CAR_Public/190703.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, July 3, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 132

                            Headlines

A GROUP NY: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ALL AMERICAN FACILITY: Flete Seeks Overtime Pay
ALLERGAN INC: Teamsters Appeals Ruling in Asacol Suit to 1st Cir.
AMERICAN GIANT: Diaz Files ADA Class Action in N.Y.
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces Meisel Suit in N.J. Over Data Breach

ASHLEY SERVICES: Australia Court Approves Class Suit Settlement
AT&T MOBILITY: Vianu Sues Over Improper Administrative Fees
AVANT VENTURES: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
B COLEMAN FLOORING: Class of Installers Certified in Zapata Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Flores Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: Rivota Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
BATHROOM BUDDY: Lawyer Seeks Proper Minimum, Overtime Wages
BLC LEXINGTON: Court Narrows Claims in C. Johnson's Suit
BLINC INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Klein Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts

CAPITAL ONE: Zhao Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
CITYREALTY.COM: Maness Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
COLORTREE GROUP: Kennedy Seeks to Recoup Wages Under WARN Act
COLUMBIA DEBT: Wang Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CONTROL4 CORPORATION: Sabatini Files Suit Over Wirepath Merger Deal

COOPERSURGICAL INC: Sawyer's Bid for Class Certification Denied
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Cross-Appeals Judgment in Flushable Wipes Suit
COURTNEY PHILLIPS: Ward Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
CRAY INC: Davie Balks at Merger Deal with Hewlett Packard
DAKOTA OF ROCKY HILL: Bid to Certify Class under Advisement

DASSAULT FALCON: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Judgment in Coates Suit
DEAN MEILING: Harris Suit Transferred to District of Nevada
DIRECT ENERGY: Murphy Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
DNF ASSOCIATES: Viernes Sues over Debt Collection Practices
E&A BAKERY: Violates ADA, Duncan Suit Asserts

EAST COAST INTERIORS: Martinez Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
EDWARD D JONES: Huang Appeals Ruling in McDonald Suit to 8th Cir.
ENCORE HEALTH: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ENTEGRA FINANCIAL: Parshall Seeks More Info on Sale to Bancshares
ERIC RICHARD: Breeze Files ADA Suit in New Jersey

EUCLID BEACH: Ballard Suit Asserts Breach of Contract
FACEBOOK INC: Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages Revived
FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Inflated Viewership Metrics Settled
FCA US LLC: Wrangler's 'Death Wobble' Leads to Class Action Suit
FLINT HILLS: Downey Alleges Systemic Illegal Employment Practices

FORSTER & GARBUS: Park Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
FRONTLINE ASSET: Perl Files Suit Asserting FDCPA Breach
GENERAL MOTORS: Gallagher, Wyatt Seek Overtime Pay
GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
HEALTH INSURANCE: Levine Kellogg Files Suit Over Insurance Fraud

HIDDEN WHARF: Palacios Files Class Suit in New York
INTERNATIONAL LASER: Courts Grants Motion to Certify Class
INTUIT, INC: Cook Suit over Turbo Tax Moved to N.D. California
JORDAN'S FURNITURE: Sutton Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Status OK'd in 401(k) Excessive Fee Suit

KIA MOTORS: Leblanc Sues Over Vehicle's Engine Defect
KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
L'OREAL USA: Borchenko Moves to Certify UCL California-Only Class
LE SHERIDAN LLC: Patterson Sues Over Lack of Relocation Assistance
LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: Jackson's Motion to Certify Class Denied

LIBERTY PLACE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Nunez Suit Says
LIGHT TO TOUGH: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LIGHTHOUSE LIVING: Broadway Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Faces Normantas Securities Suit in Oklahoma
MAMMOTH ENERGY: Zhang Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

MDL 2887: Conley Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
MDL 2887: Hall Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
MDL 2887: Skoog et al. Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
MEMEBOX CORPORATION: Diaz Files ADA Class Action in N.Y.
METRO BANK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

MGD STEWARTS: Larios Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
MICHIGAN: DOC, et al., Appeals Decision in John Does Inmates Suit
MOMENTA PHARMA: Hospital Authority Seeks to Certify Damages Class
MVNBC CORP: Vasquez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
NAPHCARE INC: Taylor Seeks Unpaid Wages for Jail Staff

NESTLE DREYER'S: Liou Sues Over Products' Misleading Labels
NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of Students with Diabetes
NIBCO INC: Matson Sues Over Defective PEX Products
OXNARD SCHOOL: Class Certification Bid, Motion to Dismiss Shelved
P.R.B.A. CORP: Logan Sues Over Discriminatory Employment Practices

PAUL F. PEDERSEN: Reyes Files Suit in Illinois Over Unpaid Wages
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Doherty Sues over Misleading IPO Statements
PLASTIQ INC: Griffith Sues Over EFTA Breach
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Hit With Class Suit After Patient Data Breach
RA MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Lawsuit

RAILROAD CONSULTANTS: Jones Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Rezke Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
RODEO REALTY: Smith Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
SAFE HARBOR: McGrath Files Class Action in Massachusetts
SLEEPY'S LLC: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Hargrove Class Suit

SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Customers to Get $146MM in Settlement
ST. ANTHONY MEDICAL: Owens' Bid to Certify Denied Over Deal Talks
TEN: Forton Sues Over Unlawful Data Disclosure
TROPICANA: Johnson Sues Over Products' Deceptive Labels
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Hit With Suit Over Wheelchair Accessibility

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: $125M Settlement Has Prelim Approval
VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Viernes Sues over Debt Collection Practices
VITRA EYEWEAR: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WAG LABS: Court Certifies Settlement Class of Dog Walks Performers
WAITR HOLDINGS: Halley's Cert. Bid Stayed; July 12 Hearing Set

WEST POINT CHIPS: Angeion Group Says Class Suit Certified

                            *********

A GROUP NY: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Group NY, Inc. The
case is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A Group NY, Inc.
doing business as: Aube New York, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05774
(S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019).

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

A Group NY, Inc. doing business as: Aube New York is a salon,
located in New York's East village.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALL AMERICAN FACILITY: Flete Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against All American
Facility Maintenance Inc. (AAFM) for alleged violations of overtime
provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The case
is captioned CEASAR FLETE, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALL AMERICAN FACILITY MAINTENANCE
INC., A Florida Profit Corporation, and CHRISTOPHER BREWER,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61536-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
June 20, 2019). Plaintiff Ceasar Flete, and the class of
individuals he seeks to represent, were non-exempt customer
service/clerical employees of AAFM who earned, but did not receive,
overtime wages calculated at time and one-half their regular rate
of pay for all time they spent working over 40 hours per week for
AAFM.

AAFM is a Florida for-profit company that conducts its for-profit
maintenance business in Florida, with its principal places of
business in Broward County, Florida. Christopher Brewer is the
owner and operator of AAFM. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Noah E. Storch, Esq.
     RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
     10368 W. SR 84, Suite 103
     Davie, FL 33324
     Telephone: (866) 344-9243
     Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
     E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com


ALLERGAN INC: Teamsters Appeals Ruling in Asacol Suit to 1st Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, NECA-IBEW
Welfare Trust Fund, Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance
Plan and Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Teamsters Union, et al. v.
Allergan, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-12730-DJC, in the U.S.
District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the litigation
is a putative class action in which the Plaintiffs, members of a
putative class of end-payor purchasers of certain pharmaceutical
products, allege that the Defendants, manufacturers of certain
pharmaceutical products, engaged in exclusionary conduct
impermissible under antitrust laws by pulling one product, Asacol
400mg, from the market at the same that it introduced a new
product, Delzicol.

The appellate case is captioned as Teamsters Union, et al. v.
Allergan, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-8011, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners TEAMSTERS UNION 25 HEALTH SERVICES &
INSURANCE PLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, and NECA-IBEW WELFARE TRUST FUND, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          David P. Barclay, Esq.
          Eric D. Barton, Esq.
          Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
          Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP
          4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701-1100
          E-mail: dbarclay@wcllp.com
                  ebarton@wcllp.com
                  tcartmell@wagstaffcartmell.net
                  thudson@wcllp.com

               - and -

          Norman Berman, Esq.
          Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
          Justin Nader Saif, Esq.
          John Henby Sutter, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          1 Liberty Sq., 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          E-mail: nberman@bermantabacco.com
                  norenstein@bermantabacco.com
                  jsaif@bermantabacco.com
                  jsutter@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          Jeffrely L. Kodroff, Esq.
          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF PC
          2001 Market St., Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: jkodroff@srkwlaw.com
                  jmacoretta@srkw-law.com
                  dzinser@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Peter J. Mougey, Esq.
          LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR PA
          316 S Baylen St., Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-2451
          E-mail: pmougey@levinlaw.com

Plaintiffs-Petitioners WISCONSIN MASONS' HEALTH CARE FUND, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, and MINNESOTA
LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Norman Berman, Esq.
          Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
          Justin Nader Saif, Esq.
          John Henby Sutter, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          1 Liberty Sq., 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          E-mail: nberman@bermantabacco.com
                  norenstein@bermantabacco.com
                  jsaif@bermantabacco.com
                  jsutter@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          Joshua Rissman, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 S 6th St., Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          E-mail: kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
                  jrissman@gustafsongluek.com

Defendants-Respondents ALLERGAN, INC., f/k/a Actavis, PLC; WARNER
CHILCOTT LIMITED; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; and
ALLERGAN, PLC, f/k/a Actavis, PLC, are represented by:

          Kevin C. Adam, Esq.
          Katherine Dyson, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          75 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109-1814
          Telephone: (978) 836-6363
          E-mail: kevin.adam@whitecase.com
                  kate.dyson@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Nicole J. Benjamin, Esq.
          ADLER POLLOCK & SHEEHAN PC
          1 Citizens Plaza, 8th Floor
          Providence, RI 02903-1345
          Telephone: (401) 274-7200
          E-mail: nbenjamin@apslaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew Bernstein, Esq.
          Noah Austin Brumfield, Esq.
          Peter J. Carney, Esq.
          Eileen M. Cole, Esq.
          Amanda Lee Czocher, Esq.
          Dana Foster, Esq.
          John Mark Gidley, Esq.
          Trisha Grant, Esq.
          Matthew Sterrett Leddicotte, Esq.
          Holly Letourneau, Esq.
          Sonia Murphy, Esq.
          Matthew Shandy, Esq.
          Nicholas L. Wilkins, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          701 13 St., NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3807
          Telephone: (202) 637-6193
          Facsimile: (202) 639-9355
          E-mail: matthew.bernstein@whitecase.com
                  noah.brumfield@whitecase.com
                  pcarney@whitecase.com
                  ecole@whitecase.com
                  lee.czocher@whitecase.com
                  defoster@whitecase.com
                  mgidley@whitecase.com
                  trisha.grant@whitecase.com
                  mleddicotte@whitecase.com
                  hletourneau@whitecase.com
                  smurphy@whitecase.com
                  nick.wilkins@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Angela Daker, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4900
          Miami, FL 33131-2352
          Telephone: (305) 371-2700
          E-mail: adaker@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Demetra Frawley, Esq.
          Michael J. Gallagher, Esq.
          Bryan Grant, Esq.
          Alison Hanstead, Esq.
          Stefan M. Mentzer, Esq.
          Jack E. Pace, III, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1095
          Telephone: (212) 819-8200
          Facsimile: (212) 354-8113
          E-mail: mgallagher@whitecase.com
                  ahanstead@whitecase.com
                  smentzer@whitecase.com
                  jpace@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Miles Greaves, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Ln, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931-0704
          E-mail: mgreaves@tcllaw.com


AMERICAN GIANT: Diaz Files ADA Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Giant, Inc.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. American Giant, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05804 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019).

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

American Giant is a San Francisco-based manufacturer of sportswear
and casual clothing that sells directly to customers through its
website. Its goods are all produced in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Faces Meisel Suit in N.J. Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
MARK MEISEL, ZAKARIA HAQUE, ROBERT OSWALD, LORI WEINRIB, ROBERT
CORWIN, and CINDY FARBER, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, INC.,
OPTUM360 SERVICES, INC., QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, and DOES
1-10, Case No. 2:19-cv-13484 (D.N.J., June 6, 2019), is brought
against the Defendants because of their alleged failure to protect
the confidential information of millions of patients, including
their financial information (e.g., credit card numbers and bank
account information), medical information, personal information
(e.g., Social Security Numbers), and/or other protected health
information as defined by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996.

On June 3, 2019, Quest publicly admitted in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that on May 14, 2019, 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.

American Medical Collection Agency, Inc., is a New York corporation
with its principal place of business in Elmsford, New York.
Optum360 Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Secaucus, New Jersey.  Quest is the
world's leading provider of medical diagnostic testing services.
Quest performs medical tests that aid in the diagnosis or detection
of diseases, and that measure the progress of or recovery from a
disease.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
          Parvin Aminolroaya, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
          Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
          Telephone: (973) 639-9100
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
                  paminolroaya@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Scullion, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          E-mail: jscullion@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036-8718
          Telephone: (917) 438-9189
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Adam Frankel, Esq.
          GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC
          881 Lake Avenue
          Greenwich, CT 06831
          Telephone: (203) 622-6001
          E-mail: adam@grwlegal.com


ASHLEY SERVICES: Australia Court Approves Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Staffing Industry Analysts reports that labour hire firm Ashley
Services Group Limited (ASH: ASX) announced that the Federal Court
of Australia approved the Deed of Settlement for the previously
announced shareholder class action commenced against it.

The class action was brought by Richard John Findlay Bradgate as
Trustee of the Bradgate Superannuation Fund in the NSW Registry of
the Federal Court of Australia on Dec. 1, 2016. Claims in the case
arose from allegedly misleading statements and omissions in
Ashley's prospectuses issued prior to the company's listing on the
Australian Securities Exchange in August 2014..

Ashley Services first announced in December 2018 that it had signed
a head of agreement recording a proposal to settle a class-action
shareholder lawsuit.

The company reported the class action was commenced against it in
December 2016 by Richard John Findlay Bradgate as Trustee of the
Bradgate Superannuation Fund. In April 2019, the company then
updated that it had executed a Deed of Settlement for the class
action.

Ashley Services added that the settlement is expected to have
minimal impact on its financial results. [GN]


AT&T MOBILITY: Vianu Sues Over Improper Administrative Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
IAN VIANU and IRINA BUKCHIN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-03602 (N.D. Cal., June 20, 2019) seeks, on behalf
of themselves and a class of all similarly situated California
consumers, an award of damages, restitution, pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and permanent injunctive
relief, including but not limited to AT&T discontinuing charging
Plaintiffs and the putative class members the improper
Administrative Fees.

AT&T prominently advertises particular flat monthly rates for its
post-paid wireless service plans. Then, after customers sign up,
AT&T actually charges higher monthly rates than the customers were
promised and agreed to pay. AT&T covertly increases the actual
price by padding all post-paid wireless customers' bills each month
with a bogus so-called "Administrative Fee" (currently $1.99 every
month for each phone line) on top of the advertised price. The
Administrative Fee is not disclosed to customers before or when
they sign up, and in fact it is never adequately and honestly
disclosed to them. The so-called Administrative Fee is not, in
fact, a bona fide administrative fee, but rather is simply a means
for AT&T to charge more per month for the service itself without
having to advertise the higher prices, says the complaint.

Through this scheme, AT&T has unfairly and improperly extracted
hundreds of millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains from California
consumers. Plaintiffs, by this action, seek a public injunction to
enjoin AT&T from its false advertising practice and to require AT&T
to disclose to the consuming public, in advance, the true costs
consumers will pay for its wireless services.

Plaintiffs are citizens and residents California.

AT&T Mobility LLC ("AT&T") is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal office or place of business at 1025 Lenox Park
Boulevard NE, Atlanta, GA 30319.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
     Roger N. Heller, Esq.
     Sarah R. London, Esq.
     Avery S. Halfon, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
     275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 956-1000

          - and -

     Daniel M. Hattis, Esq.
     Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
     HATTIS & LUKACS
     400 108th Ave NE, Ste. 500
     Bellevue, WA 98004
     Phone: (425) 233-8650


AVANT VENTURES: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avant Ventures, Inc.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Avant Ventures, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05808 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019).

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

Avant Venture is a professional services company, providing
integrated acquisition and investment services through strategy,
digital, technology and operations capabilities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


B COLEMAN FLOORING: Class of Installers Certified in Zapata Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Timothy J. Kelly grants the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Class Certification in the lawsuit captioned RONALD
ZAPATA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. B.
COLEMAN FLOORING INSTALLATION, LLC et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-01134-TJK (D.D.C.).

The Court conditionally certifies as a collective all persons who,
during any time in 2017, worked as tile installers or tile
installer helpers for Defendant B. Coleman at The Wharf project.

In May 2018, Mr. Zapata filed this case as a collective action
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the District
of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act and the District of Columbia
Wage Payment and Collection Law.  He alleges that the Defendants
violated the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA and
D.C. law over work that he and others performed on a construction
project.  He has moved to conditionally certify this suit as a
collective action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA and Section
32-1308(a)(1)(C) of the D.C. Code.

Judge Kelly also ruled that:

   1. Defendants' Motion for Leave to Withdraw Handwriting Expert
      is granted and Motion to File Surreply is denied;

   2. within 14 days of this Order, the parties shall meet,
      confer, and submit to the Court a revised joint report
      pursuant to FRCP 26(f) and Local Rule 16.3; and

   3. within 21 days of this Order, the parties shall meet,
      confer, and submit to the Court a joint status report
      setting forth their positions on whether providing notice
      to currently-unidentified members of the collective is
      necessary, and if so, how the parties propose to identify,
      and provide notice to, those members.[CC]


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Flores Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned VICTORIA FLORES, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-cv-2527-WJM-KLM. (D.
Colo.).

