costs later if Plaintiffs ultimately prevail.

The usual rule is that a plaintiff must initially bear the cost of
notice to the class. However, some district courts have shifted
notice costs once the defendant's liability has been established.

In this case, the Court sees no circumstance that warrants shifting
notice costs onto Defendant.  

The Court finds that Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion for Order Approving
Class Notice Plan and Class Notice should be and hereby is GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

The Court approves the form and substance of Plaintiffs' proposed
Class Notice Plan and its attendant exhibits  subject to the
implementation of the revisions outlined in this order. The Court
finds that, as will be revised, Plaintiffs' proposed Class Notice
Plan provides the best notice that is practicable under the
circumstances and provides for individual notice to all class
members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The Court
further finds that the exhibits, as will be revised, clearly and
concisely state the requisite matters set forth in Rule
23(c)(2)(B)(i)-(vii) in plain, easily understood language. Thus,
the proposed Class Notice Plan, as will be revised, meets or
exceeds the requirements for due process.

The Plaintiffs are directed to remove from the Class Notice Plan
and exhibits all references to former Plaintiff Dennington and
former Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company, and to
change all instances of Defendants to Defendant. Plaintiffs are
also DIRECTED to remove Exhibit D and any references thereto from
the Class Notice Plan, and to revise the Class Notice Plan to
require that Defendant provide the identifying data on class
members in an electronic spreadsheet format that may be used by the
third-party administrator. Plaintiffs are further directed to
revise the Class Notice Plan to state that Plaintiffs will bear the
initial cost of providing notice to the class.

If the revised plan accurately incorporates the changes outlined in
this order,10 the Court will then enter an order appointing a
third-party administrator and directing the parties, their counsel,
and the third-party administrator to effectuate the terms of the
revised Class Notice Plan.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5yd4567 from Leagle.com.

Jeff Dennington, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & James Stuart, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by D. Matt Keil,
Attorney at Law, 406 Walnut St., Texarkana, AR 71854, George L.
McWilliams, Law Office of George L. McWilliams, P.C.

Century Bank Plaza, 2900 St. Michael Drive Suite 400Texarkana, TX
75503, James M. Pratt, Jr., James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A., 144 W
Washington St, Camden, AR 71701, Jason Earnest Roselius --
jason@mroklaw.com -- Mattingly & Roselius, John C. Goodson, Keil &
Goodson, Post Office Box 618, Texarkana, AR 75504- 0618, William B.
Putman, Putman Law Office, 3900 N. Front St., Ste. 101,
Fayetteville, AR 72703, A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Murphy, Thompson,
Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, 555 E Main S #200, Batesville, AR
72501, Jack Austin Mattingly, Jr. -- jackjr@mroklaw.com --
Mattingly Roselius PLLC

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by
John E. Moore -- john.moore@mrmblaw.com -- Munson, Rowlett, Moore &
Boone, P.A., Ryan P. Poscablo -- rposcablo@rshc-law.com -- Riley
Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Beverly A. Rowlett --
beverly.rowlett@mrmblaw.com -- Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone,
P.A., Heidi Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer
Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Jacob Kahn --
jkahn@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes Cancila LLP, Joseph A.
Cancila, Jr.  -- jcancila@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes &
Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Nick Kahlon -nkahlon@schiffhardin.com --
Schiff Hardin LLP, pro hac vice & Tal C. Chaiken --
tchaiken@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac
vice.


STATE FARM: Settlement in Durant Suit Has Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Final Approval on
Class Action Settlement in the case captioned BRETT DURANT, On
Behalf of Himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign
automobile insurance company, Defendant. No. 2-15-CV-01710-RAJ.
(W.D. Wash.).

The Court adopts the class definition agreed upon for the purposes
of the proposed settlement, and confirms certification, for
purposes of settlement only, of the Settlement Class pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), defined as all State Farm
insureds in the state of Washington who, from April 19, 2008 to
June 15, 2018, had a Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claim for
medical or hospital benefits denied, terminated or limited by State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) on the
grounds that they had reached Maximum Medical Improvement, using an
Explanation of Review form referencing Reason Codes SF546, SF 536
or SF537.

The Court finds that the Notice provided to the Settlement Class
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement and the Preliminary Approval
Order (Dkt. #110) and consisting of first-class U.S. mail sent
directly to members of the Settlement Class, and a settlement
website, together with toll free telephone line has been successful
and was (1) the best notice practicable under the circumstances,
(2) constituted notice that was reasonably calculated, under the
circumstances, to apprise the Settlement Class of the pendency of
the Litigation and their rights to object to and/or exclude
themselves from the Settlement Agreement and to appear at the Final
Approval Hearing; (3) was reasonable and constituted due, adequate,
and sufficient notice to all individuals entitled to receive
notice; and (4) fulfilled all requirements of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Due Process Clause, and the rules of the
Court.

The Court finds that the Class Representative and Class Counsel
adequately represented the Settlement Class for the purposes of
litigating this matter and entering into and implementing the
Settlement Agreement.

Accordingly, the Settlement is hereby finally approved in all
respects, and the Parties and their counsel are hereby directed to
implement and consummate the Settlement Agreement according to its
terms and provisions. The Settlement Agreement is hereby
incorporated into this Final Judgment in full and shall have the
full force of an Order of this Court.

This Court dismisses the Litigation on the merits and with
prejudice.

The Court adjudges that the payment of $4,625,000.00 in attorneys'
fees and litigation expenses in the amount of $48,239.00 (Fee
Award) is fair and reasonable for the following reasons and those
stated in Court. In assessing the requested attorneys' fees, the
Court has considered the relief achieved for the Settlement Class,
the time and effort devoted by Class Counsel as demonstrated by
their sworn declaration, and the complexity of the legal and
factual issues involved. The Court finds that the Fee Award to
Class Counsel identified above is fair and reasonable under both a
common fund approach and a lodestar approach.

The Court further adjudges that the payment of an incentive award
in the amount of $10,000.00 (Incentive Award) to Mr. Durant to
compensate him for his efforts and commitment on behalf of the
Settlement Class is fair, reasonable, and justified under the
circumstances of this case.  
The Court hereby approves payment from the Gross Settlement Amount
of the administrative expenses of Rust Consulting, which are
currently estimated to amount to $46,970.00.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4tvl53c from Leagle.com.

Brett Durant, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Tyler K. Firkins --
tfirkins@vansiclen.com -- VAN SICLEN STOCKS & FIRKINS & David A.
Nauheim -- david@nauheimlaw.com -- NAUHEIM LAW OFFICE.  

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a foreign
automobile insurance company, Defendant, represented by David
Dworsky -- ddworsky@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER &
HAMPTON, pro hac vice, Frank Falzetta --
ffalzetta@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON,
pro hac vice, Gregory S. Worden -- Gregory.Worden@lewisbrisbois.com
-- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, Jennifer M. Hoffman --
jhoffman@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON,
pro hac vice & Laura Hawes Young -- Laura.Young@lewisbrisbois.com
--  LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP.


STELLAR DRILLING: Whittington Seeks OT Pay for Mud Engineers
------------------------------------------------------------
JACK WHITTINGTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. STELLAR DRILLING FLUIDS,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02128 (S.D. Tex., June 13,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
from Stellar Drilling Fluids, LLC under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Whittington worked for Stellar as a Mud Engineer. He and the other
workers like him regularly worked for Stellar in excess of 40 hours
each week. But these workers never received overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Stellar
improperly classified Whittington and those similarly situated
workers as independent contractors and paid them a daily rate with
no overtime compensation.

Stellar also never paid Whittington and those similarly situated
workers a salary. Mud Engineers are also sometimes referred to as
Drilling Fluid Engineers, the lawsuit says.

Stellar is a drilling fluids company servicing the oil and natural
gas exploration and production industry and operating throughout
the United States, including Texas, New Mexico, Louisiana, and
Oklahoma.[BN]

Attorneys in Charge for Plaintiff are:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          William R. Liles, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  wliles@mybackwages.com

               - and -

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

STEVENS TANKER: Cundiff Seeks OT Pay for Dispatchers, Coordinators
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Stevens Tanker
Division, LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). The case is captioned CHARLES CUNDIFF, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF, v. STEVENS
TANKER DIVISION, LLC, DEFENDANT, Case No. 5:19-cv-00683 (W.D. Tex.,
June 14, 2019). Plaintiff Charles Cundiff alleges that Defendant
Stevens Tanker Division, LLC has violated the FLSA by
misclassifying its dispatchers and sand coordinators as exempt from
the overtime requirements of the FLSA. Defendant's dispatchers and
sand coordinators, including Plaintiff, work more than forty hours
per week but are paid no overtime.

Stevens Tanker Division, LLC is a domestic limited liability
company formed and existing under the laws of the state of Texas.
The company provides oil field services to its customers, including
transporting liquids to and from oil and gas well sites and
providing miscellaneous oil field services such as frack tank
rentals, delivery and pick up of frack tanks, winch services,
removal of drilling mud and pulling bottoms of water tanks to
remove sludge. It employs dispatchers to ensure its fleet operates
safely and efficiently. Defendant also employs Sand Coordinators
who are tasked with directing the delivery and offloading of frack
sand at the well sites. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
     MORELAND VERRETT, PC
     2901 Bee Cave Rd, Box L
     Austin, TX 78746
     Telephone: (512) 782-0567
     Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
     E-mail: doug@morelandlaw.com


SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Bens BBQ Files Civil Rights Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against County of Suffolk.
The case is styled as Bens BBQ, Inc. doing business as: Bobbique,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
County of Suffolk, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03584 (E.D. N.Y.,
June 18, 2019).