Flores alleges that she had a no-fee eBanking Checking Account
account with Bank of America for several years before January 2018.
In the middle of that month, Bank of America automatically enrolled
her and all other eBanking account holders, allegedly without their
consent, in a new Core Checking account with an
automatically-withdrawn $12 monthly fee. She specifically pleads
five claims for relief: breach of contract (Claim 1), breach of the
covenant of good faith and fear dealing (Claim 2) sometimes
referred to below as a GFFD claim,  violation of the Colorado
Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) (Claim 3), conversion (Claim 4)  and
unjust enrichment (Claim 5).

RULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD

General Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to
dismiss a claim in a complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. The 12(b)(6) standard requires the
Court to assume the truth of the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual
allegations and view them in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. In ruling on such a motion, the dispositive inquiry is
whether the complaint contains enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.

This case presents potentially significant choice-of-law questions,
particularly as between the laws of Colorado (for which Flores
mainly argues) and Virginia (for which Bank of America argues).
However, the Court finds that those issues are clarified by first
examining Flores's claims on their merits under both states' laws.


Following that analysis, the Court will address the choice of law
issue.

Has Flores Adequately Pleaded a Breach of Contract Claim?

Bank of America argues that Flores has failed to state a claim for
breach of contract under either Colorado or Virginia law because
Flores fails even to specify the contractual terms Bank of America
purportedly violated.

Flores responds that she had a contract with BOA that entitled her
to a free checking account, as long as she chose to forgo certain
BOA services. BOA breached that contractual promise when, without
Plaintiff's assent, it unilaterally closed her account, opened a
new account, then began to withdraw $144 a year from her new
account automatically and provided her no additional services in
the process. Under Colorado and Virginia law, a modification to a
contract cannot be made by unilateral fiat. Rather, it requires
assent and consideration.

Both are lacking.  

The Competing Views of What Happened

Evaluating the parties' arguments requires settling on the
appropriate way to view the change from eBanking to Core Checking.

Flores views eBanking as a free checking account with certain
charges for using in-person banking services, while Core Checking
necessarily costs $12/month. Flores insists that her eBanking
account was closed and then a new account the Core Checking account
was opened, so the two accounts are fundamentally distinct.

Bank of America views eBanking as an $8.95/month checking account,
with the fee waived if the account holder elects electronic
statements and foregoes in-person banking services, while Core
Checking is a $12/month checking account, with the fee waived if
the account holder satisfies different conditions, direct deposit
of $250 or more per month, or a minimum daily balance of $1,500, or
enrollment in a rewards program.  

The Court agrees with Bank of America that Flores has not plausibly
pled either that she had a free checking account or that it was
closed and reopened as something new. Flores has never had an
unqualifiedly free checking account.  

Illusoriness & Narrowing Constructions

The Modification Clause and the Conversion Clause could not be
plainer about
Bank of America's authority to make a change such as the conversion
of eBanking accounts to Core Checking accounts. Likely for this
reason, Flores argues that the Modification Clause (she does not
explicitly address the Conversion Clause grants so much discretion
to Bank of America as to potentially render the contract illusory.


Again, Flores's eBanking account was never free. It cost
$8.95/month, subject to waiver conditions that Flores apparently
always met. Now, Core Checking costs $12/month, subject to waiver
conditions that Flores apparently has never met.  

But Flores's arguments are, in any event, a departure from her
pleadings. To repeat, Flores does not claim she is entitled to a
lifetime of free checking because she entered into an initial
contract for one.  Rather, she affirms BofA's rights to cease
offering a product like free checking accounts, and to set the
prices of its products. She only challenges the process through
which BofA chose to close her old account and enroll her in a new
one was unfair and deceptive.

First, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
generally saves clauses like the Modification Clause from
illusoriness. As explained below in Part III.B.1, that duty
certainly applies if Colorado law governs. Because it may turn out
that Colorado law governs this dispute, there is no need to
consider at this stage whether the Modification or Conversion
Clauses bring down the entire Deposit Agreement as illusory.

Second, counsel's proposal was plainly something formulated while
preparing for oral argument. It was not developed in briefing and
Bank of America never received an adequate opportunity to respond.

Third, the Court gathers that Flores's counsel has not thoroughly
considered the potential consequences of this proposal. Without
prejudging the matter, any argument that Flores and the proposed
class have been banking with Bank of America for years effectively
without a contract would at least raise the question of whether
Bank of America may counterclaim against Flores and the class under
an unjust enrichment/quantum meruit theory.

The argument would be that the cost of providing eBanking services
was a not zero, even when customers elected paperless statements
and avoided in-person banking, so, in fairness, former eBanking
account holders should be required to pay for the services Bank of
America provided during the years the parties erroneously assumed
they were operating under a contract. The Court will not presume
that Flores's counsel means to redirect the case into such
potentially treacherous territory without a clear signal that
counsel understands the possible consequences.

Nothing about the Modification or Conversion Clauses gives rise to
a breach of contract claim or, on this record, an argument against
enforcement of the Deposit Agreement.

Whether Affirmative Assent Was Required

Flores's additionally argues that, under normal contract law, a
party must assent to another party's proposed contractual change.
Flores argues that assent is a fact question that cannot be
resolved at this stage.

The Deposit Agreement sets forth the method for expressing assent:
If you continue to use your account or keep it open, you are deemed
to accept and agree to the change and are bound by the change.
Accordingly, Bank of America did not breach any term of the Deposit
Agreement by presuming Flores's assent when it never received from
her and opt-out notice. Rather, Bank of America acted according to
the Deposit Agreement. Thus, Flores pleads no breach in this
regard.

Whether There Was a Failure of Consideration

Flores cites cases which hold that modification without
consideration is ineffective.But Flores betrays her understanding
of the consideration she received as follows: It is difficult to
fathom what consideration could possibly exist for the
modification. Under the new contract, Plaintiff was entitled to
receive the exact same service as before a checking account only
now she had to pay $144 per year for it.

In sum, the pleadings and other documents to which the Court may
refer at this stage show that Bank of America acted according to
the relevant contracts, not in violation of them. Flores's breach
of contract claim will be dismissed with prejudice.

Has Flores Adequately Pleaded a Claim for Breach of the Implied
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing?

Flores's GFFD Theories

Electronic-Only Notice

Flores attacks the electronic-only nature of the notice. In her
view, this is not only per se unreasonable, but insidious because
the low-income customers who were likely to have eBanking often
could access electronic materials only through their phones, making
electronic statements even more difficult to read.

This argument implicates the Notice Clause, particularly where it
says we mail the notice to you at the address we currently show for
your statement or, if we have agreed on this method, we provide it
to you electronically. This portion of the Notice Clause is not a
specific contract term [that] allows for discretion. The language
establishes that Bank of America will send notices electronically
"if we have agreed on this method and "we" means Bank of America.


It may be true that Flores elected to receive everything
electronically (statements, notices, tax forms, etc.), but that is
not supported solely by the fact that she elected paperless
statements. Further, the Notice Clause requires Bank of America
(we) to agree to provide notices electronically it does not say
anything about the account holder's agreement. Thus, under the
Notice Clause, it is irrelevant that Flores elected to receive
statements electronically; the relevant question is whether Bank of
America agreed to send notices electronically.

That said, the Notice Clause is still not a specific grant of
discretion whether to send notices electronically. Thus, it is not
a potential basis for breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing.

Opt-Out Structure

Flores challenges the opt-out nature of the transition to Core
Checking. Flores does not identify, nor could the Court locate, a
specific contract term that allows for discretion in this regard.
The closest appears to be the final paragraph of the Modification
Clause: "If you continue to use your account or keep it open, you
are deemed to accept and gree to the change and are bound by the
change. If you do not agree with a change, you may close your
account as provided in this Agreement. But this addresses what will
happen when Bank of America sends a change notice, not a
requirement Bank of America may choose to impose. Thus, there is no
discretion-granting clause on which to base a GFFD claim.

Even if the case were otherwise, Flores has not plausibly pleaded
that Bank of America could have adopted an opt-in structure,
considering her concession that she is not entitled to the eBanking
terms indefinitely. An opt-in procedure would mean that an eBanking
account holder could, contrary to Flores's concession, maintain the
eBanking terms indefinitely.

Flores's GFFD claim will be dismissed with prejudice to the extent
she alleges that Bank of America had a choice whether to use an
opt-in or opt-out procedure.

Notice Included in a Statement

Finally, Flores asserts that it was bad faith for Bank of America
to include the notice at (or toward) the end of a bank statement.
This implicates the Notice Clause, not the Modification Clause. The
Notice Clause says, among other things, "We may provide a notice as
a message on your statement or as an insert with your
statement.”

The Court agrees with counsel for Bank of America to the extent
that not every contractual clause including the word "may" is a
specific discretion-granting clause. In context, a contract term
saying that one party "may" do X or Y might be most reasonably
interpreted as a bargained-for agreement that the other party will
accept both X and Y as proper performance. And sometimes parties
use "may" when they really mean "will."  

Accordingly, the choice to include a notice as a message on a bank
statement, allegedly because it was likely to be overlooked and
therefore would allow Bank of America to collect monthly account
fees before affected account holders recognized the change, is a
plausible basis for a claim that Bank of America breached the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Bank of America's motion
will be denied to this extent.

Has Flores Adequately Pleaded a CCPA Claim?

The Colorado Legislature enacted the CCPA to regulate commercial
activities and practices which, because of their nature, may prove
injurious, offensive, or dangerous to the public. The CCPA deters
and punishes businesses which commit deceptive practices in their
dealings with the public by providing prompt, economical, and
readily available remedies against consumer fraud. The elements of
a private CCPA cause of action are usually stated as follows:

(1) that the defendant engaged in an unfair or deceptive trade
practice (2) that the challenged unfair or deceptive practice
occurred in the course of defendant's business, vocation, or
occupation (3) that [the challenged unfair or deceptive practice
significantly impacts the public as actual or potential consumers
of the defendant's goods, services, or property (4) that the
plaintiff suffered injury in fact to a legally protected interest
and(5) that the challenged practice caused the plaintiff's injury.

Bank of America argues that, although the elements are phrased in
terms of \unfair or deceptive trade practices, the case law
demonstrates that there is no claim for a trade practice that is
not deceptive but still unfair.  

All that said, unfair or deceptive is now thoroughly entrenched in
the statement of the CCPA's elements, and it is unclear the degree
to which the Court can disregard the Colorado Supreme Court's
interpretation of Colorado law as dicta when the true problem is
not lack of a holding, but the inclusion within the holding of
unreasoned "extras." This Court is therefore hesitant to say that
Bank of America is correct in its argument that the CCPA does not
reach unfair-but-not-deceptive practices. Nonetheless, Flores's
response brief entirely ignores this argument and instead seeks to
demonstrate Bank of America's alleged deceptions, without relying
on any allegedly independent unfairness.

The Court therefore deems Flores to have conceded Bank of America's
point, at least for present purposes, and the Court will turn to
whether Flores has pleaded a deceptive trade practice, meaning a
false or misleading statement that induces the recipient to act or
refrain from acting, which was made either with knowledge of its
untruth, or recklessly and willfully made without regard to its
consequences, and with an intent to mislead and deceive the
plaintiff.

At oral argument, Flores's counsel repeatedly referred to Bank of
America's actions as "bait and switch" tactics, likely because the
CCPA explicitly prohibits "`bait and switch' advertising."  This
was not in any of Flores's filings in Bank of America never
received an adequate opportunity to respond. In any event, Flores
had her eBanking account for at least five years before the alleged
bait and switch. Under the circumstances, such a bait and switch
claim is implausible on its face.

More fundamentally, Flores never explains how Bank of America acted
deceptively when it only took actions that were explicitly
disclosed, at least as possibilities, in the relevant contracts.

Flores's CCPA claim is dismissed with prejudice to the extent she
alleges deceptive trade practices. However, in light of the legal
uncertainty under that statute about trade practices that are
unfair but not deceptive, Flores's CCPA claim is dismissed without
prejudice as to such unfair practices. Should Flores move for leave
to amend in that regard, she must provide citations to Colorado
state-court case law or Colorado statutes establishing that the
CCPA extends to unfair-but-not-deceptive practices.

Has Flores Adequately Pleaded a Conversion Claim?

The consensus in American jurisdictions is that conversion claims
must usually be directed at tangible property. Thus, generally, a
conversion claim directed at money must be directed at specific
bills or coins, not undifferentiated funds within an account.

Federal courts interpreting Virginia law have extended
conversion-of-money claims to those directed at an identifiable
fund, such as funds segregated in an escrow account, even though
they might otherwise be considered an intangible ledger entry. This
extension of conversion draws from the principle that, even at
common law, money could be converted so long as it was in a bag or
chest. Thus, it remains rooted in the idea that money is not the
subject of a conversion claim unless it is a discrete sum,
segregated from undifferentiated funds.

Here, Flores seeks to recover money withdrawn from an
undifferentiated account. Thus, regardless of what state's law
applies, this claim fails and will be dismissed with prejudice.

Has Flores Adequately Pleaded an Unjust Enrichment Claim?

The parties do not point the Court to any material distinction
between Virginia and Colorado law regarding unjust enrichment. In
Colorado, a party claiming unjust enrichment must prove that (1)
the defendant received a benefit (2) at the plaintiff's expense (3)
under circumstances that would make it unjust for the defendant to
retain the benefit without commensurate compensation.

In Virginia, the elements of unjust enrichment are: (1) a benefit
conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff (2) knowledge on the
part of the defendant of the conferring of the benefit and (3)
acceptance or retention of the benefit by the defendant in
circumstances that render it inequitable for the defendant to
retain the benefit without paying for its value.

Bank of America asks the Court to follow Gordon v. Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc., 344 F.Supp.3d 1231 (D. Colo. 2018), and hold that
Flores received value for her $12 monthly fee, so Bank of America
cannot have been unjustly enriched. The plaintiffs in Gordon were
all restaurant customers whose personal information was disclosed
through a data breach, and they claimed unjust enrichment in the
sense that Chipotle charged too much for food because what the
customers paid obviously was not enough Christine M. Arguello
dismissed the claim because it was undisputed that Plaintiffs
received the food services for which they paid. Defendant was
therefore not unjustly enriched by retaining Plaintiffs' payments.

The Court is persuaded that Gordon provides the correct framework.
Flores counters, however, that Gordon is distinguishable because
she did not receive anything new: Here, in contrast to Gordon,
after the unilateral account closure, [Flores] and accountholders
were still receiving the same services as they had initially
received with the free checking account, making the retention of
the maintenance fees unjust under the circumstances.

This argument fails for two reasons. First, as discussed
previously, Flores was not receiving the same services whether or
not she wanted to use them, in-person banking and paper statements
were available to her for no extra charge under Core Checking.
Second, to say that one continues to receive the same services is
to admit that one is receiving services in exchange for money. If
Flores means to say and she never does so explicitly that a $12 fee
is somehow wildly out of proportion to the value of what a Core
Checking account holder receives in return for the fee, the
complaint contains no allegations substantiating such a claim.

The Court will dismiss Flores's unjust enrichment claim. This
dismissal is without prejudice, however, because the Court is not
persuaded that Flores could never allege a viable unjust enrichment
claim based on the $12 fee, at least in the alternative. Flores
nonetheless should carefully consider whether, as previously
mentioned pursuing such a claim potentially opens her up to an
argument from Bank of America that she underpaid compared to the
value of what she received.

Accordingly, Bank of America's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint and, in the Alternative, Strike Class Allegations is:

   a. granted with prejudice as to Flores's claim for breach of
contract.

   b. denied as to Flores's claim for breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, to the extent the claim is based on
Bank of America's decision to include notice within a bank
statement;

   c. granted with prejudice as to any other theory of breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing;

   d. granted without prejudice as to Flores's claim for violation
of the CCPA;

   e. granted with prejudice as to Flores's claim for conversion;

   f. granted without prejudice as to Flores's claim for unjust
enrichment; and

   g. denied without prejudice as to Bank of America's argument
that nationwide class allegations should be stricken.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 13, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyrtvubo from Leagle.com.

Victoria Flores, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byBrittany Courtney Casola --
bcasola@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela &
Carpenter, LLP, Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr. --
tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela &
Carpenter LLP, Sophia Goren Gold -- sgold@kalielpllc.com -- Kaliel,
PLLC & Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel -- jdkaliel@gmail.com -- Kaliel,
PLLC.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Edgar Hernandez
Martinez -- emartinez@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Elizabeth
L. McKeen -- emckeen@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP & William K.
Pao -- wpao@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.


BANK OF AMERICA: Rivota Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned MICHAEL A. RIVOTA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION and MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
Defendants, Case No. 2019CH03625 was removed from the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on June 20, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 1:19-cv-04156.

From approximately April 3, 2016 until approximately March 21,
2017, Plaintiff worked for Merrill Lynch at its call center in
Rolling Meadows, Illinois, initially as an Investment Specialist
Trainee, and then as an Investment Specialist I. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants failed to pay him and other hourly putative class
members ("PCMs") for straight time and overtime compensation for
all time worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in violation of the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"). Plaintiff further alleges that
Defendants failed to pay him and other hourly PCMs for all hours
worked at the rates agreed to by the parties, on their regularly
scheduled paydays including but not limited to their final
compensation upon separation of employment, in violation of the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James X. Bormes, Esq.
     Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
     Law Office of James X. Bormes, P.C
     8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-201-0575
     Email: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
            cpsons@bormeslaw.com

          - and -

     Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
     Law Office of Thomas M. Ryan, P.C.
     35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: 312-726-3400
     Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com

          - and -

     Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
     Frank Castiglione, Esq.
     The Khowaja Law Firm, LLC
     70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: 312-356-3200
     Email: kasif@khowajalaw.com
            fcastiglione@khowajalaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Chen G. Ni, Esq.
     Katharine P. Lennox, Esq.
     MCGUIREWOODS LLP
     77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 4100
     Chicago, IL 60601-1818
     Phone: (312) 849-8100
     Facsimile: (312) 849-3690
     Email: cni@mcguirewoods.com
            klennox@mcguirewoods.com


BATHROOM BUDDY: Lawyer Seeks Proper Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN LAWYER and WARREN ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BATHROOM BUDDY REMODELING
INC., CUSTOM LEAD RESOURCES INC., ALLSTATE HOME IMPROVEMENTS INC.,
ALLSTATE HOME SERVICES INC., JOHN HUXTABLE, and ALEXANDER KEYLES,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-03589 (E.D. N.Y., June 19, 2019) is an
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law ,
and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations, to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid regular wages,
unpaid spread of hours, and for other relief.

The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with a notice and
acknowledgement of pay rate and payday, or any other form of wage
notice, at the time of their hiring, or at any other time
thereafter, as required by NYLL. During Plaintiffs' employment, the
Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs overtime compensation for any
hours that they worked in excess of 40 hours each week; the
Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs at one and one half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week; and the Defendants regularly and routinely failed to pay
Plaintiffs the daily rate of pay to which they were entitled to,
says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were jointly employed by Defendants as construction
laborers.

Defendants are in the business of constructing, renovating, and
remodeling residential bathrooms for Long Island homeowners.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
     Keith E. Williams, Esq.
     Neil H. Greenberg & Associates, P.C.
     4242 Merrick Road
     Massapequa, NY 11758
     Phone: 516.228.5100
     Email: nhglaw@nhglaw.com
            keith@nhglaw.com


BLC LEXINGTON: Court Narrows Claims in C. Johnson's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington, issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss in the case captioned CARRIE JOHNSON, etc., Plaintiffs,
v. BLC LEXINGTON SNF, LLC, d/b/a Brookdale Richmond Place SNF, et
al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 5:19-064-DCR. (E.D. Ky.).

Defendants BLC Lexington SNF, LLC, American Retirement Corporation,
Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., Brookdale Senior Living,
Ann Phillips, Benita Dickenson have filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to compel
arbitration.

Plaintiff Carrie Johnson contends that she received substandard
treatment at Brookdale Richmond Place, a skilled nursing facility
located in Lexington, Kentucky. As a result, she asserts a plethora
of claims against a multitude of defendants. Carrie Johnson was
admitted to Brookdale Richmond Place sometime during the fall of
2017.  Johnson alleges that while residing at Brookdale Richmond
Place: she experienced poor hygiene; she contracted infections
including MRSA; she was hospitalized; the staff failed to clean her
surgical wound and; she experienced unnecessary pain and suffering.


When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court must determine whether
the complaint alleges sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The
plausibility standard is met \when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.

The Individual Claims

Negligence (Counts I, XII)

Negligence

Common law negligence requires that a plaintiff show: (1) a duty
owed by the defendant to the plaintiff (2) breach of that duty (3)
injury to the plaintiff  and (4) legal causation between the
defendant's breach and the plaintiff's injury.

Johnson asserts that the defendants owed her a duty to provide
custodial care, services, and supervision that a reasonably careful
nursing home would provide under the circumstances. She claims that
they breached that duty by knowingly maintaining staffing levels
below what was necessary to perform essential functions and without
regard to patient acuity levels. She further states that the
breaches foreseeably resulted in serious injuries including poor
hygiene, infection, hospitalization, and unnecessary pain and
suffering.  

Johnson also alleges on behalf of the purported class that the
defendants had a duty to class members and that they breached this
duty by failing to disclose actual staffing levels to the proposed
class. She argues that members of the alleged class suffered
injuries caused by the difference between the services for which
they paid compared with the services they actually received. Thus,
while class certification issues have not been determined at this
point, Johnson has made sufficient factual assertions to overcome
dismissal of the common law negligence claim outlined in Counts I
and XII.

Negligence Per Se

Negligence per se is defined as a negligence claim with a statutory
or regulatory standard of care substituted for the common law
standard of care. In Kentucky, a]\ person injured by the violation
of any statute may recover from the offender such damages as he
sustained by reason of the violation, although a penalty or
forfeiture is imposed for such violation.

Johnson's Complaint does not contain sufficient factual allegations
to support a claim for violations of Section 508.090, et seq. She
asserts that she relied on the defendants for treatment of her
total needs for custodial, nursing, and medical care. Her
Complaint, however, does not include any facts relating to how she
was physically and mentally helpless or what acts of intentional,
wanton, or reckless abuse the defendants committed.

Further, the allegations in Johnson's Complaint do not provide
sufficient factual allegations for the Court to infer that the
defendants violated Section 530.080, et seq. Again, the Complaint
does not indicate the nature of her alleged physical or mental
illnesses and it does not contain any facts indicating that she was
an incompetent person. The Court is not required to accept the
plaintiff's legal conclusions. Accordingly, she has not alleged
sufficient facts to support her claims of negligence per se under
Sections 508.090, et seq. and Sections 530.080, et seq.

Johnson asserts that the defendants' negligence is actionable as
negligence per se for violations of federal laws and regulations
under Titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act. The Supreme
Court of Kentucky has stated that § 446.070 is limited to Kentucky
statutes and does not extend to federal statutes or regulations.
Therefore, Johnson's claims of negligence per se cannot be based on
violations of federal statutes. Based on the foregoing analysis,
the Court concludes that Johnson has failed to state a negligence
per se cause of action.

Medical Negligence (Count II)

Medical negligence requires the plaintiff to show that the
treatment given was below the degree of care and skill expected of
a reasonably competent practitioner, and that the negligence
proximately caused injury or death.

Johnson contends that the defendants had a duty to provide the
standard of professional care and services of reasonably competent
facilities acting under similar circumstances. She alleges they
breached this duty by: failing to ensure that she received timely
and accurate care assessments, prescribed treatment, medication and
diet; failing to provide necessary supervision; and failing to
provide timely nursing, dietary, and medical intervention due to a
significant change in condition.

Johnson further argues that the defendants failed to: provide
sufficient numbers of qualified personnel; implement an adequate
nursing plan; ensure that she was not deprived of services
necessary to maintain her health and welfare; provide treatment and
medication in accordance with physician's orders; monitor her
health status and timely notify her physician and family of
changes; have in place guidelines; provide safe environment;
increase the number of personnel; and educate caregivers. As noted
above, Johnson claims to have experienced poor hygiene, infections,
hospitalization, and unnecessary pain and suffering due to the
defendants' alleged breaches of their duties of care.

Johnson has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim for medical
negligence.

Corporate Negligence (Count III)

The doctrine of corporate negligence provides that hospitals owe a
direct duty to patients to ensure their safety and well-being.The
doctrine imposes duties on hospitals to: (1) use reasonable care in
the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment (2)
select and retain only competent physicians (3) oversee the patient
care provided by all persons who practice medicine within its walls
and (4) formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules and policies
to ensure quality care for its patients.

Johnson asserts that the facility and entities under its control
(either vicariously or through apparent agency) owed a duty to
residents to use the degree and skill expected of a reasonably
competent facility. She claims that the defendants had a duty to
maintain the facility including hiring, supervising, and retaining
staff. Additionally, she asserts that the defendants had a duty to
have procedures and protocols in place to patient care, and to
provide a safe environment. She claims that the defendants breached
these duties by engaging in the deliberate withholding or
manipulation of funds. And she claims that, as a result of these
breaches, she suffered injury.
Ann Phillips seeks dismissal of this claim. As she correctly notes,
corporate negligence is a theory of direct liability.

Accordingly, the claim of corporate negligence brought specifically
against Phillips will be dismissed.

Claimed Violations of Long-term Care Residents' Rights Under KRS
Section 216.510, et seq. (Count IV)

KRS Section 216.515 enumerates specific rights given to residents
of long-term care facilities.

Johnson argues that, as a result of these alleged violations, she
may seek recovery under Section 216.515(26), which provides a
private right of action for any resident who has been deprived of
rights under Section 216.515.

Johnson alleges she suffered an acceleration in the deterioration
of her health and physical condition beyond the normal aging
process, and physical and emotional injuries including poor
hygiene, infection, unnecessary pain and suffering, loss of
personal dignity, degradation, and hospitalization. Based on these
allegations, Johnson has stated a plausible claim for a violation
of long-term care residents' rights.

Negligence Per Se Claim Asserted Against Ann Phillips in Her
Capacity as Executive Director and Administrator (Count V)

To state a claim for negligence, the plaintiff must allege: (1) a
duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff (2) breach of that duty
(3) injury to the plaintiff and (4) legal causation between the
defendant's breach and the plaintiff's injury.  

Johnson's claim of negligence per se under 216B may proceed because
she has alleged economic harm. The purpose of the statute is to
empower the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to oversee the
licensure and quality of care standards in health care facilities.
The chapter mainly provides for the certificate-of-need process.
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky and at least one judge in this
district have found that nursing home residents are within the
class of persons Section 216B is designed to protect and there is
no inclusive civil remedy included in the statute.  

However, Johnson asserts that she has suffered economic harm as a
result of an inflated five-star rating and that she paid for
services that she did not receive. Johnson is within the class of
persons Section 216B is designed to protect, there is no civil
remedy included in the statute, and the statute is penal in nature.
She has stated sufficient facts to allege a negligence per se claim
under Section 216B because she allegedly suffered economic harm as
a result of Phillips conduct.

Breach of Contract (Counts VI, XIII)

To properly allege a breach of contract, Kentucky law requires that
the cause of action state the contract, the breach, and the facts
which show the loss or damage by reason of the breach. A contract
must contain definite and certain terms setting forth promises of
performance to be rendered by each party. A valid contract requires
offer and acceptance, full and complete terms, and consideration.


Johnson's Complaint alleges a breach of contract but does not
specify whether the claimed breach pertained to the written
admission agreement or an alleged oral contract. She merely states:
Plaintiff entered into a contract with Brookdale Richmond Place to
provide services in the facility by taking care and ensuring the
safety and well-being on the Plaintiff.  Johnson's breach of
contract claim on behalf of the class states that Plaintiff and the
putative class members entered into a contract with Class
Defendants to provide services in the facility by taking care of
and ensuring the safety and well-being of Plaintiff and the
putative class members.

Accordingly, she has not stated sufficient facts to establish a
claimed breach of the alleged oral contract and these claims will
be dismissed.

Punitive Damages (Counts VII, XXII)

Johnson has alleged a separate claim for punitive damages. Punitive
damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of
the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the
rights of others. However, this cause of action will be dismissed
because punitive damages are a remedy, not a separate claim for
relief.  

To the extent that the plaintiff has styled punitive damages as
separate causes of action they will be dismissed. This does not
impede her ability to seek punitive damages as a remedy if she
proves she is entitled to this remedy.

Causation & Damages (Count VIII)

The defendants request that this claim be dismissed but do not
provide any argument in support. Johnson asserts that defendants
conduct caused her to suffer the following damages: mental pain and
suffering; medical bills and expenses; actual, consequential,
individual, and foreseeable damages; increased likelihood of future
harm; lost earning capacity; and attorney's fees, costs, and
expenses. Similar to punitive damages claim discussed above, to the
extent that causation and damages is asserted as a separate cause
of action, it will be dismissed.

Fraud in the Inducement (Count IX) & Fraudulent Misrepresentation,
Concealment, and Nondisclosure (Count X)

Claims of fraud must be pled with particularity. Fraud in the
inducement requires the plaintiff to establish six elements of
fraud by clear and convincing evidence: a) material representation
b) which is false c) known to be false or made recklessly d) made
with inducement to be acted upon e) acted in reliance thereon and
f) causing injury.

The defendants argue that Johnson has not pled her fraud claims
with particularity. Specifically, they assert that she has not
sufficiently pled an injury and that she has not set forth with
particularity the wrongful actions of each defendant. Further, they
assert that Johnson's fraud claims fail because an ordinary
inspection of the facility would uncover the fraud and clarify how
many individuals worked at the facility.  

Johnson contends that she pled her fraud claims with particularity
because she listed the time period of the fraud, that the fraud
took place in Kentucky, and that the alleged fraud involved
Kentucky residents. She stated that the material misrepresentation
made by the defendants was the number of staff working at the
facility. With respect to the fraudulent scheme, she asserts that
the defendants intentionally and recklessly inflated staffing
numbers, daily work attendance sheets, advertising materials,
budget and cost reports to transfer profits to other corporate
defendants.  

At this stage of the proceeding, the plaintiff has made sufficient
allegations regarding the particularized roles of the defendants in
the fraudulent scheme she has asserted.The plaintiff alleges that
Phillips and Dickenson falsified staffing numbers, that BLC
Lexington is the entity to which the staffing numbers related, and
that the remaining defendants are alter egos of the facility and
commingled funds to help hide the fraud. Johnson further alleges
generally that she and members of the purported class suffered
injuries as a result of the difference between the staff reported
and the staff available because the aggrieved parties received less
care than the care for which they paid.

Accordingly, Johnson has alleged sufficient facts to state a claim
for fraud in the inducement and fraudulent misrepresentation,
concealment, and nondisclosure.

Negligent Misrepresentation (Count XI)

Kentucky has adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts Second 552
which defines the tort of negligent misrepresentation. The section
of the Restatement states:

(1) One who, in the course of his business, profession or
employment, or in any other transaction in which he has a pecuniary
interest, supplies false information for the guidance of others in
their business transactions, is subject to liability for pecuniary
loss caused to them by their justifiable reliance upon the
information, if he fails to exercise reasonable care or competence
in obtaining or communicating the information.(2) Except as stated
in Subsection (3), the liability stated in Subsection (1) is
limited to loss suffered(a) by the person or one of a limited group
of persons for whose benefit and guidance he intends to supply the
information or knows that the recipient intends to supply it;
and(b) through reliance upon it in a transaction that he intends
the information to influence or knows that the recipient so intends
or in a substantially similar transaction(3) The liability of one
who is under a public duty to give the information extends to loss
suffered by any of the class of persons for whose benefit the duty
is created, in any of the transactions in which it is intended to
protect them.

While Johnson may have a pecuniary interest, she has not alleged
facts indicating that the defendants are providing information for
business transactions. Nursing homes are in the business of
providing long term care to residents, not supplying information
for the guidance of others in business transactions.  

Accordingly, the plaintiff has not stated a claim for negligent
misrepresentation.
Contractual Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count XIV)

To establish the basic elements of a breach-of-fiduciary-duty
claim, Johnson must show (1) the existence of a fiduciary duty (2)
the breach of that duty (3) injury and] (4) causation. Fiduciary
relationships are founded on trust or confidence reposed by one
person in the integrity and fidelity of another and which also
necessarily involves an undertaking in which a duty is created in
one person to act primarily for another's benefit in matters
connected with such undertaking.

Johnson claims contractual breach of fiduciary duties, alleging
that the defendants breached their duties by wrongfully
misrepresenting the actual level of staffing present at Brookdale
Richmond Place. But the defendants did not owe Johnson a fiduciary
duty simply because she was a nursing home resident. Further, as
noted previously, Johnson asserts her contract claims are based on
the oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants.
However, she has not alleged sufficient facts for a valid oral
contract, so there is no contract that would give rise to any
potential contractual fiduciary duty.

As a result, this claim will be dismissed.

Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
(Count XV)

Johnson claims that the defendants breached the duty of good faith
and fair dealing by wrongfully misrepresenting the actual level of
staff present at Brookdale Richmond Place. A claim for breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing can be brought
in contract or tort. While all contracts implicitly include the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the plaintiff has not pled
sufficient facts to show that there is a valid contract.   

Accordingly, there is no basis to impose a covenant of good faith
and fair dealing upon the defendants.

Unjust Enrichment (Count XVI)

There are three elements that a party must meet in order to prevail
on a claim of unjust enrichment: (1) benefit conferred upon
defendant at plaintiff's expense (2) a resulting appreciation of
benefit by defendant; and (3) inequitable retention of benefit
without payment for its value.

Johnson alleges that she pled unjust enrichment in the alternative,
in the event the Court concludes that her oral contract claim
fails. Because Johnson's breach of contract claims will be
dismissed, she may proceed with her unjust enrichment claim.
Johnson's Complaint alleges that the defendants schemed to avoid
disclosing the actual number of staff at Brookdale and that the
defendants knew of and appreciated the benefit of this
misrepresentation. She asserts that they profited from the
plaintiff and class members for services that she and the purported
class did not receive, thus, the retention of the money is
inequitable.

Violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (Count XVII)

KRS Section 367.170 states that (1) unfair, false, misleading, or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce
are hereby declared unlawful. (2) For the purposes of this section,
unfair shall be construed to mean unconscionable.

The defendants argue that the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act does
not apply when the underlying claims sound in medical negligence.
However, Johnson contends her claim focuses on the business aspect
of the practice. She asserts that her claim under the Kentucky
Consumer Protection Act is based on the assertion that the
defendants had higher levels of staffing than the levels for which
the plaintiff actually paid. This is similar to entering into a
financial agreement that would increase profits to the possible
detriment of patients.   

Based on these allegations, the plaintiff has stated a claim for
the violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.

Violation of a Special Relationship (Count XVIII)

Johnson's Complaint alleges that the defendants acting as care
providers constitutes a special relationship under Kentucky law.
In support, she references Grubbs ex rel. Grubbs v. Barbourville
Family Health Ctr., P.S.C., 120 S.W.3d 682 (Ky. 2003). While noting
that a special relationship arises between a physician and a
patient, the Grubbs court explained that the claims should be
analyzed under traditional negligence principles. It clarified the
physician's duty, based on the special relationship with a patient.
This includes a duty to act with the utmost good faith and to speak
fairly and truthfully at the peril of being held liable for damages
for fraud and deceit. This duty mandates that a physician fully
disclose his findings on examination and the opinions he holds.

The language in the Complaint mirrors the rule set forth in Grubbs
and sounds in traditional negligence principles. A violation of a
special relationship would merely fall within the traditional
elements of a negligence action: duty, breach, causation, and
damages. It does not stand alone as a separate claim. Accordingly,
it is subsumed by Johnson's negligence claims and the separate
assertion of the violation of a special relationship will be
dismissed.

Civil Conspiracy (Count XIX)

Civil conspiracy consists of a corrupt or unlawful combination or
agreement between two or more persons to do by concert of action an
unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. Civil
conspiracy is not a stand-alone claim but a theory upon which a
plaintiff can recover from multiple defendants for underlying
intentional tort claims. The underlying tort must be intentional
because defendants cannot agree together to be negligent.