The lawsuit arises under Civil Rights Act.

Suffolk County is a predominantly suburban county in Long Island
and the easternmost county in the U.S. state of New York. As of the
2010 census, the county's population was 1,493,350, estimated to
have decreased slightly to 1,492,953 in 2017, making it the
fourth-most populous county in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher Adam Bianco, Esq.
   Egan & Golden, LLP
   96 South Ocean Avenue
   Patchogue, NY 11772
   Tel: (631) 447-8100
   Fax: (631) 447-8181
   Email: cbianco@egangolden.com




SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS: Cohn Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against SunCoke Energy
Partners (SXCP), the SXCP general partner, SunCoke Energy Partners,
G.P. LLC, the members of the General Partner's Board of Directors,
SunCoke Energy, Inc. (SXC), and the members of SXC's Board of
Directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The case is captioned MICHAEL COHN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNCOKE ENERGY
PARTNERS, L.P., MICHAEL G. RIPPEY, P. MICHAEL HARDESTY, JOHN W.
SOMERHALDER II, ALVIN BLEDSOE, FAY WEST, KATHERINE T. GATES, MARTHA
CARNES, SUNCOKE ENERGY, INC., SUSAN R. LANDAHL, PETER B. HAMILTON,
ROBERT A. PEISER, JOHN W. ROWE, SUNCOKE ENERGY PARTNERS, G.P. LLC,
and JAMES E. SWEETNAM, Case No. 1:19-cv-01107-UNA (D. Del., June
14, 2019). Plaintiff specifically alleges that the Defendants have
violated the Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger between SXCP and
SXC, for acting in bad faith and violating the duty of good faith
under the Partnership Agreement, and for breaches of fiduciary duty
owed to the minority unitholders of SXCP.

SXC is a corporation whose shares are traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker SXC. SXCP is a limited partnership that
also trades, independent of SXC, on the New York Stock Exchange
under the ticker SXCP. SXCP's general partner, General Partner, is
a Delaware limited liability company that is 100% owned by
Defendant SXC through its wholly owned subsidiary, Sun Coal & Coke
LLC. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Telephone: (302) 482-3182
     E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 983-9330
     E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com


TOP 1 PERCENT COACHING: Elston Seeks Overtime Pay, Minimum Wage
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Top 1 Percent
Coaching, LLC for alleged violations of the overtime and minimum
wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The
case is captioned COURTNEY ELSTON, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, vs. TOP 1 PERCENT
COACHING, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and JUSTIN T.
FOXX, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00407 (M.D. Fla.,
June 17, 2019). Plaintiff Courtney Elston alleges that the
Defendants required her and the FLSA Members to work more than 40
hours per week but did not compensate them at the FLSA mandated
time-and-a-half rate for hours in excess of 40 per workweek.

Top 1 Percent is a domestic limited liability company doing
business in Florida for the purpose of accumulating monetary profit
and has its principal place of business in Lee County, Florida.
Justin T. Foxx is the chief executive officer of Top 1 Percent.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jack C. Morgan III, Esq.
     ALOIA ROLAND LUBELL & MORGAN PLLC
     2222 Second Street
     Fort Myers, FL 33901
     Telephone: 239-791-7950
     Facsimile: 239-791-7951
     E-mail: jmorgan@floridalegalrights.com
             kturner@floridalegalrights.com

             - and –

     John B. Gallagher, Esq.
     2631 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 201
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
     Telephone: (954) 524-1888
     Facsimile: (954) 524-1887
     E-mail: gal2701@aol.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Settlement in Simerlein Suit Has Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
the Settlement Agreement, Certification of the Settlement Class and
Attorney's Fees in the case captioned NED SIMERLEIN, JAMES ECKHOFF,
MARICEL LOPEZ, CRAIG KAISER, JOHN F. PRENDERGAST, RAYMOND ALVAREZ,
ROSARIO ALVAREZ, KAREN EASON, JENNIFER SOWERS, JENNIFER FRANKLIN,
JORDAN AMRANI, CRYSTAL GILLESPIE, MELISSA STALKER, DILLEN STEEBY,
PAULA McMILLIN, JOSEPH C. HARP JR., JAMES TINNEY, AND MELISSA JUGO
TINNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, TOYOTA MOTOR
NORTH AMERICA INC., TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC., TOYOTA MOTOR
ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC., and TOYOTA MOTOR
MANUFACTURING, INDIANA, INC., Defendants. No. 3:17-cv-1091 (VAB).
(D. Conn.).

The Defendants have allegedly designed, manufactured, marketed, and
sold Toyota Sienna minivans (Sienna) since 1998. Several Plaintiffs
allege that the power sliding doors were a key factor in their
decision to purchase the Sienna. The Plaintiffs allege that the
overall design defect results in, among other things: (a) the doors
opening independently, posing risk of passengers falling out while
the vehicles are in motion and risk of accident due to driver
distraction (b) closing independently, potentially trapping any
object in their path, including the arms and legs of young
passengers  (c) freezing in a partially open position, sometimes
resulting in consumers having to drive the car from the place at
which their door froze to, at a minimum, home or a dealer with the
door partially open; (d) freezing in a partially or fully closed
position, which poses the risk of passengers being unable to exit
or be unloaded from the vehicle in a dangerous situation.

This proposed Settlement Class excluded:

   (a) Toyota [the Simerlein Defendants], its officers, directors
and employees; its affiliates and affiliates' officers, directors
and employees; its distributors and distributors' officers,
directors and employees; and Toyota Dealers and Toyota Dealers'
officers and directors;

   (b) Plaintiffs' Counsel;

   (c) judicial officers and their immediate family members and
associated court staff assigned to this case; and

   (d) persons or entities who or which timely and properly exclude
themselves from the Class as provided in the Settlement Agreement.

The Agreement, as written, provides two distinct types of relief to
Class Members.

First, the Defendants will establish a forward-looking Customer
Confidence Program. Class Members will be entitled to several forms
of prospective relief through this program. For example, within one
year of the Court's final approval of a settlement, all Class
Members with a Subject Vehicle may take their vehicle to an
authorized Toyota Dealer and receive a free Sienna Sliding Door
Functional Inspection. This is a use it or lose it benefit.

Second, the Agreement will provide retrospective relief by
establishing an out-of-pocket claims process to reimburse Class
Members for previously incurred out-of-pocket expenses to repair a
condition covered by the Customer Confidence Program, but not
otherwise reimbursed and that incurred before the Initial Notice
Date.

The Plaintiffs move for final approval of a Settlement Agreement,
reached and entered into with the Defendants, on behalf of a
proposed class of Toyota Sienna owners and lessors located
throughout the United States. The Defendants support the
Plaintiffs' motion.

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interest of the class. The Court further
finds the Settlement Agreement to be the product of extensive arm's
length negotiations conducted by highly experienced counsel.

The Court therefore certifies the Settlement Class and approves the
proposed Settlement Agreement.

Certification of Class for Settlement Purposes

The Court makes the following findings on ascertainability,
numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation,
and predominance.

Ascertainability

The Second Circuit has recognized that Rule 23 contains an implied
requirement of ascertainability. The Second Circuit has clarified
that this is not a freestanding administrative feasibility
requirement, but simply requires only that a class be defined using
objective criteria that establish a membership with definite
boundaries.

This class is defined solely by objective criteria: class members
must, at any time as of March 1, 2019 (the date on which notices
were first mailed), own or have owned, purchase or have purchased,
or lease or have leased a 2011 through 2018 model year Toyota
Sienna. Using this definition, Defendants generated a list of VIN
numbers for the relevant vehicles. The Settlement Notice
Administrator then used this list to obtain information from a
reputable automotive data provider, R.L. Polk & Co., to identify a
total of 1,299,946 Class Members. As a result, it is
administratively feasible to determine class membership during the
Class Period.

The proposed Settlement Class therefore is ascertainable.

Numerosity

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1) requires that any putative
class be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
While courts have not required evidence of exact class size or
identity of class members to satisfy the numerosity requirement,
the Second Circuit has recognized that numerosity is presumed at a
level of 40 members.

The proposed Settlement Class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable. Here, 1,299,946 Class Members have been
identified.

The numerosity requirement therefore is satisfied.

Commonality

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) requires the existence of
questions of law or fact common to the class.

This class action presents questions of both law and fact that are
common to the class. While a number of different state statues are
implicated in this class action, there are common questions of fact
that are capable of class-wide resolution, regardless of where a
proposed Class Member is located, including: (1) whether the
Subject Vehicles' rear sliding doors were defective (2) whether and
for how long Defendants knew about the defect (3) whether
Defendants misrepresented or omitted information about the defect
to consumers (4) whether those misrepresentations or omissions were
material; (5) whether proposed Class Members were damaged by those
misrepresentations or omission  (6) whether proposed Class Members
were damaged by the defect and (7) whether equitable relief is
warranted for proposed Class Members' claims.

In addition, all Class Members have federal claims under the
Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act presenting common questions of law that
are capable of class-wide resolution.

The commonality requirement therefore is satisfied.

Typicality

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3) requires that the claims
or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims
or defenses of the class.