Johnson alleges that the defendants willfully joined in an
agreement to prevent the disclosure of the true number of direct
care staff staffing the facility, and thereby reap the monies that
should have been paid to adequately staff the building consistent
with the standard of care and the expectations of consumers, and
the expectations of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.She asserts that
had a common goal of evading liability and defrauding residents to
reap greater profits.

Johnson has not included sufficient facts in her Complaint to
survive a motion to dismiss regarding this claim. Instead, while
she states that there was an agreement between the defendants to
fraudulently inflate staffing numbers, she does not include any
further information about the agreement among the defendants. As
the Court noted in Smith,conclusory allegations of an unlawful
agreement will not survive a motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, her assertion of civil conspiracy will be dismissed.

Joint Enterprise (Count XX)

A joint enterprise is an informal partnership, existing for a
limited purpose and duration. To show a joint enterprise, the
plaintiff must demonstrate (1) an agreement, express or implied,
among the members of the group (2) a common purpose to be carried
out by the group (3) a community of pecuniary interest in that
purpose among the members and (4) an equal right to a voice in the
direction of the enterprise, which gives an equal right of
control.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendants willfully joined an
agreement to prevent the disclosure of the true number of direct
care staff at the facility and were able to reap monies that should
have been paid to staff at Brookdale. She alleges there was a
common pecuniary interest among the defendants and each defendant
had a voice and/or a role in the execution of the common purpose.
Johnson's Complaint, however, is devoid of any facts that would
indicate whether all of the defendants had an equal right to a
voice and control.

Accordingly, her assertion of a joint enterprise will be
dismissed.

Concert of Action (Count XXI)

The plaintiffs can hold the defendants jointly and severally liable
if they prove the defendants (1) acted unlawfully by common design
(2) knew that a codefendant was acting unlawfully and gave
substantial encouragement to the codefendant or (3) gave
substantial assistance to a codefendant's unlawful acts, when the
defendant's conduct was also unlawful.

Johnson asserts that the defendants willfully joined in an
agreement to prevent the disclosure of the true number of direct
care staffing at Brookdale and reaped the monies that should have
been paid to adequately staff the building. Thus, she claims they
should be held jointly and severally liable. Johnson alleges that
the other defendants knew that Dickenson and Phillips were
fraudulently inflating staffing numbers at the facility and
commingled funds to hide the alleged fraud.

While Johnson has alleged sufficient facts to support a claim of
concerted action, this is a damages issue regarding whether the
plaintiff can hold the defendants jointly and severally liable.
Because it is an issue regarding damages and not a stand-alone
cause of action, the count will be dismissed.

Attorney's Fees (Count XXIII)

Although it is not a separate cause of action, the Court will not
dismiss the plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees because it would
be premature to take such action at this time. The plaintiff may be
entitled to seek recovery of attorney's fees at a later stage of
the litigation. Conversely, the defendants may seek summary
judgment if such relief is warranted following a period of
discovery.

Accordingly, Defendants American Retirement Corporation, BLC
Lexington SNF, LLC, Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc.,
Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., Benita Dickenson, Ann Phillips'
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted, in
part, and denied, in part.

Johnson's claims for breach of contract (Count VI), punitive
damages (Count VII), causation and damages (Count VIII), negligent
misrepresentation (Count XI) breach of contract (Count XIII),
contractual breach of fiduciary duty (Count XIV) breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count XV),
violation of a special relationship (Count XVIII) civil conspiracy
(Count XIX), joint enterprise (Count XX), concert of action (Count
XXI), and punitive damages (Count XXII) are dismissed.

Johnson's claims for negligence (Count I), medical negligence
(Count II), violation of long-term care residents' rights (Count
IV), fraud in the inducement (Count IX), fraudulent
misrepresentation, concealment, nondisclosure (Count X), negligence
(Count XII), unjust enrichment (Count XVI), violation of the
Kentucky Consumer Protection Act (Count XVII), and attorney's fees
(Count XXIII) remain pending. Johnson's claim for negligence
asserted against Ann Phillips (Count V) remains only with respect
to the claim of negligence per se under Section 216B.

Johnson cannot assert a claim of negligence per se under Count I.

Johnson's claim for corporate negligence (Count III) is dismissed
only against Ann Phillips.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 13, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxn7j3pc from
Leagle.com.

Carrie Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Justin Peterson, Golden Law
Office, PLLC, Laraclay Drake Parker, Golden Law Office, PLLC &
Kellie Marie Collins, Golden Law Office, PLLC, 771 Corporate Dr.
#750, Lexington, KY 40503

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

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


BLINC INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blinc, Inc. The case
is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blinc, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05800 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019).

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

Blinc Inc. provides cosmetics and skin care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Klein Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case STEVE KLEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC
CORPORATION, MICHAEL F. MAHONEY, and DANIEL J. BRENNAN, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03642, was transferred from United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston) on June 19, 2019. The District of Massachusetts Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-11356-FDS to the proceeding. The
suit alleges Securities Act violation. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Boston
Scientific securities between February 26, 2015, and April 16,
2019, both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the
Company and certain of its top officials.

Boston Scientific was founded in 1979 and is headquartered in
Marlborough, Massachusetts. The Company develops, manufactures, and
markets medical devices for use in various interventional medical
specialties worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          James R. Carroll, Esq.
          Alexander C Drylewski, Esq.
          Alisha Quintana Nanda, Esq.
          Yaw Asare Anim, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE
             MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          500 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 573-4800
          Facsimile: (617) 573-4822
          E-mail: James.Carroll@skadden.com
                  alexander.drylewski@skadden.com
                  Alisha.Nanda@skadden.com
                  yaw.anim@skadden.com

CAPITAL ONE: Zhao Sues Over Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHUGUANG ZHAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A. and GENERAL MOTORS LLC
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05362 (C.D. Cal., June 19, 2019) is an
action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
seeking damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the unfair and deceptive trade practices Defendants
and Capital One, N.A. or, alternatively, a company Capital One,
N.A. purchased and therefore has successor liability, engaged in to
induce customers to apply for the GM Rewards card and to continue
making purchases with it.

The complaint asserts that the Defendants violated various states'
statutory and common law by the unfair, deceptive, misleading, and
bait-and-switch manner in which Defendants have marketed,
advertised, issued, operated, and/or administered their GM Rewards
cards and/or Program Benefits. In particular, Defendants
represented "There is no maximum number of Earnings that you can
accumulate in the program" and misrepresented that card members
would receive 5% Earnings on credit card purchases toward an
eligible, new GM Vehicle. Defendants materially omitted and/or
failed to disclose in a meaningful, adequate, and/or conspicuous
way that (a) there was a limit on how much Earnings one could
redeem towards the purchase of "an eligible, new GM Vehicle"; and
that (b) Earnings can and do expire. So, even though Plaintiff
earned more than $17,000.00 in Earnings, Plaintiff was only allowed
to "redeem" $1,000.00 of the Earnings towards an eligible, new GM
vehicle. Plaintiff was limited to $1,000 per transaction and an
amount of his Earnings had expired, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Shuguang Wang, a resident of the County of Los Angeles in
the State of California, opened a GM rewards card issued by Capital
One Bank.

Defendant Capital One, N.A. is a National Banking Association.
Capital One, N.A. issues credits cards, including the credit cards
at issue in this litigation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Francis J. "Casey" Flynn, Jr., Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR.
     422 S. Curson Ave.
     Los Angeles, CA 90036
     Phone: 314-662-2836
     Email: casey@lawofficeflynn.com


CITYREALTY.COM: Maness Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
MOSHE MANESS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITYREALTY.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
513562/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings Cty., June 19, 2019) is a
putative class-action lawsuit seeking to end the systemic and
patterned housing and public-accommodation discrimination
perpetrated by Defendant in violation of the City, State, and
Federal anti-discrimination laws, arising under the New York City
Human Rights Law (the "NYCHRL") and the New York State Human Rights
Law (the "NYSHRL"). Plaintiff's claims also sound under the
American with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and the Fair Housing Act
(the "FHA").

The Defendant operates CityRealty.com. The Website holds itself out
as being "the oldest, continuously operating real estate website."
The Website serves as a platform to "help thousands of apartment
buyers, renters and sellers successfully navigate the often complex
New York market" by facilitating, brokering, or otherwise engaging
in real estate transactions.

However, through its Website, Defendant has engaged in a pattern a
practice of denying, withholding, or otherwise limiting access to
real-estate listings available on the Website for those who are
blind and visually impaired. Defendant's Website has the effect of
discriminating against Plaintiff and the putative class in both
provision of public accommodations and provision of housing
accommodations. Indeed, Defendant's Website contains numerous
access barriers that effectively deny the blind and visually
impaired full and equal access to Defendant's goods and services,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a severely visually impaired person.

Defendant is an online marketplace that offers real estate related
services through its Website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Y. Balisok, Esq.
     Balisok & Kaufman, PLLC
     251 Troy Avenue
     Brooklyn, NY 11213
     Phone: (718) 928-9607
     Facsimile: (718) 534-9747


COLORTREE GROUP: Kennedy Seeks to Recoup Wages Under WARN Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY KENNEDY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. COLORTREE GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00424-REP (E.D.
Va., June 6, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Defendant's former
employees seeking to recover 60 days wages and benefits pursuant to
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Beginning on June 3, 2019, and within 30 days of that date, the
Defendant terminated without notice the employment of approximately
240 employees, including the Plaintiff, according to the
complaint.

Colortree Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its corporate
headquarters located in Richmond, Virginia.  Colortree manufactures
and distributes lithographic products to the direct mail
industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer J. West, Esq.
          Edward E. Bagnell, Jr., Esq.
          SPOTTS FAIN PC
          411 East Franklin Street, Suite 600
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-2000
          Facsimile: (804) 697-2100
          E-mail: jwest@spottsfain.com
                  ebagnell@spottsfain.com

               - and -

          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com
                  rsr@outtengolden.com


COLUMBIA DEBT: Wang Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Columbia Debt
Recovery, LLC. The case is styled as Jing Wang individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Columbia Debt
Recovery, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03619 (E.D. N.Y., June
20, 2019).

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

Columbia Recovery Group LLC or CRG is a debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONTROL4 CORPORATION: Sabatini Files Suit Over Wirepath Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CONTROL4 CORPORATION, MARIA THOMAS, MARTIN
PLAEHN, ROB BORN, JAMES CAUDILL, DAVID C. HABIGER, JEREMY JAECH,
MARK JENSEN, and PHIL MOLYNEUX, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01149-UNA (D. Del., June 20, 2019) is an action stemming
from a proposed transaction announced on May 9, 2019, pursuant to
which Control4 Corporation will be acquired by affiliates of
SnapAV.

On May 8, 2019, Control4's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Wirepath Home
Systems, LLC and Copper Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, Control4's stockholders will receive $23.91
in cash for each share of Control4 common stock they own. On June
7, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

The complaint asserts that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement,.

Plaintiff is the owner of Control4 common stock.

Control4 is a provider of automation and networking systems for
homes and businesses, offering personalized control of lighting,
music, video, comfort, security, and communications into a unified
smart home system.[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
     Phone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     Email: 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
     Phone: (484) 324-6800
     Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
     Email: rm@maniskas.com


COOPERSURGICAL INC: Sawyer's Bid for Class Certification Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael P. Shea denied without prejudice the motion to
certify class in the lawsuit entitled WILLIAM P. SAWYER, M.D. v.
COOPERSURGICAL, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00295-MPS (D. Conn.).

The Court held a telephonic status conference with the parties on
June 10, 2019, according to the Court's scheduling order.  As
discussed during the telephonic status conference, the motion to
certify class is denied without prejudice. Having reviewed the
parties' joint Rule 26(f) report, the Court orders that the
deadlines set forth in this Scheduling Order shall apply.  The
parties' Rule 26(f) Report is hereby adopted unless otherwise
stated.

According to the Scheduling Order:

   -- Plaintiff is allowed until October 1, 2019, to file motions
      to join additional parties or to file motions to amend the
      pleadings.  Defendant is allowed until October 30, 2019, to
      file any motions to join additional parties;

   -- Discovery will not be conducted in phases.  Fact
      depositions should commence by August 10, 2019.  All fact
      and expert discovery will be completed (not propounded) by
      May 11, 2020;

   -- A damages analysis will be provided by any party who has a
      claim or counter claim for damages by December 16, 2019;

   -- The parties' expert reports on any issues on which they
      bear the burden of proof will be due February 10, 2020.
      Depositions of such experts will be completed by March 10,
      2020;

   -- The parties' expert reports on any issues on which they do
      not bear the burden of proof will be due April 10, 2020.
      Depositions of such experts will be completed by May 11,
      2020;

   -- Any motion for class certification is due June 11, 2020;

   -- Within 14 days after the Court's decision on any motion for
      class certification, the parties shall submit a joint
      notice with a proposed schedule for the remainder of the
      case, including the filing of the Joint Trial Memorandum.
      The Court will review the notice and schedule a status
      conference;

   -- If defendant plans on filing a motion for summary judgment
      with respect to the named plaintiff or before any motion
      for class certification is decided, defendant shall file a
      notice so indicating and requesting a telephonic status
      conference, together with a brief summary of the
      anticipated factual and legal grounds warranting summary
      judgment not to exceed 4 pages;

   -- The case will be considered trial ready within 15 days of
      the filing of the Joint Trial Memorandum;

   -- A Telephonic Status Conference will be held on February 17,
      2020, at 3:30 p.m.; the Court will provide the parties with
      the dial-in information.  The parties will file a joint
      status report by February 10, 2020; and

   -- Finally, the parties are responsible for following the
      appended instructions regarding (1) joint status reports,
      (2) discovery disputes, and (3) the joint trial memorandum,
      all of which the Court incorporates as part of this
      Scheduling Order.[CC]


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Cross-Appeals Judgment in Flushable Wipes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Costco Wholesale Corporation, CVS Health Corporation,
Target Corporation filed a cross-appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled THE PRESERVE AT CONNETQUOT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION,
INC., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-07050
(JFB) (E.D.N.Y.).

The appellate case is captioned as The Preserve at Connetquot
Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et
al., Case No. 19-1551, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

The Appellants submit their notice of cross-appeal to the Second
Circuit from the District Court's April 12, 2019 Judgment.  The
lead appeal has been assigned Second Circuit Case No. 19-1407.
Costco, CVS, and Target believe that the District Court's dismissal
of this action without prejudice for lack of Article III standing
should be affirmed.  Costco, CVS, and Target also believe that if
this Court concludes that Article III standing exists, dismissal
should be affirmed, and with prejudice, on the alternate basis that
the Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable cause of action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

For this reason, Appellants Costco, CVS and Target joined the
cross-appeal filed on behalf of all the Defendants in the
underlying action.  But Costco, CVS, and Target also file this
separate cross-appeal to preserve additional alternate bases for
dismissal that the District Court did not reach, which were
asserted by only these three defendants in their own separately
filed Motion to Dismiss and include, but are not limited to, the
basis that injunctive relief is inappropriate because the Federal
Trade Commission has primary jurisdiction over the labeling,
packaging, and advertising of flushable wipes manufactured by
Nice-Pak Products, Inc. and sold by Costco, CVS, and Target.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24,
2019, Defendants CVS Health Corporation, Costco Wholesale
Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Target Corporation, The
Procter & Gamble Company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Walgreens Boots
Alliance, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
entered on April 12, 2019.  That appellate case is captioned as The
Preserve at Connetquot Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Costco
Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-1528, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee The Preserve at Connetquot Homeowners
Association, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Mario Claudio Lattuga, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367−1173
          E-mail: mreich@rgrdlaw.com
                  mlattuga@rgrdlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant Costco Wholesale Corporation is represented
by:

          John Q. Lewis, Esq.
          Karl A. Bekeny, Esq.
          William H. Berglund, Esq.
          Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: john.lewis@tuckerellis.com
                  karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com
                  william.berglund@tuckerellis.com
                  michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com

Defendant-Appellant Target Corporation is represented by:

          Denise A. Dickerson, Esq.
          SUTTER O'CONNELL CO., LLC
          1301 E. 9th Street
          3600 Erieview Tower
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 928-2200
          Facsimile: (216) 928-4400
          E-mail: ddickerson@sutter-law.com

Defendants-Appellants CVS Health Corporation and Costco Wholesale
Corporation are represented by:

          Courtney E. Scott, Esq.
          TRESSLER, LLP
          1 Penn Plaza, Suite 4701
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (646) 833-0890
          E-mail: cscott@tsmp.com

Defendant-Appellant CVS Health Corporation is represented by:

          Rebecca F. Briggs, Esq.
          HINCKLEY ALLEN
          100 Westminster Street, Suite 1500
          Providence, RI 02906
          Telephone: (401) 274-2000
          E-mail: rbriggs@hinckleyallen.com


COURTNEY PHILLIPS: Ward Seeks to Certify 2 Classes
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, JOSEPH WARD, by his next friend FLOYD
JENNINGS, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. COURTNEY PHILLIPS, in her
official capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and
Human Services Commission, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00917-LY
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying two classes as follows:

      Class for Incompetent Detainees:

      "all persons who are now, or will be in the future, (a)
      charged with a Texas crime, (b) court-ordered to an HHSC
      mental health facility for competency restoration services;
      but, (c) because of HHSC’s insufficient forensic capacity,

      (d) remain incarcerated in a county jail more than 21 days
      from the day HHSC receives the court order to the day HHSC
      makes a bed available in an HHSC mental health facility";

      Class for Insanity Acquittees:

      "all persons who are now, or will be in the future, (a)
      charged with a Texas crime and found not guilty by reason of

      insanity, (b) ordered to receive evaluation and/or treatment

      services at an HHSC mental health facility, but, (c) due to
      HHSC's insufficient forensic capacity, (d) remain
      incarcerated in a county jail more than 14 days from the day

      HHSC receives the court order to the day HHSC makes a bed
      available in an HHSC mental health facility";

   2. appointing Joseph Ward, Marc Lawson, Kenneth Jones, Jennifer

      Lampkin, Mary Sapp, and Julian Torres as class
      representatives for the class of incompetent detainees;

   3. appointing Mary Sapp and Cecil Adickes as class
      representatives for the class of insanity acquittees; and

   4. appointing Disability Rights Texas and Winston & Strawn,
      L.L.P., as class counsel for both classes.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Beth Mitchell, Esq.
          Peter Hofer, Esq.
          Lisa Snead, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS TEXAS
          2222 West Braker Lane
          Austin, TX 78758
          Telephone: (512) 454-4816
          Facsimile: (512) 454-3999
          E-mail: bmitchell@drtx.org
                  phofer@drtx.org
                  lsnead@drtx.org

               - and -

          Coty Meibeyer, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS TEXAS
          1500 McGowen, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77004
          Telephone: (713) 974-7691
          Facsimile: (713) 974-7695
          E-mail: cmeibeyer@drtx.org

               - and -

          John Michael Gaddis, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          2121 N. Pearl St., Suite 900
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 453-6500
          Facsimile: (214) 453-6400
          E-mail: mgaddis@winston.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Michael R. Abrams, Esq.
          Thomas A. Albright, Esq.
          Christopher D. Hilton, Esq.
          Assistant Attorneys General
          General Litigation Division
          P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station
          Austin, TX 78711-2548

CRAY INC: Davie Balks at Merger Deal with Hewlett Packard
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Cray Inc., Cray's
Board of Directors, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, and Canopy
Merger Sub, Inc. for alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is captioned
RUSSELL DAVIE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CRAY INC., PETER J. UNGARO, PRITHVIRAJ
BANERJEE, CATRIONA M. FALLON, STEPHEN E. GOLD, STEPHEN C. KIELY,
SALLY G. NARODICK, DANIEL C. REGIS, MAX L. SCHIRESON, BRIAN V.
TURNER, CANOPY MERGER SUB, INC., and HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01148-UNA (D. Del., June 20,
2019).

Plaintiff Russell Davie alleges that the Defendants have violated
the Exchange Act by causing a materially incomplete and misleading
preliminary proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 12, 2019. The proxy statements
recommends that Cray stockholders vote in favor of a proposed
transaction whereby Cray is acquired by Hewlett Packard.

The proposed transaction is allegedly tainted by significant
conflicts of interest, namely continued employment for the
company's Chief Executive Officer with the combined company and the
opportunity to invest in the combined company. In addition, the
merger agreement contains constrictive provisions that prevent
another bidder from coming forward. Plaintiff Davie asserts that
the proxy statements contains materially incomplete and misleading
information concerning the sales process, financial projections
prepared by Cray management, and the financial analyses conducted
by Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Cray's financial advisor.

Cray, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the State of Washington. Cray common stock trades on NASDAQ
under the ticker symbol "CRAY." Peter J. Ungaro has been President,
CEO and a director of the Company since 2005. Hewlett Packard is a
Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located
at 6280 America Center Drive, San Jose, California Canopy Merger
Sub, Inc. is a Washington corporation and is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Hewlett Packard. [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


DAKOTA OF ROCKY HILL: Bid to Certify Class under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Thomas T. McDougle et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. Dakota of Rocky Hill, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00245-SRU (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill
entered an order on June 18, 2019, taking under advisement a motion
to preliminary certify class and class notice, according to the
courtroom minutes.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages calculated as twice the full
amount of the minimum wage, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive
and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the lawsuit, from October 2015 through the present
date, Defendant has employed Plaintiff Rosemarie Taylor as a server
at Dakota Steakhouse located at 1489 Silas Deane Highway, Rocky
Hill, Connecticut. In this capacity, Plaintiff Taylor serves food
and beverages to persons at tables and booths in the restaurant
area. Defendant requires and required Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated servers to perform significant amounts of
non-service duties without the possibility for earning tips for
such work and failed to pay them a wage differential. Defendant
posted lists of the non-service duties, or "side-work" performed by
Plaintiffs and similarly situated servers in plastic sleeves at the
various server stations throughout the restaurant.

The Defendant is engaged in the restaurant business.[CC]

Plaintiff's Counsel is:

          Richard Eugene Hayber, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM
          750 Main Street, Suite 904
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 522-8888
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com

Defendant's Counsel is:

          David R. Golder, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS
          90 State House Square, 8th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: 860 522-0404
          Facsimile: 860 247-1330
          Telephone: 860-522-0404
          Facsimile: 860-247-1330
          E-mail: David.Golder@jacksonlewis.com

DASSAULT FALCON: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Judgment in Coates Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. filed an appeal from the
District Court's Order, Opinion & Order and Judgment dated May 8,
2019, in the lawsuit entitled Craig Coates, et al. v. Dassault
Falcon Jet Corp., Case No. 4:17-cv-00372-JLH, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a collective action brought by former employees of Falcon Jet
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.  The Plaintiffs allege that Falcon Jet
wrongfully classified them as exempt from the FLSA and AMWA
overtime requirements

The appellate case is captioned as Craig Coates, et al. v. Dassault
Falcon Jet Corp., Case No. 19-2167, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before July 16, 2019;

   -- Appendix is due on July 26, 2019;

   -- Brief of Appellant Dassault Falcon Jet Corp is due on
      July 26, 2019;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 21 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Craig Coates, Individually and on behalf of
Others Similarly Situated; Molly Warrington, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; and Edwin Smith,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

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

Defendant-Appellant Dassault Falcon Jet Corp is represented by:

          John B. Brown, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          8117 Preston Road, Suite 500
          Dallas, TX 75225-0000
          Telephone: (214) 987-3800
          E-mail: john.brown@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Brian A. Vandiver, Esq.
          COX, STERLING, MCCLURE & VANDIVER, PLLC
          8712 Counts Massie Road
          North Little Rock, AR 72113
          Telephone: (501) 954-8073
          E-mail: bavandiver@csmfirm.com


DEAN MEILING: Harris Suit Transferred to District of Nevada
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Dean Meiling et al., was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Central
District of California to the United States District Court for
District of Nevada (Reno) on June 19, 2019. The District of Nevada
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00339-LRH-CBC to the
proceeding.  The Hon. Judge Larry R. Hicks oversees the case.

The California case is captioned as Marc Harris, an individual on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. Dean Meiling, Madylon Meiling, James Proctor, Janet Chubb, and
Tiffany Schwartz, individual; Chemeon Surface Technology LLC, a
Nevada Limited Liability Company; DSM Partners, LP, a Nevada
Limited Partnership; DSM P GP LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability
Company; Suite B LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company; Armstrong
Teasdale LLP, a Missouri Limited Liability Partnership; Kaempfer
Crowell, LTD, a Nevada Professional Corporation; Meridian
Advantage, unknown entity; Does 1-100, inclusive; and Meiling
Family Partners, Ltd., the Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-00595 (C.D.
Cal., March 28, 2019).

The suit demands $9,999,000 and alleges breach of contract
violation.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

          Marc Y Lazo, Esq.
          K&L LAW GROUP
          2105 Foothill Boulevard, Suite B121
          La Verne, CA 91750
          Telephone: (949) 216-4000
          Facsimile: (800) 596-0370
          E-mail: mlazo@kllawgroup.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Teague I. Donahey, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART
          800 West Main Street, Suite 1750
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 342-5000
          E-mail: tidonahey@hollandhart.com

               - and -

          Matthew A Hodel, Esq.
          HODEL WILKS LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 640
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 450-4470
          Facsimile: (949) 450-4479

DIRECT ENERGY: Murphy Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
GAYLA F. MURPHY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DIRECT ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01454-N (N.D. Tex., June 19, 2019) is an action on
behalf or Plaintiff and numerous other individuals against
Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Texas Debt Collection Act ("TDCA") for Defendant's unlawful
conduct.

The instant action stems from Defendant's attempts to collect upon
a consumer debt for personal utility services that Plaintiff
purportedly owes to Defendant. The Defendant's relentless
collection campaign caused Plaintiff to demand that Defendant cease
contacting her. Despite Plaintiff's efforts, Defendant continued to
regularly call her cellular phone. The Defendant has contacted
Plaintiff at least 15 times after her demands that Defendant stop
contacting her cellular phone. The Defendant's conduct directed
towards Plaintiff is indicative of a pattern and practice wherein
Defendant continues to call consumers attempting to collect upon
debts after such consumers have requested that such calls stop,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Dallas, Texas, which is
located within the Northern District of Texas.

Defendant is a utility company organized under the laws of the
State of Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nathan C. Volheim, Esq.
     Taxiarchis Hatzidimitriadis, Esq.
     Eric D. Coleman, Esq.
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 South Highland Ave., Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 581-5858
     Fax: (630) 575-8188
     Email: nvolheim@sulaimanlaw.com
            thatz@sulaimanlaw.com
            ecoleman@sulaimanlaw.com


DNF ASSOCIATES: Viernes Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
RONALD VIERNES, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
DNF Associates, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00316-JMS-KJM
(D. Hawaii, June 19, 2019), alleges that Defendant violated the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by their illegal efforts to
collect a consumer debt. The action also seeks for damages against
the Defendant for unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
conduct of trade or commerce in violation of Sections 443B-18, 19,
and 20 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

According to the complaint, DNF Associates is regularly engaged in
the business of buying consumer debts in default from banks and
others at a steep discount and then proceeding to collect that
debt.

Given the large number of accounts that DNF Associates buys each
year, it has established certain policies and practices to
systemize its collection practices. DNF Associates collects its
accounts by filing collection lawsuits in Hawaii State Courts.

DNF Associates is not licensed as a debt collector in the State of
Hawaii and has an unfair advantage over Hawaii’s consumers and
licensed business owners.

DNF Associates uses the same means of collecting debts described
above as part of a regular and systemic approach to collect many
accounts claimed to have been acquired by DNF Associates and
alleged to be owed by dozens or more of Hawaii's citizens.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff are:

          Justin A. Brackett, Esq.
          515 Ward Avenue
          Honolulu, HI 96814
          Telephone: (808) 377-6778
          E-mail: justinbrackettlaw@gmail.com

E&A BAKERY: Violates ADA, Duncan Suit Asserts
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against E&A Bakery Holdings,
LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. E&A Bakery Holdings, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05811 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019).

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

E&A Bakery Holdings, LLC operates bakeshops around the State of New
York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EAST COAST INTERIORS: Martinez Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO JESUS LAZO MARTINEZ, On Behalf of Himself and Others
Similarly Situated v. EAST COAST INTERIORS, INC. And RANDY EASLICK,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00423-JAG (E.D. Va., June 6, 2019), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages and statutory damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

ECI is a corporation formed under the laws of Commonwealth of
Virginia with its principal place of business in North
Chesterfield, Virginia.

ECI has offered construction, drywall, framing, and related
services to clients in Virginia, Maryland, and a variety of other
states and jurisdictions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (301) 587-9397
          E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com


EDWARD D JONES: Huang Appeals Ruling in McDonald Suit to 8th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objector Shiyang Huang filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Charlene McDonald, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co.,
et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-01346-JAR, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was brought to recover damages as a result of the Defendants'
breach of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The appellate case is captioned as Charlene McDonald, et al. v.
Edward D. Jones & Co., et al., Case No. 19-2158, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Objector-Appellant Shiyang Huang, of Topeka, Kansas, appears pro
se.[BN]

Plaintiff Charlene F. McDonald, individually and on behalf of a
class of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the
Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan, is
represented by:

          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          IZARD KINDALL & RAABE LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493-6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com

Plaintiff Charlene F. McDonald, individually and on behalf of a
class of all other persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the
Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan, and
Plaintiffs Windle Pompey, Valeska Schultz, Melanie Waugh and
Rosalind Staley are represented by:

          Jeffrey Russell Baron, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          One North Old State Capital Plaza
          Springfield, IL 62701
          Telephone: (217) 528-1177
          E-mail: jbaron@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
          BAILEY GLASSER LLP
          8012 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 300
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863 5446
          Facsimile: (314) 863 5483
          E-mail: mboyko@baileyglasser.com

Plaintiffs Windle Pompey, Valeska Schultz, Melanie Waugh and
Rosalind Staley are represented by:

          Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
          Julie E. Siebert-Johnson, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087-0000
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: mgyandoh@ktmc.com
                  jsjohnson@ktmc.com

Defendants-Appellees Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al., are
represented by:

          James F. Bennett, Esq.
          Philip Allen Cantwell, Esq.
          DOWD BENNETT LLP
          7733 Forsyth, Suite 1900
          Saint Louis, MO 63105-0000
          Telephone: (314) 889-7300
          E-mail: jbennett@dowdbennett.com
                  pcantwell@dowdbennett.com

               - and -

          James E. Crowe, III, Esq.
          EDWARD D. JONES & CO.
          12555 Manchester Road
          Saint Louis, MO 63131
          Telephone: (314) 515-2000

               - and -

          Thomas J. Kavaler, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Thier, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP
          80 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005-0000
          Telephone: (212) 701-3000
          E-mail: tkavaler@cahill.com


ENCORE HEALTH: Jones Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
KAREN JONES and NICOLE DORAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ENCORE HEALTH RESOURCES,
LLC, EMIDS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD. CORP., EMIDS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.
CORP. f/k/a ENCORE HEALTH RESOURCES, LLC, and SPECIALIST RESOURCES
GLOBAL, INC. d/b/a EMIDS TECHNOLOGIES, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-02682-CMR (E.D. Pa., June 20, 2019) seeks to recover unpaid
wages and related penalties and damages for themselves and other
similarly-situated Credentialed Trainers to remedy Defendants'
practice and policy of willfully failing and refusing to properly
pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated Credentialed Trainers
all of their earned and accrued wages on their regular pay dates.

Defendants provide staffing services to customers throughout the
United States, including Pennsylvania. Defendants' main function
was to assist hospitals and healthcare organizations learn and
navigate a new integrated health computer system. Plaintiffs worked
for Defendants as Credentialed Trainers in the Fall of 2017,
providing assistance to Defendants' clients in using
healthcare-related software.

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants, jointly and severally, violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") by knowingly
suffering and/or permitting Representative Plaintiffs and the
putative Class and Collective members to work in excess of 40 hours
per week without properly compensating them at an overtime premium
rate for these overtime hours, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David J. Cohen, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     604 Spruce Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Phone: (215) 873-4836
     Fax: (312) 233-1560
     Email: dcohen@stephanzouras.com

          - and -

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312) 233-1550
     Fax: (312) 233-1560
     Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
            jzouras@stephanzouras.com
            aficzko@stephanzouras.com


ENTEGRA FINANCIAL: Parshall Seeks More Info on Sale to Bancshares
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. ENTEGRA FINANCIAL CORP., ROGER D. PLEMENS,
RONALD D. BEALE, LOUIS E. BUCK JR., ADAM W. BURRELL, R. MATTHEW
DUNBAR, CHARLES M. EDWARDS, CRAIG A. FOLWER, JAMES M. GARNER, FRED
H. JONES, BEVERLY W. MASON, DOUGLAS W. KROSKE, FIRST CITIZENS
BANCSHARES, INC., FIRST-CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY, and FC
MERGER SUBSIDIARY VII, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01152-UNA
(D. Del., June 20, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed
transaction announced on April 24, 2019, pursuant to which of
Entegra Financial Corp. will be acquired by First Citizens
BancShares, Inc. ("BancShares"), a Delaware corporation, and its
affiliates First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company ("FC Bank") and FC
Merger Subsidiary VII, Inc. ("Merger Sub," and together with
BancShares and FC Bank, "First Citizens").

On April 23, 2019, Entegra's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with First Citizens.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of
Entegra will receive $30.18 in cash for each share of Entegra they
own. On May 24, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement.

Plaintiff is the owner of Entegra common stock.

Entegra is the holding company of Entegra Bank. Entegra's common
stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Market under the ticker symbol
"ENFC".[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
     Phone: (302) 295-5310
     Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
     Email: 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
     Phone: (484) 324-6800
     Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
     Email: rm@maniskas.com


ERIC RICHARD: Breeze Files ADA Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ERIC RICHARD COMPANY,
L.L.C. The case is styled as BYRON BREEZE, JR. on behalf of
himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ERIC
RICHARD COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-14029 (D.
N.J., June 20, 2019).

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

ERIC RICHARD COMPANY, L.L.C. distributes medical and surgical
supplies to nursing homes, home health care companies, and
individuals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     ERIK MATHEW BASHIAN, ESQ.
     BASHIAN & PAPANTONIOU, P.C.
     500 OLD COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 302
     GARDEN CITY, NE 11530
     Phone: (516) 279-1554
     Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com



EUCLID BEACH: Ballard Suit Asserts Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------
KAITLYN BALLARD, and MICHAEL BALLARD, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EUCLID BEACH L.P. d/b/a
EUCLID BEACH MOBILE HOME PARK, Defendant, Case No. CV-19-917077
filed in Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas on June 20, 2019, is an
action against Defendant Euclid Beach who materially breached a
contract by failing to implement policy on water charges properly;
failing to fully disclose water charges; and charging unreasonable
water fees.

On February 10, 2017, the Ballards entered into a Month to Month
Rental Agreement (the "Rental Agreement") with Euclid Beach. The
Rental Agreement is a contract between the Ballards and Euclid
Beach. The Rental Agreement states that a resident agrees to pay
for all utilities "furnished" by Euclid Beach or utility companies.
The Rental Agreement does not specifically state what utilities are
"furnished" nor the amount charged for use. The Rental Agreement
does not specify the charges for water use or notify a resident
that there is a minimum monthly charge for water use. Although the
Rental Agreement states that "a copy of LANDLORD'S park rules and
regulations have been provided and incorporated herein by
reference," Euclid Beach failed to present the Park's rules and
regulations to the Ballards when the Ballards signed the Rental
Agreement.