The proposed representative parties and their claims and defenses
are typical of the class as a whole. Each proposed representative
party is a member of the proposed Settlement Class and allege to
have been damaged by the same conduct as the class more broadly,
i.e., defects in the Toyota Sienna and alleged misrepresentations
and omissions about those defects by Defendants.

Additionally, the claims of the class and class representatives
share corresponding legal theories.  

The typicality requirement therefore is satisfied.

Adequacy of Representation

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) requires that the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

The Court is not aware of any conflicts between the Representative
Parties, Class Counsel, and the claims of the proposed Class
Members.

Additionally, Class Counsel, W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III of Beasley,
Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. (who has represented the
Combs Plaintiffs), Adam Levitt of DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC (who
has represented the Combs Plaintiffs), and Demet Basar of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP (who has represented the
Simerlein Plaintiffs) all have litigated complex class actions in
the past.

The Representative Parties therefore will fairly and adequately
protect the interest of the proposed Settlement Class.

Predominance

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) requires that, before
certifying an opt-out class, a court must find that the questions
of law or fact common to class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members, and that a class
action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Here, the common questions of law and fact predominate over any
question affecting only individual members of the proposed
Settlement Class. There do not appear to be any significant
differences between the claims of proposed Settlement Class
members, apart from where they are located and the specific state
consumer protection statutes applicable to them.

Additionally, a class action is superior to other available methods
for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Class
certification promotes efficiency and uniformity of judgment
because the many class members will not be forced to separately
pursue claims or execute settlements in various courts around the
country.

Based on these findings, the Court certifies the proposed
Settlement Class (Settlement Class) for settlement purposes under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c) and 23(e), comprised of all
persons, entities or organizations who, at any time as of March 1,
2019, own or owned, purchase(d) or lease(d) a 2011 through 2018
model year Toyota Sienna vehicle that was distributed for sale or
lease in any of the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, and all other United States territories and/or possessions.

Final Approval of the Terms of the Settlement

In determining whether a settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, the District Court examines the negotiating process
leading up to the settlement, i.e., procedural fairness, as well as
the settlement's substantive terms, i.e., substantive fairness.

First, the Court must review the negotiating process leading up to
the settlement for procedural fairness, to ensure that the
settlement resulted from an arm's-length, good faith negotiation
between experienced and skilled litigators.

Here, the Court finds that presumption is met.

As the Court noted in its preliminary approval order, the parties
have vigorously litigated this case, and were engaged in extensive,
arms-length settlement discussions in this matter and the Combs
action for more than a year. In those negotiations, the Plaintiffs
were represented by counsel who are qualified and have extensive
class action experience.  

The Plaintiffs therefore have engaged in the discovery, necessary
to effective representation of the class's interests.

Accordingly, meaningful discovery has occurred and the presumption
of procedural fairness has been met.  

The Court makes the following findings and concludes that the
balance of the Grinnell factors weighs in favor of approving the
Settlement Agreement.

Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration of the Litigation

The first Grinnell factor requires the Court to consider the
complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation.  Most
class actions are inherently complex and settlement avoids the
costs, delays and multitude of other problems associated with them
and courts therefore favor class action settlements.  

The Plaintiffs argue that the litigation is unquestionably complex.
The Plaintiffs note that the Second Amended Complaint stated sixty
causes of action, including claims on behalf of twelve statewide
classes, as well as multistate and nationwide classes.
  
The Court agrees.

As the Court explained in granting preliminary approval, it is
likely that extremely costly litigation would have ensued over the
many different state jurisdictions involved here.  
Accordingly, the first Grinnell factor supports approval of the
settlement.

Reaction of the Class to the Settlement

Courts may consider two reactions: opt-outs and objections. If only
a small number of objections are received, that fact can be viewed
as indicative of the adequacy of the settlement.

Here, there were only two objections to the settlement both of
which have since been withdrawn and only sixty-eight of the
1,299,946 Class Members have opted out.  

Accordingly, the second Grinnell factor supports approval of the
settlement.

The Stage of the Proceedings and the Amount of Discovery Completed

The stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed
at the time a Settlement is reached is relevant to the parties'
knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the various claims in
the case, and consequently affects the determination of the
settlement's fairness.

However, to approve a proposed settlement, the Court need not find
that the parties have engaged in extensive discovery.

The Plaintiffs' investigation resulted in the production of more
than 100,000 documents from the Defendants, which were reviewed by
numerous experts whom the Plaintiffs would likely have deposed as
expert witnesses had the litigation continued. Thus, the Plaintiffs
have gained a sufficient understanding of their case such that they
have had an opportunity to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of
their claims as well as the adequacy of settlement.  

Accordingly, the Court finds the third Grinnell factor weighs in
favor of approval.

The Risks of Establishing Liability and Damages

One of the Court's central inquiries when appraising a settlement
is the likelihood that the class would prevail at trial in the face
of the risks presented by further litigation. In determining the
risks of establishing liability and damages, courts need not
adjudicate the disputed issues or decide unsettled questions;
rather, courts need only assess the risks of litigation against the
certainty of recovery under the proposed settlement.

The Plaintiffs argue that if they were to continue prosecuting
their claims, they would have to face several substantial hurdles
with respect to establishing liability and damages, at great cost
and risk to the Plaintiffs and the Class. These hurdles include
overcoming motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants based on an
array of jurisdictional and merits issues.

The Plaintiffs also contend that there are significant factual
issues with respect to Defendants' knowledge of any defects before
Plaintiffs' purchase of the Toyota Siennas, as well as difficult
issues regarding the measurement of damages on a classwide basis.


Finally, the Plaintiffs argue that further proceedings would
necessarily entail a battle of the experts.

The Court recognizes the merit to these arguments, as it did in
granting preliminary approval. Regardless of the merits of the
motion to dismiss that was pending before this Court before the
execution of the Settlement Agreement, litigation inherently
involves risks.

Accordingly, the fourth and fifth Grinnell factors weigh in favor
of approval.

The Risks of Maintaining the Class Action Through Trial

One of the factors most courts consider is how certain the court is
that the class certification requirements are met and maintainable.
This consideration is separate, although related, to the Court's
determination that the class should be certified for settlement
purposes.

The Plaintiffs argue that securing certification of a nationwide
class or statewide classes is far from certain, noting that proving
a viable damages model has proved an insurmountable hurdle for many
proposed consumer classes. The Plaintiffs also argue that the
Defendants can be expected to argue that bringing an array of state
law claims may present serious manageability issues or
irreconcilable conflicts between the laws of different states. The
Plaintiffs note the many decisions denying class certification in
automobile defect cases underscore the risks of securing and
maintaining class status were this action to proceed through trial.


The Court recognizes the merit to these arguments. While the
Plaintiffs would no doubt vigorously contest the Defendnats'
arguments on this front, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that they
pose significant risks.

The sixth Grinnell factor weighs in favor of approval.

Defendants' Ability to Withstand a Greater Judgment

The Plaintiffs do not argue that the Defendants would not be able
to withstand a greater judgment. Instead, they contend that where
the other Grinnell factors weigh heavily in favor of settlement,
the Court may still approve of the settlement as being fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

The Court agrees that this factor standing alone, does not suggest
that the settlement is unfair, especially where the other Grinnell
factors weigh heavily in favor of settlement. Therefore, given the
application of the other Grinnellfactors in this case, the Court
need not determine whether Defendants could have withstood a larger
judgment, and may still approve the settlement agreement.

Accordingly, this factor also weighs in favor of approval.

The Range of Reasonableness of the Settlement

The final Grinnell factors require examination of the range of
reasonableness of the settlement in light of the best possible
recovery and in light of all the attendant risks of litigation.
Courts should consider and weigh the nature of the claim, the
possible defenses, the situation of the parties, and the exercise
of business judgment in determining whether the proposed settlement
is reasonable.

The parties have both represented that the settlement will provide
Class Members with substantial benefits. Plaintiffs argue that they
have been provided relief specifically sought by the Plaintiffs in
their complaints in the form of both prospective coverage for
repairs and reimbursement for past repairs.  

Moreover, while the parties have not agreed on a monetary value of
the proposed Settlement, Plaintiffs have submitted a detailed
declaration from a forensic accounting expert who estimates the
total value of the relief at $33.6 million.

Accordingly, the eighth and ninth Grinnell factors weigh in favor
of approval.
As a result, the Grinnell factors taken as a whole support finding
the settlement substantively fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Court therefore approves the Settlement Agreement.

Attorney's Fees

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), the court may award
reasonable attorney's fees  that are authorized by law or by the
parties' agreement.

Courts in the Second Circuit use one of two different methods to
analyze the reasonableness of attorney's fees awards in class
actions that result in a common fund settlement.

In claims-made settlements where the extent of the defendant's
liability is wholly dependent upon the number of claims filed by
class members, the cost of administering the settlement and such
fees and expenses as are assessed by the Court, courts are more
divided as to the best approach. A number of courts have concluded
that have concluded that utilizing the percentage method would
provide plaintiffs' counsel with a percentage of a hypothetical
recovery, and have instead opted to use the lodestar method,
finding that it `better accommodates the policy concerns in
settling class actions on a claims-made basis.

The Second Circuit has also recognized the use of the lodestar as a
baseline even if the percentage method is eventually chosen and
encouraged the practice of requiring documentation of hours as a
`cross check' on the reasonableness of the requested percentage.
Accordingly, many courts adopt this combined approach.  