On February 22, 2017, Euclid Beach provided the Ballards with their
first monthly billing statement. However, Euclid Beach verbally
told the Ballards that they owed $55.00 for "Water/Sewer", although
they had not used any water since moving into the Park and they
were not informed in writing of the Park's rules and regulations on
water use. For the remainder of 2017, as the Ballards would later
discover, Euclid Beach overcharged the Ballards approximately
$29.41 on average each month for water. In 2018, as the Ballards
would later discover, Euclid Beach overcharged the Ballards
approximately $27.85 on average each month for water. Since
February 2017, Euclid Beach has overcharged the Ballards hundreds
of dollars for water. On information and belief, Euclid Beach is
attempting to recoup water charges for the large body of water
caused by a leak in the Park's water system by overcharging the
residents of the Park, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are residents of Cuyahoga County with their primary
residence located at 101 Magnolia Drive, Cleveland, OH 44110.

Euclid Beach provides water services to the residents of the Park
through utility submetering.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Marc E. Dann, Esq.
     Brian D. Flick, Esq.
     Michael A. Smith, Jr., Esq.
     Dann Law
     P.O. Box 6031040
     Cleveland, OH 44103
     Phone: (216) 373-0539
     Facsimile: (216) 373-0536


FACEBOOK INC: Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages Revived
------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal appeals
court has revived a proposed class action lawsuit against Facebook
Inc. brought on behalf of non-Facebook users who claim they've
gotten unsolicited texts from the company in violation of a federal
robocalling statute.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower
court decision that had tossed a lawsuit brought by Noah Duguid, a
non-Facebook user who claimed the company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by mistakenly sending him security
messages meant to alert users when their account had been accessed
from an unrecognized device or browser. Duguid claimed that
Facebook failed to respond to his multiple text and email requests
to stop sending him the texts.

"The messages Duguid received were automated, unsolicited, and
unwanted," wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown, adding that the
messages fell outside an exemption to TCPA liability for emergency
messages that has been outlined by the Federal Communications
Commission. "Duguid did not have a Facebook account, so his account
could not have faced a security issue, and Facebook's messages fall
outside even the broad construction the FCC has afforded the
emergency exception," McKeown wrote.

The court, however, joined with the Fourth Circuit in finding that
an exemption for calls "made solely to collect a debt owed to or
guaranteed by the United States" added to the TCPA by Congress in a
2015 amendment violated the First Amendment. But also like the
Fourth Circuit, the court found that the federal debt collection
exemption was severable from the TCPA, refusing a request from
Facebook and its lawyers at Latham & Watkins to find the entire
statute unconstitutional.

Facebook representatives didn't immediately respond to a request
for comment on June 13. The company and its lawyers have argued
that the statute, which has statutory penalties of $500 per
violation and was initially aimed at curbing unwanted calls from
telemarketers, was never meant to put companies in Facebook's
position on the hook potentially for millions in liability.

Duguid's lawyer, Sergei Lemberg of Wilton, Connecticut-based
Lemberg Law, said that Facebook has indicated that there are a
significant number of people who, like his client, received
unwanted texts.

"What's important is the message: Man versus machine. Man wins.
Privacy matters," Lemberg said. "I think Facebook for years and
years was pretty cavalier, to say the least, about individuals'
privacy and this case is different from some of the stuff that's
out there publicly, but it's cut from the same cloth."

Lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the case
to defend the constitutionality of the statute, but took no
position on whether Facebook violated the TCPA. The Chamber of
Commerce, represented by counsel from Jones Day, filed an amicus
brief asking the Ninth Circuit to invalidate the restriction on
using an automatic telephone dialing system to call cellphones.
[GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Suit Over Inflated Viewership Metrics Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Metrics, reports that Facebook was
alleged to have been knowingly overstating viewership by as much as
900 percent.

Several advertising agencies told a California federal court on
June 12 that Facebook has agreed to settlement terms to resolve a
putative class action alleging that the social media giant wildly
overstated the average time its users spent watching paid
advertisements.

The amended complaint pointed to a 2016 story in The Wall Street
Journal revealing that Facebook's metrics had been overstated by
between 60 and 80 percent. According to the plaintiffs, Facebook
admitted its mistake, but actually, the problem was much larger.

"In addition to Facebook knowing about the problem far longer than
previously acknowledged, Facebook's records also show that the
impact of its miscalculation was much more severe than reported,"
stated the complaint. "The average viewership metrics were not
inflated by only 60%-80%; they were inflated by some 150 to 900%."

Facebook responded that such calculations  came from selectively
used information from internal discussions and documents produced
by Facebook during discovery. The Mark Zuckerberg company also
argued for dismissal based on the lack of allegation that the ad
agencies led by LLE One  actually saw the erroneous metrics and
because of those metrics decided to spend more money on Facebook
video ads.

In April, after considering amended pleadings, U.S. District Court
Judge Jeffrey White allowed claims of fraud and unfair competition
to move forward.

Now, however, the parties are requesting a pause on the deadlines
in the litigation, including class certification briefing, in light
of a settlement that is being memorialized. The deal comes after
mediation.

No terms have yet been released, and plaintiff attorney, Eric
Gibbs, Esq. -- ehg@classlawgroup.com -- says there's no further
information he can provide at this time. The proposed settlement
will need to be approved by the judge and figures to be presented
in court in the next few months.

A Facebook spokesperson said, "This lawsuit is without merit but we
believe resolving this case is in the best interests of the company
and advertisers." [GN]


FCA US LLC: Wrangler's 'Death Wobble' Leads to Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Smith, writing for Motor1.com, reports that owners of
late model Jeep Wranglers are taking to the courts over the
so-called "death wobble" that's been reported to affect some
versions of the popular off-roader. The Detroit News reports that a
class-action lawsuit was filed on June 12 in the Detroit's U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, targeting FCA
and alleging the automaker knew about the issue but neither
addressed it nor warned buyers at the time of sale about a
potential problem.

In a statement to Motor1.com, a Jeep representative said the
following:

"FCA US has not been served with this lawsuit and cannot comment on
its allegations at this time.  However, we note that any
manufacturer vehicle equipped with a solid axle can experience
steering system vibration and, if experienced, it is routinely
corrected.  

Indeed, most reported incidents of steering system vibration are
linked to the following:

    * Modifications to a vehicle, such as poorly installed or
maintained after-market equipment, such as lift kits and oversized
tires.

    * Damaged or worn steering system components.

    * Incorrect tire pressure.

As we previously reported, Wrangler owners identify the crux of the
problem as a vibration in the steering wheel that can get quite
bad. It usually occurs at higher speeds after hitting a bump, with
the only remedy being to slow down. The Detroit News further
elaborates on the matter, saying an "uncontrollable side-to-side
shaking" can result as well. It's apparently nothing new, though
the class-action lawsuit specifically identifies 2015-2018
model-year Jeep Wrangler.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration lists numerous
complaints of a violent shaking of the wheel in Jeep Wranglers,
though no official investigation is presently underway. However,
The Detroit News reports says safety advocates in Washington have
campaigned for a closer look at the potential issue as far back as
2012. The lawsuit alleges Jeep has replaced steering dampers for
some owners experiencing issues under warranty, but that it doesn't
fix the problem. Throughout all of this, there's no mention of the
new Jeep Gladiator experiencing problems. [GN]


FLINT HILLS: Downey Alleges Systemic Illegal Employment Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP DOWNEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FLINT HILLS RESOURCES, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04119 (N.D. Ill., June 19, 2019),
challenges the Defendant's systemic illegal employment practices
which resulted in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant acted intentionally and with
deliberate indifference and conscious disregard of the rights of
its employees in, among other things, failing to pay overtime wages
in the correct amount due.

The alleged unlawful acts have a direct effect on Plaintiff and
other employees similarly situated, the complaint says. The
Plaintiff and the putative Class Members have suffered damages and
will continue to suffer the same harm as the representative
Plaintiff as a result of Defendant's wrongful conduct, unless the
relief requested is granted, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff first became employed by Defendant, and began working
for Defendant, during or about 2004 as a chemical operator.
Plaintiff was later promoted to permanent consul operator. The
amount of time worked by Plaintiff and other similarly-situated
employees of Defendant was recorded by through an automated time
clock system.

The Plaintiff and other similarly-situated employees of Defendant
were paid by Defendant on a bi-weekly basis. They worked an
alternating schedule whereby they would work 36 hours during some
workweeks and 48 hours during other workweeks. During the workweeks
when Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of Defendant
worked 48 hours, one of their shifts was paid at a reduced hourly
rate. The Defendant thereby avoided paying the proper legal
overtime rate of one and one-half times the regular wage of
Plaintiff and the other affected employees for those workweeks.

The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees at a rate not less than one and one-half times their
regular wage for time worked in excess of forty hours per week
during many pay periods during their employment with
Defendant.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          333 Skokie Blvd., Suite 103
          Northbrook, IL 60062
          Telephone: (224) 218-0882
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com

FORSTER & GARBUS: Park Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as Eun K. Park individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03621-ARR-ST (E.D. N.Y., June 20,
2019).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FRONTLINE ASSET: Perl Files Suit Asserting FDCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frontline Asset
Strategies, LLC. The case is styled as Gittel Perl individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frontline
Asset Strategies, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-05787 (S.D.
N.Y., June 20, 2019).

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

Frontline Asset Strategies provides third-party collection services
and first-party business process outsourcing services for many
different types of accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Gallagher, Wyatt Seek Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against General Motors
Company (GM) for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). The case is captioned KELLY C. GALLAGHER and ROBERT WYATT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-11836-RHC-MKM (E.D. Mich., June 20, 2019).

Kelly C. Gallagher, a component validation engineer for GM and
Aerotek CE, a division of Aerotek, Inc., and Robert Wyatt, a
business analyst for GM and TEKsystems, Inc., were paid hourly and
are their positions are not exempt from the overtime provisions of
the FLSA. In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that GM unlawfully
failed and refused to pay them overtime pay for overtime worked,
notwithstanding that they were and are paid hourly and are not and
have not been exempt from overtime pay. In addition, Plaintiffs
assert that GM also failed to keep accurate time records as
required by law.

GM is a foreign limited liability company who is doing business in
the state of Michigan, with its global headquarters located at 300
Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel W. Rucker, Esq.
     Patricia A. Stamler, Esq.
     Steve J. Weiss, Esq.
     HERTZ SCHRAM PC
     1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
     Telephone: (248) 335-5000
     E-mail: drucker@hertzschram.com
             pstamler@hertzschram.com
             sweiss@hertzschram.com


GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Guardian
Industries, LLC for alleged violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code. The case is
captioned, EDUARDO GONZALEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES, LLC,
a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 19CECG02134 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., June
20, 2019). Plaintiff Eduardo Gonzalez alleges that the Defendants
failed to provide legally-compliant meal periods, failed to pay
proper minimum and overtime wages. In addition, Plaintiff Gonzalez
asserts that the Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in
unfair and/or unlawful business practices in California by failing
to pay Plaintiff all overtime and minimum wages owed, and failing
to pay all required meal period premium payments.

Guardian Industries, LLC is engaged in a glass manufacturing
business that produces high performance glass for architectural,
residential, interior, transportation and technical glass
application. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul K. Haines, Esq.
     Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
     Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
     Brittaney D. de la Torre, Esq.
     HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
     222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Ste. 1550
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Telephone: (424) 292-2350
     Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
     E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
             arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
             bdelatorre@haineslawgroup.com


HEALTH INSURANCE: Levine Kellogg Files Suit Over Insurance Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
As health insurance fraud penetrates America's healthcare industry
to target vulnerable consumers, Miami-based law firm Levine Kellogg
Lehman Schneider + Grossman (LKLSG) and Atlanta-based The Doss Firm
filed a class action complaint against Health Insurance Innovations
(HIIQ), Inc. and Health Plan Intermediaries Holdings, LLC (HPIH)
for their role in the Simple Health Plans fraudulent insurance
scheme.

The lawsuit alleges HIIQ and HPIH directed, aided and abetted the
$150 million fraud perpetrated by Simple Health Plans, a South
Florida company shut down in October 2018 by the Federal Trade
Commission. The lawsuit alleges that HIIQ took part in defrauding
hundreds of thousands of vulnerable consumers nationwide, leading
them to believe that their limited benefit indemnity plans and
medical discount plans were major medical insurance that met the
Affordable Care Act requirements.

"The scheme carried out by HIIQ and HPIH through Simple Health
Plans created devastating consequences for victims nationwide,"
said Jason Kellogg, Partner at LKLSG. "These folks thought they
were doing the right thing in purchasing health insurance. Instead,
they were left mostly uninsured."

Co-Lead Plaintiff Chris Mitchell of Kansas was left with bills
exceeding $40,000 after having surgery to treat an aggressive form
of cancer.  Co-Lead Plaintiff Elizabeth Belin of Ohio was billed
more than $48,000 in medical expenses because her limited benefit
indemnity plan, which she was told was a PPO, did not cover the
surgery.

Simple Health was one of the largest brokers for HIIQ, a publicly
traded distributor of health insurance and supplemental plans that
financed, sold plans through, acted as the third-party
administrator for, and provided customer service for Simple Health.


The Federal Trade Commission warned that thousands of potentially
unaware victims continue to be charged by HIIQ for plans purchased
through Simple Health.

"This scheme victimized the most vulnerable patients across the
country," said attorney Jason Doss, owner of the Doss Firm. "The
plaintiffs are the consumers that the Affordable Care Act was
designed to protect."

For more information:

          Visit: www.simplehealthlawsuit.com
          Call: 855-436-7752 [GN]


HIDDEN WHARF: Palacios Files Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Hidden Wharf,
Inc. The case is styled as Victoria Palacios and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Hidden Wharf, Inc. and
William Reinhardt, Defendants, Case No. 603614/2019 filed in New
York Supreme Court, Nassau County on June 12, 2019.

The District Wharf is a waterfront neighborhood, home to thousands
of residents and employees, three hotels, a 6000-seat music venue,
and over 50 shops and restaurants. Throughout the year, the
community hosts vibrant festivals, events, and concerts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Leeds Brown Law, P.C.
   One Old Country Road, Ste.347
   Carle Place, NY 11514
   Tel: (516) 873-9550

The Defendant is represented by:

   Forchelli, Curto, Deegan, Schw
   333 Earle Ovington Blvd. #1010
   Uniondale, NY 11553
   Tel: (516) 248-1700



INTERNATIONAL LASER: Courts Grants Motion to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JOSUE ALVARADO, on behalf of himself
and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the
Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL LASER PRODUCTS, INC., INTERNATIONAL
TONER CORP., and CRAIG FUNK, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-07756 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
entered an order:

   1. granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class; and

   2. directing the Plaintiffs to furnish an amended class notice,
      consistent with the court's rulings.

The Plaintiff alleges that his employers, Defendants International
Laser Products, Inc. and International Toner Corp., violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Minimum Wage Law by failing to pay
overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half times Alvarado's
straight pay rate. He seeks to represent a class of workers who
were also allegedly victims of this practice.[CC]

INTUIT, INC: Cook Suit over Turbo Tax Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LAKESIA COOK, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. INTUIT, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 5:19-cv-01011 (Filed June 2, 2019), was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Oakland) on June 19, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk  assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-03460-KAW to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Kandis A. Westmore.

The Plaintiff brings the class action complaint to challenge the
deceptive advertising and business practices of Intuit, Inc. with
regard to Defendant's tax filing software commonly known as "Turbo
Tax," by which Intuit used to promote/advertise purportedly "Free"
tax filing services to millions of low earning Americans, only to
deliberately divert them to their paid software services despite
the consumers being eligible to obtain such tax-filing services at
no cost at all.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          169 W 2710 S Circle, Suite 204F
          St. George, UT 84790
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: jason@kazlg.com
                  ak@kazlg.com        
          
               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108-3551
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Barthel, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: nicholas@kazlg.com


JORDAN'S FURNITURE: Sutton Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW SUTTON and AMIE ARESTANI, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JORDAN'S FURNITURE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-1763 (Commonwealth of Mass., June 19, 2019)
is an action seeking to recover unpaid wages owed to them and all
other similarly situated individuals who have worked as sales
representatives for Jordan's Furniture, Inc.

Although the sales representatives often work more than 40 hours in
a week, and routinely work Sundays and holidays, Jordan's does not
pay its sales representatives any overtime compensation or other
premium pay, says the complaint. In addition, Jordan's has required
its sales representatives to work Sundays without paying them 1.5
times their regular hourly rate. As a result of these practices,
Jordan's has violated the overtime provision of the Massachusetts
Minimum Fair Wage Law, as well as the Massachusetts Wage Act, the
Plaintiff asserts.

Plaintiffs worked for Jordan's as sales representatives from 2016
to 2019.

Jordan's is a Massachusetts corporation that owns and operates a
chain of furniture and mattress retail stores in and around
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Hillary Schwab, Esq.
     Brant Casavant, Esq.
     FAIR WORK P.C.
     192 South Street. Suite 450
     Boston. MA 02111
     Phone: (617)607-3261
     Fax: (617)488-2261
     Email: hi1lary@fairworklaw.com
            brant@fairworklaw.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Status OK'd in 401(k) Excessive Fee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nevin E. Adams JD, writing for National Association of Plan
Advisors, reports that an excessive fee suit has been granted class
action status in federal court.

This time it's a group of former participants in the JPMorgan Chase
401(k) Savings Plan, a plan that has approximately 266,000 to
300,000 participants and more than $14 billion in assets.

Suit 'Case'

In considering the petition for class action status, Judge Jesse M.
Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York noted that the five named Plaintiffs in this case --
Antoinette Fondren, Ferdinand Orellana, William Stirsman, Sean Daly
and James Monaghan -- were all participants in the plan, all of
whom invested in different funds, each with different fees. Fondren
invested in the Target Date 2030 Fund, Orellana invested in the
Core Bond Fund, the Mid Cap Growth Fund, the Small Cap Core Fund,
the Target Date 2045 Fund and others; Stirsman invested in the Core
Bond Fund, the Target Date 2015 Fund and others; Daly invested in
the Target Date 2050 Fund and others; and Monaghan invested in the
Large Cap Growth Index Fund and others.