Here, the Plaintiffs seek an award of $6,500,000 in attorneys'
fees.  The Long Form Notice informed Class Members that Class
Counsel will ask the Court for an award of attorneys' fees in the
amount of $6,500,000.00. Defendants agreed not to take a position
on this motion.

This Court has previously recognized that when the parties agree to
a fee that is to be paid separately by defendants rather than one
that comes from, and therefore reduces, a settlement fund available
to the class, the Court's fiduciary role in overseeing the award is
greatly reduced' because the danger of conflicts of interest
between attorneys and class members is diminished. The Court
recognized there that it must still assess the reasonableness of
the fee award where the fee does not come from a common fund,
because a defendant is interested only in disposing of the total
claim asserted against it, and not in the allocation between the
class payment and the attorneys' fees.

This settlement has not resulted in a common fund. Plaintiffs have
instead provided an estimate of the value of the settlement, based
on the analysis of Mr. Olsen, a forensic accounting expert, who has
analyzed the components of the settlement and estimated their value
to be $33.6 million.  In addition to this estimated value of the
settlement, unlike many claims-made settlements that arbitrarily
cut off class members' recovery, the Settlement Agreement here
provides that Class Members may obtain prospective benefits under
the Customer Confidence Program for several components for ten
years from the date of first use of the vehicle, several years, as
well as reimbursement for past repair expenses within sixty days of
approval.

Thus, while the settlement does not consist of a single,
predetermined, common fund from which a percentage-of-recovery can
be easily calculated,  the estimate provided by Mr. Olsen gives the
Court a clear denominator against which the fees can be assessed in
in applying the percentage method.  Moreover, based on a review of
Mr. Olsen's written submission as well as the Court's follow-up
inquiries at the June 4th fairness hearing, Mr. Olsen's estimates
of the settlement's value, grounded in his expertise in forensic
accounting, are sufficiently credible.

As a result, based on the analysis conducted by Mr. Olsen, Class
Counsel's requested fee of $6,500,000 represents just 16.2 percent
of the total settlement. This percentage puts the requested fee
well within the range of awards regularly awarded within the Second
Circuit.
  
Accordingly, under the percentage method, the proposed award for
attorney's fees is appropriate.

The Plaintiffs' lodestar calculations yield an award of
$3,863,845.25. The proposed fee award of $6,5000,000 thus
represents a 1.68 multiplier compared to the lodestar. That is
firmly at the low end of the range of multipliers regularly
approved by district courts in the Second Circuit.  

Accordingly, a review of the lodestar method confirms that the
proposed fee award would not represent an improper windfall.

The Court also has assessed whether the proposed fee award is
reasonable under the Goldberger factors. Here, the Goldberger,
Goldberger, 209 F.3d at 50, factors support the reasonableness of
the fee in this matter.

The first Goldberger factor considers the time and labor expended
by counsel.. Class Counsel have litigated these actions for nearly
two years in both Connecticut and California, spending over 6,000
hours on them. Those efforts included many months of informal and
confirmatory discovery, as well as many months of settlement
negotiations.

The second Goldberger factor considers the magnitude and
complexities of the litigation. As discussed above with respect to
the Grinnell factors, this case was complex in both scale and law,
sixty causes of action, as it included claims on behalf of twelve
statewide classes, as well as multistate and nationwide classes.

The third Goldberger factor considers the risk of the litigation.
The Second Circuit recognizes that the risk of success is perhaps
the foremost factor to be considered in determining a fee award in
class actions. After all, despite the most vigorous and competent
of efforts, success is never guaranteed. As discussed above with
respect to the Grinnell factors, this case presented considerable
risks, given the heavy reliance on expert testimony necessary at
the liability stage.

The fourth Goldberger factor considers the quality of
representation by Class Counsel.  As discussed above, both the very
substantial relief Plaintiffs achieved and the significant
experience of Class Counsel indicate that Plaintiffs received
high-quality representation.

The fifth Goldberger factor considers the requested fee in relation
to the settlement. While the fee award in this case will be paid by
Defendants and will not impact the total amount recovered through
the rest of the settlement, a comparison of the requested
attorneys' fee award and the total value of the settlement, as
discussed above, shows that the fee represents 16.2% of the
estimated value of the settlement a percentage in line with that
awarded in other cases.

The sixth Goldberger factor analyzes public policy considerations.
Here, the substantial relief achieved by Plaintiffs promotes
important consumer protection goals: namely, ensuring relief for
Toyota Sienna drivers after years of complaints to the NTSB about
alleged issues with the Toyota Sienna. The fee award here will
provide attorneys sufficient incentive to bring further class
actions that serve the public interest and aim to settle cases in
an efficient manner that delivers full relief.  

For these reasons, all six Goldberger factors weigh in favor of
approving the attorney's fee award.

Accordingly, the Court awards the Plaintiffs $6,500,000 in
attorney's fees.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval and class certification, approves the proposed Settlement
Agreement, grants the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees,
costs, and service awards, and ORDERS as follows.

For settlement purposes, the Settlement Class is certified under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c) and 23(e). The Settlement
Class consists of:

     all persons, entities or organizations who, at any time as of
the entry of the March 1, 2019, own or owned, purchase(d) or
lease(d) 2011 through 2018 model year Toyota Sienna vehicles
distributed for sale or lease in any of the fifty States, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and all other United States
territories and/or possessions. Excluded from the Settlement Class
are: (a) Toyota, its officers, directors and employees; its
affiliates and affiliates' officers, directors, and employees; its
distributors and distributors' officers, directors, and employees;
and Toyota Dealers and Toyota Dealers' officers and directors (b)
Plaintiffs' counsel (c) judicial officers and their immediate
family members and associated court staff assigned to this case and
(d) persons or entities who or which timely and properly excluded
themselves from the Settlement Class as provided in the Settlement
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyntzk68 from Leagle.com.

Ned Simerlein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Slossberg, Hurwitz
Sagarin Slossberg & Knuff LLC, 147 North Broad Street, Milford,
Connecticut 0646, Demet Basar -- basar@whafh.com -- Wolf,
Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, pro hac vice, Kate M. McGuire
-- mcguire@whafh.com -- Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz,
pro hac vice, Lydia Keaney Reynolds- Reynolds@whafh.com -- Wolf,
Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, pro hac vice, Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, Daniel R. Ferri
-- dferri@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, David L. Belt,
Hurwitz Sagarin Slossberg & Knuff LLC, 147 North Broad Street,
Milford, Connecticut 0646, H. Clay Barnett, III, Beasley Allen et
al, 4200 Northside Pkwy NW, Building One, Suite 100, Atlanta,  GA
30327, Jeffrey P. Nichols, Hurwitz Sagarin Slossberg & Knuff LLC,
John Tangren, 147 North Broad Street, Milford, Connecticut 0646
&Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis &
Miles, P.C., 4200 Northside Pkwy NW, Building One, Suite 100,
Atlanta,  GA 30327

Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America Inc, Toyota
Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing
North America, Inc. & Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Indiana, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Mark D. Campbell -- mdcampbell@shb.com
-- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L. L. P., pro hac vice, Michael L. Mallow
-- mmallow@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Rachel A.
Straus -- rstraus@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice,
David Norman-Schiff -- dnorman-schiff@wiggin.com -Wiggin & Dana,
John Peter Hooper -jhooper@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, Kevin
M. Smith -- ksmith@wiggin.com -- Wiggin & Dana & Michael D.
Blanchard -- michael.blanchard@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP.


TRANS WORLD: Faces New Suit over VIP Backstage Pass Memberships
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trans World Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that two of the
plaintiffs from the dismissed Loyalty Memberships and Magazine
Subscriptions Class Action lawsuit have filed a similar punitive
class action in Massachusetts state court (Civ. Act. No.
197CV00331, Mass. Super. Ct. Hampden Cty.).

On November 14, 2018, three consumers filed a punitive class action
complaint against the Company and Synapse Group, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston
Division (Case No.1:18-cv-12377-DPW) concerning enrollment in the
Company's Backstage Pass VIP loyalty program and associated
magazine subscriptions.

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's
"negative option marketing" misled consumers into enrolling for
membership and subscriptions without obtaining the consumers'
consent.

The complaint sought to represent a nationwide class of "all
persons in the United States" who were enrolled in and/or charged
for Backstage Pass VIP memberships and/or magazine subscriptions,
and to obtain statutory and actual damages on their behalf.

On April 11, 2019, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
lawsuit. On May 8, 2019, two of the plaintiffs from the dismissed
lawsuit filed a similar punitive class action in Massachusetts
state court (Civ. Act. No. 197CV00331, Mass. Super. Ct. Hampden
Cty.), based on the same allegations, but this time seeking to
represent only a class of "FYE customers in Massachusetts" who were
charged for VIP Backstage Pass Memberships and/or magazine
subscriptions.

Trans World said, "The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to the plaintiffs' claims and, if the new case is not dismissed in
full, the Company intends to vigorously defend the action."

Trans World Entertainment Corporation, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of entertainment
products. The company operates in two segments, For Your
Entertainment (fye) and etailz. The fye segment offers trend,
video, music, electronics, and related products, as well as used
compact discs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, and video games through its retail
stores and e-commerce sites.  Trans World Entertainment Corporation
was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Albany, New York.


TRANS WORLD: Opt-In Discovery in Spack Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Trans World Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2019, that the opt-in
discovery in the case, Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., is
ongoing.