Three of those plaintiffs -- Fondren, Daly and Monaghan -- signed
arbitration agreements when accepting their employment with
JPMorgan or its subsidiaries, in which they agreed to arbitrate all
of their claims against Defendants except for "claims for benefits
under a plan that is governed by [ERISA]," among others --
agreements that also stated that "[n]o claims may be arbitrated on
a class or collective basis."

As other of these excessive fee suits have done, this one -- filed
in January 2017 -- took issue with the choice of active versus
passive alternatives, but it was the prevalence of proprietary
funds ("from years 2010 through 2015, approximately half of all the
possible investment options were proprietary investment vehicles
managed by the Bank or by another subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase,"
according to the suit) and the alleged complicity of their
arrangement with BlackRock (which managed seven of the funds in the
plan, in addition to the target-date funds, which the suit says
were mostly index funds managed by BlackRock) that dominated the
concerns expressed.

Class, Backed

The JP Morgan Chase defendants opposed class certification on
several grounds, according to Judge Furman; they wanted to narrow
the class definition to exclude funds in which the plaintiffs did
not invest (because they lack standing to represent participants in
those funds), that their arbitration agreements prevent three named
Plaintiffs from acting as class representatives, and that it was
not proper under Rule 23 for several reasons.

With regard to the issue of standing with regard to funds in which
they hadn't invested, the court noted that "the allegedly disloyal
and imprudent conduct of defendants implicates the same set of
concerns for investors in all [of the funds]" because the conduct
relates to "the process Defendants used to manage the Plan." And,
Judge Furman noted, "as other district courts in this Circuit have
concluded . . . . [b]ecause the alleged harms are premised on the
process Defendants used to manage the Plan, the claims involve
similar inquiries and proof, and thus implicate the same set of
concerns. Plaintiffs have class standing to pursue the claims on
behalf of the absent class members, including those who invested in
... funds offered by the Plan in which none of them invested."

Arbitration 'Cause

As for the arbitration agreements, Judge Furman stated that the
relevant factors to consider in the inquiry are: "(1) the time
elapsed from when litigation was commenced until the request for
arbitration; (2) the amount of litigation to date, including motion
practice and discovery; and (3) proof of prejudice," going on to
conclude that the JP Morgan Chase defendants "waived any right to
compel arbitration." He noted that they "waited for more than a
year to raise arbitration as an issue and now do so in briefing,
not by motion," that they "did not mention arbitration while
litigating a motion to dismiss or when filing an answer with other
affirmative defenses," and that the parties had "conducted
extensive discovery, including multiple depositions" -- actions,
Furman noted that not only "demonstrate an intent to litigate," but
that plaintiffs would be prejudiced if defendants now sought to
compel arbitration. "Because Defendants waived any right to compel
arbitration in this litigation, Plaintiffs are, in effect, not
bound by the arbitration agreements," he wrote. "In this context,
the unenforceable agreements cannot preclude Plaintiffs from
representing the proposed class."

Judge Furman then turned to the issue of class certification and
conditions under Rule 23, finding that the plaintiffs here cleared
the conditions of numerosity (there were thousands of members),
commonality (the claims arose from the investment lineup provided
to all participants), typicality, and adequacy of representation,
and determined that the requisite conditions for certification were
met.

Class 'Act'

Ultimately, the class certified consisted of "all persons, except
Defendants and any other persons with responsibility for the Plan's
investment menu, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan, at any time between January 25, 2011 and the present, and
whose individual accounts were invested in one or more of the
following funds: the Growth and Income Fund; the Mid Cap Value
Fund; the Mid Cap Growth Fund; the Small Cap Core Fund, but only if
the investment occurred before December 19, 2015; the Core Bond
Fund, but only if the investment occurred before March 12, 2016;
and any of the Target Date Funds, but only if the investment
occurred before April 1, 2016." The court appointed Daly, Fondren,
Orellana and Stirsman -- but not Monaghan (who hadn't invested in
the funds in question) as class representatives.

As an additional matter, Judge Furman noted that the parties wanted
to keep under seal exhibits containing internal JPMorgan documents
about the Plan and the parts of a brief that rely on them,
specifically excerpts from the 2016 Investment Policy Statement of
the JPMorgan Chase 401(k) Savings Plan, minutes from the June 18,
2015 EPIC meeting, and minutes from the Sept. 22, 2015 EPIC
meeting, since -- the defendants argued -- they contain
"proprietary information concerning JPMorgan Chase's internal
governance and reflect private deliberations." Judge Furman granted
that motion to seal, directing that unredacted copies with the
Court's Sealed Records Department.

The case is Beach v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2019 BL 214751,
S.D.N.Y., No. 1:17-cv-00563-JMF, 6/11/19.

Why This Matters

The designation of a class, particularly one as large of this,
certainly has to be of concern for defendants, but the big lesson
here (not that it would have done much to dissuade the pursuit of
the class action) would seem to be that arbitration agreements not
promptly enforced/raised will be of little value. [GN]


KIA MOTORS: Leblanc Sues Over Vehicle's Engine Defect
-----------------------------------------------------
MELINDA LEBLANC, Plaintiffs, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV21435 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 19, 2019) is an action seeking to
redress GM's violations of California consumer fraud statutes, and
also seeks recovery for Defendant's breach of express warranty,
breach of implied warranty, breach of the duty of good faith and
fair dealing, and common law fraud.

Defendant was engaged in the design, development, manufacture,
distribution, marketing, selling, leasing, warranting, servicing,
and repair of automobiles. Plaintiff purchased a 2013 Kia Optima
vehicle identification number 5XXGN4A71DG095644, (the Subject
Vehicle), which was manufactured and or distributed by Defendant on
or about July 21, 2012.

Plaintiff received an express written warranty, including, a
5-year/60,000 mile express bumper to bumper warranty, a 10-
year/100,000 mile powertrain warranty which, inter alia, covers the
engine and transmission. Subsequently, Defendant provided a
10-year/120,000 mile warranty extension on 2.0 and 2.4L GDI engines
(including the Subject Vehicle's engine). Defendant undertook to
preserve or maintain the utility or performance of the Subject
Vehicle or to provide compensation if there is a failure in utility
or performance for a specified period of time. The warranty
provided, in relevant part, that in the event a defect developed
with the Subject Vehicle during the warranty period, Plaintiff
could deliver the Vehicle for repair services to Defendant's
representative and the Subject Vehicle would be repaired.

During the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle contained or
developed defects, including but not limited to, latent defects
causing oil flow to become restricted through vital areas of the
engine resulting in stalling while in operation; defects related to
the engine's rod bearings; defects related to the engine; defects
causing excessive oil consumption; defects causing the Vehicle to
burn oil; defects causing smoke to come out of the tailpipe;
defects causing lower end knock; defects causing failure and/or
replacement of the long block; defects requiring performance of
Recall SC147; defects causing failure and/or replacement of the
intake and/or exhaust manifolds, fuel injector seals, spark plugs
and/or fly wheel bolts; defects causing metal shavings to
contaminate the engine; defects causing metal shavings to
contaminate the transmission; defects requiring performance of
Recall SC114; defects requiring an engine control module ("ECM")
update; defects causing failure and/or replacement of the flex
coupler; defects causing shifting failure; defects causing failure
and/or replacement of the transmission; defects causing storage of
Diagnostic Trouble Code ("DTC") P0455; defects requiring the evap
hose to be secured to purge valve; defects causing the illumination
of the check engine light ("CEL"); defects requiring performance
Recall SC165; defects requiring performance of Recall SC172;
defects requiring performance of PI1803C; defects causing the
failure and/or replacement of front brake pads; defects requiring
the resurfacing of the front rotors; and/or any other defects
described in the repair history for the Subject Vehicle
(collectively, "Defects"). Said defects substantially impair the
use, value, or safety of the Subject Vehicle.

Plaintiff believes that prior to acquiring the Vehicle, Defendant
were well aware and knew that 2.4L GDI engine installed on the
Vehicle was defective but failed to disclose this fact to Plaintiff
at the time of sale and thereafter.  Specifically, Defendant knew
(or should have known) that the KIA Vehicles equipped with the 2.0
or 2.4L GDI engine had Engine Defect (latent defects causing oil
flow to become restricted through vital areas of the engine
resulting in stalling while in operation; defects related to the
engine's rod bearings; defects resulting in engine failure), says
the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Tionna Dolin, Esq.
     Sean Crandall, Esq.
     Strategic Legal Practices
     A Professional Corporation
     1840 Century Park East, Suite 430
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 929-4900
     Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
     Email: tdolin@slpattorney.com
            scrandall@slpattorney.com


KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Kingstone Companies, Inc. (Nasdaq: KINS) in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of
Kingstone between March 14, 2018 and April 29, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose to investors:
(1) that the Company did not adequately follow industry best
practices related to claims handling; (2) that, as a result, the
Company did not record sufficient claims reserves; (3) that the
Company lacked adequate internal control over financial reporting;
and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the August 11, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action please:

Contact:

        Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
        Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
        Gainey McKenna & Egleston
        Telephone: (212) 983-1300
        Website: www.gme-law.com  
        E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


L'OREAL USA: Borchenko Moves to Certify UCL California-Only Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled NATALIYA BORCHENKO, On Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. L'OREAL USA, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-01426-R-AS (C.D. Cal.),
asks the Court to certify this class:

   * Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") California-Only Class:

     All California consumers who within the applicable statute
     of limitations period until the date notice is disseminated,
     purchased the Products.

Additionally, Ms. Borchenko asks the Court to appoint her as Class
representative and to appoint the law firm of Bonnett, Fairbourn,
Friedman & Balint, P.C. as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 4, 2019, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 798-4593
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
                  mmuecke@bffb.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          Carrie A. Laliberte, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com
                  claliberte@bffb.com

               - and -

          David N. Lake, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. LAKE
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          16130 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 788-5100
          Facsimile: (818) 479-9990
          E-mail: david@lakelawpc.com


LE SHERIDAN LLC: Patterson Sues Over Lack of Relocation Assistance
------------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LE SHERIDAN LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2019CH07365 (Circuit
Ct., Cook Cty., June 19, 2019) seeks redress for Defendant's
continuous violation of the Chicago Municipal Ordinance, commonly
known as the Keep Chicago Renting Ordinance ("KCRO"), and
Defendant's violation of the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law
("IMFL").

The Defendant acquired title to a Property pursuant to a mortgage
foreclosure and mortgage foreclosure sale; however, the Defendant
collected rents from Plaintiff and failed to pay or offer her a
relocation assistance fee in violation of the KCRO; and Defendant
collected rents from Plaintiff in violation of the IMFL, says the
complaint.

Patterson is an individual that resides in Chicago, Cook County,
Illinois, and Patterson was a former tenant, and she resided at the
Property.

Le Sheridan is an Illinois limited liability company and it is in
the business of, among other things, owning and developing
residential rental real property. Le Sheridan is the current title
owner of the Property.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel I. Schlade
     134 N. LaSalle, Suite 1208
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: 773-550-3775
     Email: danschlade@gmai1.com


LEADERS IN COMMUNITY: Jackson's Motion to Certify Class Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William Alsup denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit titled ROBERT JACKSON, JAMES BROOKS,
and KYSER WILSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LEADERS IN COMMUNITY ALTERNATIVES, INC., Case No.
3:18-cv-04609-WHA (N.D. Cal.).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.  The Plaintiffs assert a RICO
claim based on predicate acts of extortion under state and federal
law.  They sought to certify a class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     All individuals who have been or will be put on LCA's
     Electronic Monitoring program by the Alameda County Court
     system from July 31, 2014, until this litigation is
     complete, who were threatened with jail by LCA or any of its
     employees, agents, or representatives.

Judge Alsup opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to carry their
burden under Rule 23(b)(3) of showing that common issues of fact or
law will predominate in resolving their RICO claim.[CC]


LIBERTY PLACE: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Nunez Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
HECTOR NUNEZ and ESTEBAN ROSARIO-REYES, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY PLACE
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LPPM PAYROLL, LLC, and CRP PARK AVENUE, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05743 (E.D. N.Y., June 19, 2019) is an
action on behalf of Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
for Defendants' systemic and continuous violations of: (i) the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended,
("FLSA"); (ii) the overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law
("NYLL") and N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. ("NYCCRR"); (iii) the
spread of hours requirement as contained in the NYCCRR; (iv) the
requirement that employers furnish employees with a written
statement at the time of hiring, and on an annual basis, containing
specific categories of information under the New York Wage Theft
Prevention Act (the "NYWTPA"); (v) the requirement that employers
furnish employees with wage statements on each payday containing
specific categories of accurate information under the NYLL; and
(vi) any other cause(s) of action that can be inferred from the
facts set forth herein.

Throughout the course of their employment, Plaintiffs regularly
worked as many as seven days a week, and well over 40 hours each
week, including the requirement that they be on-call 24 hours a
day, seven days a week to deal with any issues that arose in the
buildings they serviced, without receiving overtime pay and spread
of hours as required by law. Plaintiffs' claims are limited to the
damages they incurred during the relevant statutory period. The
Defendants have willfully failed to pay their superintendents and
handymen overtime wages as required by law, and deliberately and
willfully engaged in conduct to conceal their unlawful pay
practices, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were building superintendents and handymen who worked
for the Defendants from August 2013 until on or about March of
2017.

Defendants are believed to operate as an enterprise, owning and
managing at least 35 residential apartment buildings, during the
relevant time period, throughout the City of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq.
     JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC
     225 Broadway, Suite 2700
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (212) 227-5700
     Fax: (212) 406-6890


LIGHT TO TOUGH: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Light To Tough Laser,
LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Light To Tough Laser, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05809 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019).

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

Light To Tough Laser, LLC is a manufacturer of lasers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIGHTHOUSE LIVING: Broadway Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lighthouse Living
Services Inc. The case is styled as Nataja Broadway, Macarey
Littlejohn, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Lighthouse Living Services Inc., Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00259037-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., June 20, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment".

Lighthouse Living Services Inc. is a company based out of United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by Gary R Basham, Esq.


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Faces Normantas Securities Suit in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUSTAS NORMANTAS, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAMMOTH ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,
ARTY STRAEHLA, and MARK LAYTON, Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00560-SLP (W.D. Okla., June 19, 2019) is a class action on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Mammoth securities from October 19, 2017 through
June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to
recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

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

However, the statements were materially false and/or misleading
because they misrepresented and failed to disclose adverse facts
pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and prospects,
which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them,
says the complaint. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Mammoth's
subsidiary, Cobra, improperly obtained two infrastructure contracts
with PREPA that totaled over $1.8 billion; (2) specifically, the
contracts were awarded as the result of improper steering and not a
competitive RFP process; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about Mammoth's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

Plaintiff purchased Mammoth securities during the Class Period and
was economically damaged thereby.

Defendant Mammoth purports to operate as an oilfield service
company operating in three segments: Infrastructure Services,
Pressure Pumping Services, and Natural Sand Proppant Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William B. Federman, OBA #2853
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 North Pennsylvania Ave.
     Oklahoma City, OK 73120
     Phone: (405) 235-1560
     Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
     Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


MAMMOTH ENERGY: Zhang Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces the filing of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Mammoth Energy
Services, Inc. (NASDAQ: TUSK) from October 19, 2017 through June 5,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Mammoth investors under the federal securities laws.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 6, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation follow this
https://tinyurl.com/y3ubv58y or to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or
Spencer Lee toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com, slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Mammoth's subsidiary, Cobra, improperly obtained two
infrastructure contracts with PREPA that totaled over $1.8 billion;
(2) specifically, the contracts were awarded as the result of
improper steering and not a competitive RFP process; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about Mammoth's business, operations
and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.  

Contact:

         Sophie Zhang, Esq.
         Spencer Lee
         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         Phone: (800) 991-3756
         Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com
                slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]


MDL 2887: Conley Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, Stanley Conley, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 19-4363 (Filed March 28, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
(Kansas City)  on June 19, 2019. The District of Kansas Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02330-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.

Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and an order forcing Hill's Pet to
provide appropriate injunctive relief by ensuring that all
potentially affected products are identified on Hill's website and
removed from shelves.

The Conley 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:

          Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 904
          15058 River Rd
          Hahnville LA, 70057
          Telephone: (985) 783-6789
          Facsimile: (985) 783-1333
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

              - and -

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Ste. 305
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 640-1168
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  dperry@wbmllp.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          James M. Garner, Esq.
          John T. Balhoff, II, Esq.
          SHER, GARNER, CAHILL,
          RICHTER, KLEIN & HILBERT, LLC
          909 Poydras St., 28th Floor, Suite 2800
          New Orleans, LA 70112-1033
          Telephone: (504) 299-2100

               - and -

          Hannah Yael Shay Chanoine, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          Times Square Tower
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000

MDL 2887: Hall Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
The case, GEORGEANNE HALL individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. HILL'S PET
NUTRITION, INC. and HILL'S PET NUTRITION SALES, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01423 (Filed Feb. 26, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas (Kansas City) on June 19, 2019. The District of Kansas Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02329-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.

Plaintiff seeks monetary relief and an order forcing Hill's Pet to
provide appropriate injunctive relief by ensuring that all
potentially affected products are identified on Hill's website and
removed from shelves.

The Hall 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:

          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Conrad B. Stephens, Esq.
          STEPHENS & STEPHENS LLP
          505 South McClelland Street
          Santa Maria, CA 93454
          Telephone: (805) 922-1951
          Facsimile: (805) 922-8013
          E-mail: conrad@stephensfirm.com

               - and -

          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Steven M. McKany, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          5040 Shoreham Place
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                  smckany@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Charles J. Laduca, Esq.
          Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: 202-789-3960
          Facsimile: 202-789-1813
          E-mail: kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
                  charles@cuneolaw.com

               - and ­

          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          JOSEPH J. DEPALMA
          SUSANA CRUZ HODGE
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  scruzhodge@litedepalma.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Amy J. Laurendeau, Esq.
          Hannah Y. Chanoine, Esq.
          Richard Blair Goetz, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 823-7926
          Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
          E-mail: alaurendeau@omm.com
                  hchanoine@omm.com

MDL 2887: Skoog et al. Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LEE SKOOG, MICHELLE BLACK, TIFFANY MILLER, BARBARA
WERTMAN, and CANDICE HOWARTH-GADOMSKI on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HILL'S PET
NUTRITION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-01421 (Filed April
3, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas (Kansas City) on June 19, 2019. The District
of Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02331-JAR-TJJ to
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Chief District Judge Julie
A. Robinson. The suit alleges Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation.
The lead case is Case No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.