Trans World is defending against two pending class actions. The
first, Spack v. Trans World Entertainment Corp. was originally
filed in the District of New Jersey, April 2017 (the "Spack
Action").

The Spack Action alleges that the Company misclassified Store
Managers ("SMs") as exempt nationwide. It also alleges that Trans
World improperly calculated overtime for Senior Assistant Managers
"SAMs" nationwide, and that both SMs and SAMs worked
"off-the-clock." It also alleges violations of New Jersey and
Pennsylvania State Law with respect to calculating overtime for
SAMs.

The second, Roper v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., was filed in
the Northern District of New York, May 2017 (the "Roper Action").
The Roper Action also asserts a nationwide misclassification claim
on behalf of Store Managers. Both actions were consolidated into
the Northern District of New York, with the Spack Action being the
lead case.

Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a collective of
SMs in June 2018, and that motion was partially granted in January
2019. The opt-in period for the collective that was certified was
closed on April 6, 2019. Opt-in discovery relating to that
potential collective has commenced.  

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the plaintiffs'
claims and intends to vigorously defend the action.

Trans World Entertainment Corporation, together with its
subsidiaries, operates as a specialty retailer of entertainment
products. The company operates in two segments, For Your
Entertainment (fye) and etailz. The fye segment offers trend,
video, music, electronics, and related products, as well as used
compact discs, DVDs, Blu-Ray, and video games through its retail
stores and e-commerce sites.  Trans World Entertainment Corporation
was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Albany, New York.


TRANSUNION RENTAL: Misreports Eviction Record, Clark-Fortunat Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against TransUnion Rental
Screening Solutions, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA). The case is captioned Chantel Clark-Fortunat,
individually and as a representative of the classes, Plaintiff, v.
TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03525 (E.D.N.Y., June 14, 2019). Plaintiff Chantel
Clark-Fortunat alleges that TransUnion inaccurately reported her
eviction record. In so doing, TransUnion reported an eviction that
had subsequently been expunged. TransUnion flawed reporting was
ultimately provided to Plaintiff's potential landlord. Accordingly,
Plaintiff seeks for damages, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to
the FCRA.

Headquartered in Colorado, TransUnion is a consumer reporting
agency that compiles and maintains files on consumers on a
nationwide basis. It sells consumer reports generated from its
database and furnishes these consumer reports to landlords who use
the reports to make decisions regarding whether to rent to certain
consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Russell D. Paul, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 875-3000
     Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: rpaul@bm.net
  
             - and -

     E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
     Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
     BERGER MONTAGUE PC
     43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
     Minneapolis, MN 55414
     Telephone: (612) 594-5999
     Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
     E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
             jhashmall@bm.net


TRINITY COURIERS: Gomez Seeks Proper Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Trinity Couriers,
Inc. and Trinity Couriers of Houston, Inc. for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The case is captioned, ERIC
GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. TRINITY COURIERS, INC. and TRINITY COURIERS OF
HOUSTON, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02186 (S.D. Tex., June
18, 2019).

Plaintiff Eric Gomez alleges that the Defendants paid his overtime
at a rate less than one and one-half times the regular rate.
Plaintiff Gomez also asserts that the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate time and pay records of their employees. Accordingly,
Gomez seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs from Trinity Couriers.

Trinity Couriers, Inc. and Trinity Couriers of Houston, Inc. are
Texas corporations engaged in providing courier services in the
state of Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Forester, Esq.
     FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
     1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Telephone: (214) 210-2100
     Facsimile: (214) 346-5909


TUMINO'S TOWING: Court Denies Stay in S. Kiley Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion and Order denying Defendants' Motion to Stay in
the case captioned SEAN KILEY, Plaintiff, v. TUMINO'S TOWING, INC.,
et al, Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:18-CV-3165-JMV-SCM.
(D.N.J.).

Before the Court is Defendants', Tumino's Towing, Inc. and John
Tumino (Tumino's Towing), informal motion to stay this case pending
a decision by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a consolidated appeal
known as Pisack v. B&C Towing, Inc. (Pisack).

Mr. Kiley instituted this putative class action to recover damages
and injunctive relief for Tumino's Towing's allegedly unlawful and
predatory towing practices.  Mr. Kiley's individual claims arise
out of a nonconsensual tow of his vehicle by Tumino's Towing from a
location in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey. The complaint alleges that
certain of the fees and charges that Tumino's Towing required Mr.
Kiley to pay were unlawful under various New Jersey state consumer
protection laws.

The burden of demonstrating good cause rests on Tumino's Towing as
the party seeking the stay. On balance, the Court finds that
Tumino's Towing has not demonstrated good cause for the issuance of
a stay at this juncture, prior to completion of jurisdictional
discovery.  

The first factor in weighing whether a stay is appropriate, i.e.,
whether a stay would result in prejudice to Mr. Kiley, weighs
against staying this action. After the Court ordered jurisdictional
discovery, Mr. Kiley sought to determine whether two-thirds or more
of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate
are citizens of New Jersey through written discovery and a Rule
30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition. When Tumino's Towing failed to
produce information. To this date, Tumino's Towing has still not
produced the 30(b)(6) witness, on the grounds that it would only
discuss proceeding with the deposition after the instant motion to
stay was decided. Staying this action would effectively keep this
case in federal court even though discovery has not been completed
to determine whether jurisdiction is appropriate here in the first
place.

The second factor, whether denial of the stay would create a clear
case of hardship or inequity for Tumino's Towing, weighs against
granting a stay before jurisdictional discovery is completed.

The only argument that Tumino's Towing makes related to this factor
is a conclusory statement that a stay will prevent the parties from
spending additional time and money on costly discovery and motion
practice that may be wholly unnecessary. Tumino's Towing also
argues that its discovery responses demonstrate that it does not
have information on the citizenship of the vehicle owners.

If indeed this is the case, the completion of jurisdictional
discovery would allow Tumino's Towing to argue that Mr. Kiley
cannot show that an exception to CAFA jurisdiction applies, and the
case is properly in federal court. If the case indeed remains in
federal court after motions to remand have been decided, Mr. Kiley
may informally seek to renew his request for an informal stay,
resulting in no hardship or inequity for Tumino's Towing.

The third factor, whether the stay would simplify the issues and
the trial of the case, weighs against staying the case. Tumino's
Towing argues that entry of a stay would narrow or outright
eliminate the need for discovery because if the New Jersey Supreme
Court holds that the Legislature's December 20, 2018 amendment
should be applied retroactively, the decision will substantially
impact or render moot this action. Mr. Kiley, on the other hand,
contends that the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision will not
streamline the issues in this matter because whatever [the Pisack
decision] may reveal, it will not alter the issue of jurisdiction.
The Court finds that a stay would not simplify the issues and trial
of the case, because keeping a case in federal court when it might
not properly be here on the grounds of jurisdiction does not
simplify the issues in a case.  

The fourth factor, whether discovery is complete and/or a trial
date has been set, weighs against a stay. Jurisdictional discovery
has not been completed and delaying resolution of the motion to
remand pending the appellate decision could result in creating case
management problems should the appellate decision have no impact on
the instant case. Motions to stay discovery are not favored because
when discovery is delayed or prolonged it can create case
management problems which impede the court's responsibility to
expedite discovery and cause unnecessary litigation expenses and
problems. Staying this case indefinitely before jurisdictional
discovery is completed could potentially result in two years
passing in this case without completion of jurisdictional
discovery.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at  https://tinyurl.com/y2ojhbo8 from
Leagle.com.

SEAN KILEY, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW R. WOLF -- awolf@wolflawfirm.net
-- The Wolf Law Firm, LLC, LISA R. BOUCKENOOGHE, THE WOLF LAW FIRM
LLC, MARK A. FISHER -- mfisher@wolflawfirm.net -- THE WOLF LAW
FIRM, LLC & MATTHEW SCOTT OORBEEK -- moorbeek@genovaburns.com --
Genova Burns, LLC.

TUMINO'S TOWING, INC. & JOHN TUMINO, Defendants, represented by
CAROLINE ELEANORE OKS -- coks@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS PC &
MICHAEL R. MCDONALD -- mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC.


UBS AG: Among Defendants in Forex Rate Rigging Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Byron Kaye, writing for Reuters, reports that an Australian law
firm filed a class action lawsuit on Monday against five major
international investment banks accusing them of colluding to rig
foreign exchange rates during 2008-2013 to jack up profits at the
expense of businesses and investors.

The case involved some of the same banks caught up in similar
currency market scandals in Europe and the United States.

UBS AG, Barclays Bank Plc, Citigroup Inc, Royal Bank of Scotland
Group Plc and JP Morgan AG are accused, according to Australian
court documents, of colluding to increase the price clients paid
for certain investment products in order to fix exchange rates at
more costly levels.

Reuters emailed and called the banks named in the lawsuit.

JP Morgan declined to comment, while spokespeople for UBS, Citi and
RBS acknowledged receiving Reuters' enquiries but were not
immediately available for comment.

Maurice Blackburn, the law firm that has launched the case, alleged
that traders from the banks, who were supposed to be competing with
each other, shared confidential information like details of clients
and their orders on internet chatrooms.

According to court documents, names given by the traders to those
chatrooms included "The Cartel", "The Mafia" and "A CoOperative".

Several of the same chatroom names were identified in an
investigation into foreign exchange rate rigging by U.S.
regulators.

In a U.S. case, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, JPMorgan, Royal
Bank of Scotland and UBS have entered related guilty pleas, and
been collectively fined more than $2.8 billion.

Reuters reported earlier in May that EU anti-trust regulators
investigating currency market rigging were set to fine seven banks,
several of which were also accused in the case launched in
Australia.

"Australian businesses and investors, particularly medium to large
importers, exporters, institutional investors and businesses with
operations overseas, have been affected by the distortion of the FX
market by these banks," said Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer
Kimi Nishimura in a statement.

"Such cartel behavior cheats Australian businesses in circumstances
where they may already have been vulnerable to currency
fluctuations," Nishimura added.

The lead plaintiff was a dental products importer called J. Wisbey
and Associates, although the class action would represent any
Australian customers of the five investment banks which had made
cross-border transactions worth more than A$500,000 ($346,250) in
the five-year period, Maurice Blackburn said.

Maurice Blackburn wanted the five investment banks to pay damages
to the plaintiffs without specifying how much, according to the
court documents.

The dust has barely settled from the previous scandal that roiled
Australia's banking community in recent years after a market
regulator launched a series of lawsuits against the country's "Big
Four" banks.

The regulator accused them of rigging the Bank Bill Swap Rate
(BBSW) -- a benchmark interest rate in Australia used to price
trillions of dollars of assets -- to inflate profit during the
period 2010-2012.

Commonwealth Bank of Australia CBA.AX, National Australia Bank
NAB.AX and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group ANZ.AX --
settled before hearings began. Westpac Banking Corp defended the
case, and was cleared by a court a year ago. [GN]


UNILEVER US: Derchin et al Sue over Misleading Ice Cream Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Unilever United
States, Inc. for alleged violations of consumer protection statutes
of the all 50 states, for negligent misrepresentation, breach of
express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability, fraud and
unjust enrichment. The case is captioned Christopher Derchin,
Richard Feleppa, Steve Altes, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs Complaint - against –
Unilever United States, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03543
(E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2109). Derchin et al assert that the
Defendant's practice of listing "vanilla with other natural
flavors" on foods that are characterized by vanilla is deceptive
and misleading because it gives the false impression that the
"natural flavor"("with other natural flavors") it provides are
derived from vanilla beans.

Unilever United States, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a
principal place of business in Englewood (Bergen County), New
Jersey. It manufactures, distributes, markets, labels and sells ice
cream products labeled as vanilla ice cream under the Breyers
brand. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


UNILEVER US: Duncan Sues Over Blind-inaccessible Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------
EUGENE DUNCAN AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED
v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-05186 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 3, 2019), is a civil rights action against the Defendant for
its alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
Web site--http://www.magnumicecream.com/--tobe fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Unilever is a Foreign Business Corporation organized under the laws
of Delaware with its principal executive offices in Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.  The Defendant operates its store locations as
well as its website, and those affiliated or directly linked, and
advertises, markets, offers and sells its goods within the state of
New York and throughout the United States.

Unilever manufactures personal care products.  The Company offers
laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body washes,
as well as provides ice creams, oils, mayonnaise, spreads, sauces,
tea.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick St., 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
          E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com

               - and -

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


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Does Not Pay Minimum Wage, Gomez Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against The Regents of the
University of California d/b/a "University of California, San Diego
Medical Center for violations of the California Labor Code, the
California Business and Professions Code, the applicable Wage
Orders issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission and
related common law principles. The case is captioned GUIVINI GOMEZ,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA d/b/a "UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO MEDICAL CENTER," a California Corporation;
and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00030873-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 17,
2019). Plaintiff Guivini Gomez worked for Defendants as an
hourly-paid non-exempt employee at University of California, San
Diego Medical Center from approximately Feb. 2, 2017 to April 9,
2018. However, Defendants failed to pay state-mandated minimum
wages of all hours Plaintiff worked.

University of California, San Diego Medical Center is a teaching
hospital located in La Jolla. It is a 245-bed medical specialty
center that offers dvanced surgery, cancer care, cardiac
rehabilitation, clinical trials, birthing options and more. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
     Gregg Lander, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
     1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361
     Telephone: (323) 549-9100
     Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
     E-mail: Barnes@kbarnes.com

             - and -

     Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq.
     SANSANOWICZ LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1635 Pontius Avenue, Second Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361
     Telephone: (323) 677-0200
     Facsimile: (323) 549-0101
     E-mail: Leonard@law-slg.com
   
             - and -

     Emil Davtyan, Esq.
     DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
     5959 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 130
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367-3622
     Telephone: (818) 875-2008
     Facsimile: (818) 722-3974
     E-mail: Emil@davtyanlaw.com


VAD D/B/A CM AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Canfield Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CANFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. VAD d/b/a CM AUTO; SUNPATH LIMITED CORP.; and
NORTHCOAST WARRANTY SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-01162 (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Sunpath Limited Corp. automotive protection products such as
Vehicle Service Contracts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VEREIT INC: American Realty Capital Properties Suit Adjourned
-------------------------------------------------------------
VEREIT, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission that on June 14, 2019, the court issued a
written order adjourning the trial of the class action and the
remaining opt-out action against VEREIT, Inc. and VEREIT Operating
Partnership, L.P., (together the "Company") pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
captioned In re American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. Litigation
No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH), and Jet Capital Master Fund, L.P. v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-307,
from September 9, 2019 until January 21, 2020.

VEREIT, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company which
owns and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenant
commercial properties in the U.S. The company is based in Phoenix,
Arizona.

VIP NAIL: Yugsi Seeks Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
BLANCA ETELBINA YUGSI MOROCHO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VIP NAIL SALON INC. (D/B/A
VIP NAILS), JOO IN OH (A.K.A. DOMINA), HYE SOOK OH, and JANE DOE
(A.K.A. CLARA), the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05546 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 13, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a beauty salon, located at
69 Reade Street, New York, NY 10007 under the name "VIP Nails".
Yugsi was employed as a manicurist/pedicurist at the salon. She was
ostensibly employed as a manicurist/pedicurist. However, she was
required to spend a considerable part of her work day performing
non-tipped duties, including but not limited to handwashing towels,
cleaning the bathroom, sweeping, arranging the attic, taking boxes
to the attic and taking out the trash ("non-tipped duties"). Yugsi
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours
that she worked.

Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked, and failed to pay Yugsi appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to
pay Plaintiff Yugsi wages on a timely.

Regardless, the Defendants paid Plaintiff Yugsi at a rate that was
lower than the required tip-credit rate. However, under both the
FLSA and NYLL, Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit
because Plaintiff Yugsi's non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each
workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less in each day, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 0165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Napleton Orlando Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: VOLKSWAGEN 'CLEAN DIESEL'
MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case
3:15-md-02672-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court
on Nov. 1, 2019, for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons or entities who owned a Volkswagen-branded
      franchise dealership that operated in the United States as
      of September 18, 2015 (the "Class");

   2. certifying the Class for claims under the Racketeer
      Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
      section 1962(c)-(d) and for civil conspiracy to defraud
      under the laws of all 50 states;

   3. appointing Plaintiffs as Class representatives; and

   4. appointing Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Bass Sox
      Mercer as Class Counsel under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).

The case relates to Napleton Orlando Imports, LLC, et al. v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.  The Plaintiffs seek
certification of a Class of all persons or entities who owned a
Volkswagen-branded franchise dealership that operated in the United
States as of September 18, 2015. Whether Bosch's misconduct is
viewed through the lens of RICO or civil conspiracy, its conduct
was uniformly directed at all Class members causing common injury.
The common questions of law and fact raised by this course of
conduct decisively predominate, and will result in answers common
to all Class members. The best, fairest, most consistent—and
likely the only practical-way to litigate this case is as a class
action.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Franchise Dealer Class are:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  toml@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Richard N. Sox, Esq.
          BASS SOX MERCER
          2822 Remington Green Circle
          Tallahassee, FL 32308
          Telephone: (850) 878-6404
          Facsimile: (850) 942-4869
          E-mail: rsox@dealerlawyer.com

WARREN COUNTY, OH: Court OKs Settlement in Suit vs. WCCS
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division, issued an Order granting Parties' Joint Motion to
Approve Class Action in the case captioned ADOPTIVE FAMILY #1 AND
THEIR DAUGHTER A, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WARREN COUNTY, OHIO/WARREN
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendant. Case No. 1:18-cv-179.
(S.D. Ohio).

This class action challenges Warren County's adoption assistance
agreements with the adoptive families of children determined to
have special needs under the Title IV-E adoption assistance
program. Plaintiffs Adoptive Families #1, #2, and #3 are families
who have adopted children with special needs after serving them as
foster parents. Plaintiffs challenge Warren County Children
Services (WCCS)’s performance of its obligations to enter into
Adoption Assistance agreements with the adoptive families of
children determined to have special needs under the Title IV-E
Adoption Assistance program.

The Settlement Class

The parties agree to certification of the following class under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) for the purposes of settlement:

     All adoptive parents and their adopted children who, as of the
date of the filing of this lawsuit and/or through the date of the
fairness hearing, were eligible to receive subsidies under Title
IV-E of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act and who fall
under the jurisdiction of defendant Warren County, Ohio and who
receive or received less than $250.00 in monthly adoption
assistance payments.

The Settlement Agreement

The Settlement Agreement includes the following key provisions.
First, the parties have agreed on procedures and criteria that will
help guide WCCS and all families receiving subsidies on the
criteria that will be considered to reach agreement on adoption
assistance. Second, defendant has agreed to provide these criteria
to staff members and train them on its use. Third, the parties have
agreed that these criteria will be implemented through a revised
adoption subsidy worksheet and a revised annual letter reminding
families of the right to renegotiate. Fourth, the settlement
narrows the class definition from that recommended by the
undersigned magistrate judge, focusing the relief on those parents
receiving less than $250 per child per month. Fifth, it provides
for class members to engage in redeterminations and renegotiations
of current subsidy agreements.

The Parties' Settlement is Fair and Reasonable

In deciding whether to approve the proposed settlement, the Court
must consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate. The Court considers seven factors in making this
determination: (1) the risk of fraud or collusion (2) the
complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation (3) the
amount of discovery engaged in by the parties (4) the likelihood of
success on the merits (5) the opinions of class counsel and class
representatives; (6) the reaction of absent class members and (7)
the public interest.
  
The Risk of Fraud or Collusion

The undersigned finds that there is no evidence or even a
suggestion—that the settlement was the product of fraud or
collusion. The settlement is the product of arm's-length
negotiations of the parties with the assistance of experienced
counsel on both sides. Negotiations have been supervised by either
a United States Magistrate Judge or an experienced private
mediator. The participation of an independent mediator in
settlement negotiations virtually insures that the negotiations
were conducted at arm's length and without collusion between the
parties. The County agency director, prosecutor, and outside
counsel have guided the County, and class counsel have guided the
class representatives. In addition, the class representatives have
been fully engaged in all aspects of settlement.

This factor favors approval of the settlement.

The Complexity, Expense, and Likely Duration

This case involves complex factual and legal issues concerning how
Title IV-E adoption assistance benefits are and should be provided
to families who have adopted children with special needs. The
parties have vigorously litigated these issues for more than one
year. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the defenses raised by Warren
County in its motions for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss
would likely be appealed to the Sixth Circuit if plaintiffs were to
prevail on summary judgment or at trial, thereby further delaying a
final resolution of this matter. Even if plaintiffs would
ultimately be successful after years of litigation and appeals, the
resultant delay would do nothing to address the daily and immediate
needs of the adoptive children and their parents in the interim.
Any resources that can help families now through the settlement
process are more valuable than resources that would not be received
until after the children are grown.

As discussed at the hearing, both parties recognize the costs and
risks associated with continued litigation. Defendant acknowledged
that continued litigation in this case would be lengthy and would
not benefit the agency. Continuing with the litigation would result
in additional time and effort spent preparing for litigation,
including preparing for and taking additional witness and expert
depositions, reviewing records, and preparing for trial. Settling
the case now will direct resources that would otherwise go toward
attorney fees to facilitating redeterminations and renegotiations
for adoptive families.

Finally, counsel for both parties agree that the expedited process
of settlement will provide clear and increased guidance to both the
agency and adoptive families as they move through the negotiation
or renegotiation process.

The Amount of Discovery Engaged in by the Parties

The Court considers the amount of discovery engaged in by
plaintiffs and defendant in assessing the adequacy of the proposed
settlement. The parties engaged in extensive discovery related to
the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class, including some discovery
going to the merits of plaintiffs' claims. Defendant has produced
the extensive WCCS files on Adoptive Families #1-7, which consist
of thousands of pages of records. Defendant has also produced the
various policies, forms and materials related to adoption and
Adoption Assistance. Plaintiffs took depositions of one WCCS
adoption caseworker, the director of WCCS, and the former director
of WCCS. Defendant took 15 depositions: the five putative class
representatives, the mother of Adoptive Family #1, and the mother
and father of Adoptive Families #2 and #3; the three mothers and
three fathers of declarant families #4, #5, #6, and #7; two
experts; and the Title IV-E Unit Supervisor at the Ohio Department
of Job and Family Services.

The Court finds that this exchange of information is sufficient to
inform the settlement negotiations of experienced counsel.

The Likelihood of Success on the Merits

Under the proposed Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed on
procedures and criteria that will help guide WCCS and all families
receiving subsidies on the criteria that will be considered to
reach agreement on adoption assistance. Further, that agreement on
criteria will be implemented through a revised adoption subsidy
worksheet and a revised annual letter reminding families of the
right to renegotiate. The compromise reached in this settlement
narrows the class definition from that recommended by the
undersigned magistrate judge, focusing the relief on those parents
receiving less than $250 per child per month. Moreover, it provides
for class members to engage in redeterminations and renegotiations
of current subsidy agreements. And it bears repeating that class
members will benefit from those provisions now, as opposed to
possibly sometime in the distant future.

The Court determines that the benefits of the relief set forth in
the proposed Settlement Agreement outweigh the uncertainty of
success plaintiffs face on summary judgment, at trial, or on
appeal.

The Opinions of Class Counsel and Class Representatives

The judgment of the parties' counsel that the settlement is in the
best interest of the settling parties "is entitled to significant
weight, and supports the fairness of the class settlement. Counsel
for both plaintiffs and defendant have extensive experience in
class action, civil rights, social reform, and public benefits
litigation. They unanimously recommend this settlement to the Court
and the class as fair and reasonable. At the hearing, class counsel
expressed that the proposed Settlement Agreement properly balances
the need for a prompt and fair resolution for special needs
children against the risk of loss in this case.  

This factor weighs in favor of approval of the settlement.

The Reaction of Absent Class Members

The class's reaction supports approval. Because each of the absent
class member's identity was known, notice of the proposed
settlement was sent to each. Counsel fielded questions from 21
families regarding the notice prior to the fairness hearing, and
each expressed a willingness to participate in the settlement.
There were no objections to the Settlement Agreement from absent
class members.

The Public Interest

In this case, both WCCS and adoptive families have an ongoing
relationship by the very nature of the adoption assistance program
available to special needs children. The Settlement Agreement is
designed to bring clarity to and facilitate the process of
assessing adoption assistance payments for WCCS and adoptive
families. To the extent the process arrived at through the
Settlement Agreement promotes and engenders a more positive
experience for adoptive families and those considering adoption,
this process may facilitate the adoption of more children with
special needs. As the settlement confers immediate benefits on the
Settlement Class, avoids the risks and expense of further
litigation, and conserves judicial resources, the undersigned
determines that the public interest favors approving the
settlement.

In summary, after considering all of the relevant factors, the
undersigned concludes that the Settlement Agreement provides a
substantial benefit to the parties and is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 10, 2019 Order is
available at  https://tinyurl.com/y6z9r76g from Leagle.com.

Adoptive Family and Their Daughter A., Individually and on behalf
of class of similarly situated children and parents, Adoptive
Family and Their Children B. and C., Individually and on behalf of
class of similarly situated children and parents & Adoptive Family
and Their Children D. and E., Plaintiffs, represented by Barbara
Thornell Ginn, Jennifer Lynn Branch, Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA,
Mary Caroline Hyatt, Gerhardstein & Branch Co LPA & Alphonse Adam
Gerhardstein, Gerhardstein & Branch Co. LPA, 441 Vine Street, Suite
3400, Cincinnati, OH 45202

Warren County, Ohio/Warren County Board Of Commissioners,
Defendant, represented by John Stephen Teetor, Isaac Wiles
Burkholder & Teetor, LLC, Two Miranova Place, Suite 700, Columbus,
OH 43215, Kathryn M. Horvath, Warren County Prosecutor's Office &
Aaron Michael Glasgow, Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder & Teetor, LLC, Two
Miranova Place, Suite 700, Columbus, OH 43215


WESTPAC BANKING: Home Loan Customers' Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Misa Han, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that a
Queensland couple who lost more than $430,000 after buying two
investment properties in Darwin and Mudgee blames Westpac Banking
Corp for failing to assess their home loan applications properly
after it underestimated their living expenses by $6570 a month.

The couple, Ian and Michelle Tate, are the lead litigants in a
class action brought by law firm Maurice Blackburn against the
nation's second-largest lender. Maurice Blackburn took Westpac to
the Federal Court in February, alleging on behalf of its clients
that the bank over-relied on benchmarks when assessing home loan
customers.

A court document filed shows that in 2013, the couple bought a
one-bedroom apartment in Darwin's CBD for $540,000 as their second
investment property on an interest-only loan.

Darwin's property market peaked in May 2014, and has suffered from
the worst market downturn of all the capital cities: property
prices in Darwin are back to the level they were in 2007.

When the couple was forced to sell the property in April, they had
to accept the market price of $280,000 -- nearly 50 per cent down
on the purchase price. They had to sell because the five-year
interest-only period expired, and they couldn't afford to make
higher principal-and-interest repayments.

The couple had applied for a home loan through a mortgage broker,
who claimed they had living expenses of $3000 a month. Westpac
relied on an expenditure benchmark -- the household expenditure
measure (HEM) -- which estimated the couple's monthly expenses to
be $3230.

But the couple's bank statements, which were submitted as part of
the home loan application, showed the family's actual expenses were
on average closer to $9800 a month.

Less than a year later, the couple took out another interest-only
home loan for $620,000 also with Westpac -- this time, to subdivide
the land and build a duplex in the regional NSW town of Mudgee.

By then, the couple had living expenses of $8600 a month, although
Westpac relied on the HEM benchmark again.

The Mudgee property was secured by the couple's family home and
their other investment properties. This meant when they sold the
family home in 2017, the bank would not release the proceeds of the
sale as they did not have enough equity in their investment
properties.

Now left with no cash needed to build a new family home, the couple
sold the Mudgee property for $650,000 -- only marginally higher
than the land and development cost of $610,000.

In total, it is estimated the Tate family lost more than $430,000
because of the two investments in Darwin and Mudgee, after the
dramatic market downturn in Darwin and taking into account interest
payments and entry and exit costs.

The class action lawyers claim Westpac should have verified the
family's actual living expenses and assessed their ability to repay
both the principal and interest, not just the interest. They argue
the bank should have declined both loan applications because had
they done the calculations properly, they would have discovered the
family would be short by more than $100,000 a year on making the
repayments.

The class action is being heard by Justice Nye Perram, who is also
deciding on the outcome of the corporate regulator's responsible
lending case against Westpac.

The class action is open to other customers who took out a mortgage
with Westpac or one of its subsidiaries, St George, RAMS, Bank of
Melbourne and BankSA since 2011.

For the time being, Justice Perram refused to grant a "common fund
order", meaning affected customers will be part of the class action
only if they opt in.

Banks have started to crack down on home loan applications in
recent years. All the big four now rely on the higher of the
expenditure benchmark or declared expenses, and Westpac said it
will require more information from the self-employed when assessing
their home loan applications. [GN]


WESTVILLE RESTAURANT: Underpays Cooks & Porters, Chan et al. Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS CHAN; JUAN REYNOSO; GERARDO AGUILAR; and SALVADOR HERRERA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. WESTVILLE RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a WESTVILLE EAST;
HURRICANE STRAUSS, INC. d/b/a WESTVILLE CHELSEA; JAY'S NICKELS AND
DIMES, INC. d/b/a WESTVILLE WEST; LAYLA TOV INC. d/b/a WESTVILLE
HUDSON; DIRTY BOOTS INC. d/b/a WESTVILLE DUMBO; WESTVILLE WALL
STREET INC. d/b/a WESTVILLE WALL STREET; WESTVILLE HK LLC d/b/a
WESTVILLE HELL'S KITCHEN; JAY STRAUSS; and YANIV COHEN, Defendants,
Case No. 155841/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., June 12, 2019)
seeks to recover from the Defendants, unpaid wages due to time
shaving, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid spread-of-hours premium,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

The Plaintiffs Chan, Aguilar and Herrera were employed by the
Defendants as cooks. The Plaintiff Reynoso was employed as porter.

Westville Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Westville East through its
subsidiaries, engages in the restaurant business in the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          Anne Seelig, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181


WILDLIFE CONSERVATORY: Duncan Files Class Suit under ADA
--------------------------------------------------------
Wildlife Conservatory Society is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Eugene Duncan and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wildlife Conservatory Society,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05658 (S.D. N.Y., June 18, 2019).

WCS is an international NGO whose mission is to save wildlife and
wild places worldwide through science, conservation action,
education, and inspiring people to value nature.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
   The Marks Law Firm PC
   175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
   New York, NY 10014
   Tel: (646) 770-3775
   Fax: (646) 867-2639
   Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


WINDSTREAM HOLDINGS: Class Action Plaintiffs Challenge Stay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Windstream Holdings, 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 plaintiffs in class
action lawsuits are challenging the applicability of the bankruptcy
stay with regard to non-debtor defendants.

On February 27, 2017, Windstream Holdings completed its merger with
EarthLink Holdings Corp. ("EarthLink"), pursuant to the terms of
the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") dated
November 5, 2016, whereby EarthLink merged into Europa Merger Sub,
Inc., an wholly-owned subsidiary of Windstream Services, LLC, and
survived, and immediately following, merged with Europa Merger Sub,
LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Windstream Services, LLC, with
Merger Sub surviving and changing its name to EarthLink Holdings,
LLC (the "Merger").

Windstream Holdings, its current and former directors, and certain
of its executive officers are the subject of shareholder-related
lawsuits arising out of the merger with EarthLink Holdings Corp. in
February 2017.

Two putative shareholders have filed separate purported shareholder
class action complaints in federal court in Arkansas and state
court in Georgia, captioned Murray v. Earthlink Holdings Corp., et.
al., and Yadegarian v. Windstream Holdings, Inc., et. al.,
respectively.

Additionally, two separate shareholder derivative actions were
filed during the fourth quarter of 2018 in Arkansas federal court
on behalf of Windstream Holdings, Inc., styled Cindy Graham v.
Wells, et. al., and Larry Graham v. Thomas, et. al.

Additionally, Windstream received a shareholder demand letter in
the fourth quarter of 2018 related to the EarthLink merger.

All four of the complaints and demand letter contain similar
assertions and claims of alleged securities law violations and
breaches of fiduciary duties related to the disclosures in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus soliciting shareholder approval of
the merger, which the plaintiffs allege were inadequate and
misleading.

Suggestions of Bankruptcy and Notices of the Automatic Stay have
been filed with regard to the Murray, Yadegarian and Graham cases,
but the Plaintiffs are challenging the applicability of the stay
with regard to non-debtor defendants. Windstream has filed an
adversary proceeding motion with the Bankruptcy Court regarding
this challenge. A hearing on the motion was set for June 17, 2019.

Windstream said, "We believe that we have valid defenses for each
of the lawsuits, and we plan to vigorously defend the pursuit of
all matters. While the ultimate resolution of the matters is not
currently predictable, if there is an adverse ruling in any of
these matters, the ruling could constitute a material adverse
outcome on the future consolidated results of our income, cash
flows, or financial condition."

Windstream did not file a Suggestion of Bankruptcy as a result of
the filing of the Chapter 11 cases with regard to this matter as it
was determined it would fall under a regulatory exception and is
precluded from the automatic stay.

Windstream Holdings, Inc. provides network communications and
technology solutions in the United States. The company was
incorporated in 2013 and is based in Little Rock, Arkansas. On
February 25, 2019, Windstream Holdings, Inc. along with its 202
affiliates, filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under
Chapter 11 in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of
New York.


WLP EXECUTIVE: Bird et al Seek to Certify Hourly Employees Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit MICHAEL BIRD, DARRIUS WILLIAMS, and
DONTAE TRAVIER, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiffs, vs. WLP EXECUTIVE PROTECTION GROUP, LLC,
RON WARE, JAMES PITTS, and JEFFREY LILLARD, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-00442-GJQ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the
Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the proposed Fair Labor Standards
      Act Collective;

      "all current and former hourly employees who worked for WLP
      Executive Protection Group, LLC at any time in the past
      three years";

   2. appointing undersigned counsel as counsel for the proposed
      Collective;

   3. approving Plaintiffs' proposed form of Notice and authorizing

      dissemination of that Notice to each member of the proposed
      Collective;

   4. requiring Defendants to identify and produce the names, phone

      numbers, last known addresses, and email addresses of all
      proposed Collective members in a computer-readable format
      within 14 days; and

   5. giving members of the proposed Collective 45 days from the
      date the Notice is mailed to join this case if they so
      choose.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants willfully violated the FLSA
by knowingly suffering or permitting Plaintiffs to work in excess
of 40 hours per week without paying overtime compensation at a rate
of one-and-one-half times the regular rate.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          Thomas J. Cedoz, Esq.
          KREIS ENDERLE, P.C.
          8225 Moorsbridge
          P.O. Box. 4010
          Kalamazoo, MI 49003-4010
          Telephone: (269) 324-3000
          Facsimile: (269) 324-3010
          E-mail: jyoung@kehb.com
                  tcedoz@kehb.com

ZAYO GROUP: Duggan Says Proxy Statement over Merger Misleading
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Zayo Group
Holdings, Inc. and the members of the company's board of directors
for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Regulation G, C.F.R. Section 244.100, in
connection with the proposed merger between Zayo and a consortium
comprising of Digital Colony Partners and EQT Fund Management. The
case is captioned THOMAS DUGGAN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ZAYO GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.,
DANIEL CARUSO, DONALD H. GIPS, YANCEY L. SPRUILL, MARY CATHERINE
MORRIS, LINDA ROTTENBERG, DR. STEVEN NEIL KAPLAN, SCOTT W. DRAKE,
EMILY C. WHITE, and RICHARD W. CONNOR, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01112-UNA (D. Del., June 17, 2019).

On May 8, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the company's
shareholders stand to receive $35.00 in cash for each share of Zayo
stock they own. On June 3, 2019, in order to convince Zayo
shareholders to vote in favor of the proposed merger, the Board
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading
Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission. In particular, the Proxy contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial
projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and
relied on by Defendants in recommending that Zayo shareholders vote
in favor of the proposed merger; and (ii) the summary of certain
valuation analyses conducted by Zayo's financial advisors, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC and Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC in support of its
opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders on
which the Board relied.

Zayo is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal
executive offices at 1821 30th Street, Unit A, Boulder, CO 80301.
Its common stock trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "ZAYO."
Zayo is a provider of bandwidth infrastructure in the United
States, Canada and Europe. The company's products enable high
bandwidth applications such as cloud-based computing, video,
mobile, social media, machine-to-machine connectivity, and other
bandwidth-intensive applications. Zayo's key products include
leased dark fiber, fiber to cellular towers and small cell sites,
dedicated Wavelength connections, Ethernet, IP connectivity, cloud
offerings and other high-bandwidth offerings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Telephone: (302) 482-3182
     E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

             - and –

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 983-9330
     Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
     E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***