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

The Skoog 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:

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

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Mary Patricia Dwyer, Esq.
          Hannah Y. Chanoine, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP - NEWPORT BEACH
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 823-7926
          Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
          E-mail: hchanoine@omm.com

MEMEBOX CORPORATION: Diaz Files ADA Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Memebox Corporation.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Memebox Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05806 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019).

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

Memebox Corporation is a consumer company that provides customers
with the Asian beauty products, culture, and trends and operates as
an online retailer of beauty care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


METRO BANK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Metro Bank PLC (OTC: MBNKF) from March 6, 2018
through May 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Metro Bank investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Metro Bank class action, go to
https://tinyurl.com/yxbda8b4 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at
866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

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

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 29,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1563.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

Contact:

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


MGD STEWARTS: Larios Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS LARIOS, on behalf of himself FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class v. MGD STEWARTS ONE INC. d/b/a STEWART'S, MIKE & CATHY'S
SONS, INC. d/b/a STEWART'S and MIKE'S HINSCH'S, MICHAEL MOUDATSOS,
and LEE MOUDATSOS, Case No. 1:19-cv-03357 (E.D.N.Y., June 6, 2019),
alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the
Defendants unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and damages.

The Defendants owned and operated two restaurants, "Mike's
Hinsch's" and "Stewart's," at 8518 Fifth Avenue, in Brooklyn, New
York.  The Individual Defendants owned and operated the
Restaurants.

MGD is a domestic business corporation organized under the laws of
the state of New York, with a principal place of business in
Brooklyn.  Mike & Cathy's Sons is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the state of New York, with a principal
place of business in Brooklyn.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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


MICHIGAN: DOC, et al., Appeals Decision in John Does Inmates Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Department of Corrections, et al., filed an appeal from
a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled JOHN DOES 11-18, et al. v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 13-001196-CZ, in the
Washtenaw Circuit Court.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, inmates are
taking an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court from the ruling by
the Michigan Court of Appeals in their lawsuit against the State's
Department of Corrections, et al.

The appellate case is captioned as JOHN DOES 11-18, et al. v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Case No. 349073, in the Michigan
Court of Appeals.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees JOHN DOES 11-18 & JANE DOE 1/ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED are represented by:

          Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. LABELLE
          221 North Main Street, Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 996-5620
          Facsimile: (734) 769-2196

Defendants-Appellants DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, GOVERNOR/FORMER,
CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT OF/DIRECTOR - FORMER, E C BROOKS
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN, RICHARD A HANDLON CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY WARDEN, OAKS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN - FORMER, THUMB
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN, CHIPPEWA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
WARDEN, KINROSS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY WARDEN, NEWBERRY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY WARDEN and MICHIGAN REFORMATORY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
WARDEN are represented by:

          Heather S. Meingast, Esq.
          STATE OF MICHIGAN, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          G. Mennen Williams Building, 7th Floor
          525 W. Ottawa St.
          P.O. Box 30212
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 335-7622
          E-mail: meingasth@michigan.gov


MOMENTA PHARMA: Hospital Authority Seeks to Certify Damages Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, THE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY OF METROPOLITAN
GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE, d/b/a
NASHVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY
AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 HEALTH & SECURITY PLAN,
the Plaintiffs, vs. MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and SANDOZ INC.,
the Defendants, Case 3:15-cv-01100 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court for an order:

   1. certifying damages class of:

      "Hospitals, third-party payors, and people without insurance
      who indirectly purchased, paid for, and/or reimbursed some
      or all of the purchase price for, generic enoxaparin or
      Lovenox TM), in Arizona, Arkansas, California, District of
      Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
      Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
      Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New
      York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota,
      Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin,
      from September 21, 2011, through September 30, 2015, for
      the purpose of personal consumption by themselves, their
      families, or their members, employees, insureds,
      participants, patients, beneficiaries or anyone else."

      With respect to third-party payors and people without
      insurance, the Damages Class only includes those, described
      above, who purchased, paid for, and/or reimbursed some or
      all of the purchase price for, generic enoxaparin or Lovenox
      (TM) from a pharmacy.

      Excluded from the proposed Damages Class are:

      a) Defendants, their officers, directors, management,
         employees, subsidiaries, and affiliates;

      b) Federal and state governmental agencies except for
cities,
         towns, municipalities, counties or other municipal
         government entities, if otherwise qualified;

      c) Payors that received 100% reimbursement on all
         transactions, such as fully insured health plans (i.e.,
         plans that purchased insurance covering 100% of their
         reimbursement obligation to members);

      d) Third-party payors and people without insurance who
         purchased, or paid or reimbursed only for branded Lovenox

         (TM), and not generic enoxaparin, from a pharmacy or other

         retail outlet; and

      e) Judges assigned to this case and any members of their
         immediate families.

   2. appointing Plaintiffs as Class representatives; and

   3. appointing Lieff Cabraser as Class Counsel.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Adam Gitlin, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Dean M. Harvey, Esq.
          Bruce W. Leppla, Esq.
          Katherine L. Benson, Esq.
          David T. Rudolph, Esq.
          Adam Gitlin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 946111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

               - and -

          Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
          Andrew R. Kaufman, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          One Nashville Place
          150 Fourth Avenue, North, Suite 1650
          Nashville, TN 37219-2423
          Telephone: (615) 313-9000
          Facsimile: (615) 313-9965

               - and -

          John T. Spragens, Esq.
          SPRAGENS LAW PLC
          1200 16th Ave. S.
          Nashville, TN 37212
          Telephone: (615) 983-8900
          Facsimile: (615) 682-8533

Attorneys for Sandoz Inc. are:

          Timothy L. Warnock, Esq.
          RILEY WARNOCK & JACOBSON, PLC
          1906 West End Avenue
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 320-3700
          Facsimile: (615) 320-3737

               - and -

          R. Dale Grimes, Esq.
          Virginia M. Yetter, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC
          150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742-6200

               - and -

          Teresa T. Bonder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Kent, Esq.
          Liz Brodway Brown, Esq.
          D. Andrew Hatchett, Esq.
          Michael P. Kenny, Esq.
          Anthony Thomas Greene, Esq.
          Kara F. Kennedy, Esq
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777

               - and -

          Nell G. Moley, Esq.
          Jean E. Richmann, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          560 Mission Street, Suite 2100
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 243-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 243-1001

Attorneys for Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. are:

          R. Dale Grimes, Esq.
          Virginia M. Yetter, Esq.
          BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC
          150 Third Avenue South, Suite 2800
          Nashville, TN 37201
          Telephone: (615) 742-6200

               - and -

          Jason T. Murata, Esq.
          Brooke Jones Oppenheimer, Esq.
          Thomas G. Rohback, Esq.
          AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
          90 State House Square
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 275-8100
          Facsimile: (860) 275-8101

               - and -

          Carmel Rana Arikat, Esq.
          Richard B. Dagen, Esq.
          Bradley D. Justus, Esq.
          Michael L. Keeley, Esq.
          Daniel K. Oakes, Esq.
          AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
          950 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 912-4700
          Facsimile: (202) 912-4701

MVNBC CORP: Vasquez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------
HIPOLITO VASQUEZ and JORGE URUCHIMA, on behalf of themselves, FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, the Plaintiffs, vs. MVNBC
CORP. d/b/a BENVENUTO CAFE TRIBECA, PERRY MALLAS, and WILLIAM
MALLAS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05751 (S.D.N.Y., June 19,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages due to time shaving, illegally
retained gratuities, unreimbursed costs for "tools of the trade,"
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a 24-hour cafe under the trade name
"BENVENTUO CAFE TRIBECA" located at 189 Franklin Street, New York,
NY 10013 (the Cafe). The Plaintiffs bring claims for relief as a
collective action pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. section
216(b), on behalf of all current and former non-exempt employees
(including food preparers, deli worker, cooks, line cooks, chefs,
dishwashers, cashiers, delivery persons) employed by Defendants on
or after the date that is six years before the filing of the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs and the other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are and
have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subjected to
Defendants’ decisions, policies, plans, programs, practices,
procedures, protocols, routines, and rules, all culminating in a
willful failure and refusal to pay them (i) proper compensation for
all hours worked, (ii) reimbursement for uniform costs and (iii)
reimbursement for "tools of the trade" costs and maintenance. A
subclass of tipped employees employed as delivery persons also have
a claim for illegally retained gratuities. The claims of Plaintiffs
stated herein are essentially the same as those of the other FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the
Class:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          Brandon Sherr
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: 212 465-1188
          Facsimile: 212 465-1181

NAPHCARE INC: Taylor Seeks Unpaid Wages for Jail Staff
------------------------------------------------------
EILEEN TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NAPHCARE, INC., the Defendant, Case
No.19-1961H (Mass. Super.), seeks unpaid wages, relief, statutory
and trebling of damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs,
as provided for by Massachusetts Law.

Eileen Taylor was employed by Defendant as a physician assistant at
the Essex County Jail & House of Correction in Middleton,
Massachusetts, from in or around September 2016 until in or around
June 2018. Following a medical leave, her contract ultimately was
terminated effective June 2018. The Plaintiff and other staff of
the Defendant were paid on an hourly basis.

The Defendant's staff generally were assigned to three shifts: the
day shift (7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m.), the evening shift (3:00 p.m. -
11:00 p.m.), and the night shift (11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.).  When
the Defendant's staff arrived at the Jail -- which was their
prescribed work site, they passed through an initial security check
point, and then clocked in at a time clock ("First Time Clock").
The Defendant's staff were required by Naphcare to comply with all
rules, regulations, procedures, and directives of the Jail.

After clocking in at the First Time Clock, the Defendant's staff
then had to pass through additional "sally ports", which are
control points where Jail staff can monitor and control the flow of
people. The sally ports are busy during shift changes, because many
people are finishing or beginning their shifts at the same time. In
addition, on occasions when there was a safety or security incident
-- such as a fight -- staff might be held at the sally ports until
the matter is resolved. As a result, it can take the Defendant's
staff around 15-30 minutes, and sometimes longer, to pass through
all required sally ports, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant's staff were required to be at the Jail, which is
their prescribed work site. They were not paid for all time spent
at that site, however, including (a) the time at the beginning of
their shift between clocking in at the First Time Clock and
clocking in at the Second Time Clock, and (b) the time at the end
of their shift between clocking out at the Second Time Clock and
clocking out at the First Time Clock. The amount of unpaid working
time for each of the Defendant's staff commonly totaled around
20-60 minutes per person per day, and sometimes more.

NaphCare helps correctional facilities nationwide to optimally
manage their healthcare needs.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C., Esq.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-6230
          E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com

               - and -

          John W. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & DAVIS, P.C.
          350 Park Street
          Park Place South, Ste. 105
          North Reading, MA 01864
          Telephone: (978) 276-0777
          E-mail: idavis@davisanddavispc.com

NESTLE DREYER'S: Liou Sues Over Products' Misleading Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Liou, Jessica McClain, Kristen Ruiz, Barbara Nelson, Charles
Wiley, Evan Williams Frank Fuda, Harold Michael, Tiffni Altes,
Jennifer Stephens, Christopher Derchin, Leroy Jacobs, Paula
Leblanc, Rachel Parks, Theresa Andriulli, Harold Michael, Steve
Altes, George Oldroyd, Charles Wiley, Jane Doe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Nestle
Dreyer's Ice Cream Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05762 (E.D.
N.Y., June 20, 2019) seek damages under State Consumer Protection
Statutes from Defendant's misleading representations on their
products' packaging.

Nestle Dreyer's Ice Cream Company manufactures, distributes,
markets, labels and sells ice cream products labeled as types of
vanilla ice cream under the DREYER'S brand name throughout the
western part of the United States and Texas and under the EDY'S
brand name throughout the remainder of the United States. The
Products are represented as, or containing, vanilla ice cream and
vanilla light ice cream on the labels, in point-of-sale marketing,
retailers' display ads and promotions, websites, television and/or
radio ads.

The complaint asserts that the Products are misleading because
despite the expectation their flavoring is exclusively derived from
vanilla beans, the ingredient lists reveal otherwise. In a vanilla
ice cream product, it is misleading to label ingredients which
simulate and reinforce and extend vanilla as a "natural flavor" or
"Vanilla with other natural flavor" because it misleadingly implies
that the flavor is derived from vanilla beans, whose flavor it
simulates, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs and Jane Doe Plaintiffs purchased one or more of the
Products for personal use or consumption.

Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
business in Oakland (Alameda County), California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
     Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
     505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 303-0552
     Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of Students with Diabetes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit filed against The New York City
Department of Education, the Hon. Judge Nina Gershon entered an
order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification defined
      as follows:

      "all students with diabetes who are now or will be entitled
      to receive diabetes-related care and attend New York City
      Department of Education schools."

   2. appointing M.F., by and through his parent and natural
      guardian Yelena Ferrer; M.R., by and through her parent and
      natural guardian Jocelyne Rojas; I.F., by and through her
      parent and natural guardian Jennifer Fox; and organizational
      plaintiff American Diabetes Association, as class
      representatives.

   3. appointing Disability Rights Advocates as class counsel.

The case is captioned M.F., a minor, by and through his parent and
natural guardian YELENA FERRER; M.R., a minor, by and through her
parent and natural guardian JOCELYNE ROJAS; I.F., a minor, by and
through her parent and natural guardian JENNIFER FOX, on behalf of
themselves and a class of those similarly situated; and THE
AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, the
Plaintiffs, vs. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; THE NEW
YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE; THE OFFICE OF
SCHOOL HEALTH; THE CITY OF NEW YORK; BILL DE BLASIO, in his
official capacity as Mayor of New York City; RICHARD A. CARRANZA,
in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City
Department of Education; OXIRIS BARBOT, in her official capacity as
Acting Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene; and ROGER PLATT, in his official capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of the Office of School Health, the Defendants,
Case No. 18-CIV-6109-NG-SJB (E.D.N.Y.).[CC]

NIBCO INC: Matson Sues Over Defective PEX Products
--------------------------------------------------
DAVID MATSON and BARBARA MATSON, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. NIBCO INC., Defendant,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00717 (W.D. Tex., June 19, 2019) seeks relief for
damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the Class that were proximately
caused by the use of NIBCO's Defective PEX Products in Plaintiffs'
and Class members' residential structures. They seek relief to
remedy NIBCO's breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, strict liability, negligence and unjust enrichment.

This case concerns cross-linked polyethylene plumbing tubes (PEX
Tubing), the brass fittings required to connect the PEX Tubing
together (PEX Fittings), and the stainless-steel clamps (PEX
Clamps) required for joining the PEX Tubing and PEX Fittings. The
PEX Tubing, the PEX Fittings and the PEX Clamps at issue are all
manufactured or distributed by NIBCO and suffer from undisclosed
design and/or manufacturing defects that inevitably cause them to
fail prematurely. They failed in the Plaintiffs' residential
structure (home), and in all Class members' residential structures,
in the same manner.

NIBCO has repeatedly represented that consumers should trust it to
provide the highest quality PEX Products because the company has
over 100 years of industry experience and is an industry leader in
the manufacture of PEX Products. Contrary to these affirmative
statements, the PEX Products suffer from design and/or
manufacturing defects. Specifically, and as a result of such
defects, PEX Tubing is predisposed to premature oxidative failure
and creep rupture, and have failed and ruptured; the PEX Fittings
are predisposed to prematurely fail, and have failed, as a result
of dezincification corrosion; and the PEX Clamps are predisposed to
prematurely fail, and have failed, as a result of chloride-induced
stress corrosion cracking (collectively, the "PEX Product
Defects"). NIBCO has systematically breached its warranty by
failing to fully or adequately compensate Plaintiffs and Class
members injured as a result of the PEX Product Defects. NIBCO also
failed to disclose this material information to Plaintiffs and
Class members.

Before manufacturing, warranting, advertising and/or selling the
PEX Products, NIBCO failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that
its products were adequate and safe for their intended use.
Defendant knew or should have known that the PEX Products were not
suitable for use within water-carrying plumbing systems, and that
the PEX Products suffered from the PEX Product Defects. The PEX
Product Defects have caused plumbing systems to catastrophically
fail and release water, which has caused and will continue to cause
Plaintiffs and the Class to incur damages to their residential
structures through no fault of their own. Moreover, Plaintiffs and
Class members have suffered a diminution of the value of their
residential structures, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs residential plumbing system was installed using NIBCO
plumbing accessories, including NIBCO PEX Tubing, NIBCO PEX
Fittings, NIBCO PEX Clamps and other installation accessories.

NIBCO Inc. has manufactured and advertised its PEX Products for use
in plumbing systems throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Austin Tighe, Esq.
     NIX PATTERSON, LLP
     3600 N Capital of Texas Highway, Suite B350
     Austin, TX 78746
     Phone: (512) 328-5333
     Email: atighe@nixlaw.com

          - and -

     Robert E. Linkin, Esq.
     DUGGINS WREN MANN & ROMERO LLP
     600 Congress Avenue, Ste. 1900
     P. O. Box 1149
     Austin, TX 78767-1149
     Phone: (512) 744-9300
     Email: rlinkin@dwmrlaw.com

          - and -

     J. David Rowe, Esq.
     DuBOIS, BRYANT & CAMPBELL, LLP
     303 Colorado Street, Suite 2300
     Austin, TX 78701
     Phone: (512) 457-8000
     Email: drowe@dbcllp.com

          - and -

     Brandon J. Grable, Esq.
     Matthew Grimshaw, Esq.
     GRABLE GRIMSHAW PLLC
     1603 Babcock Road, Suite 118
     San Antonio TX 78229
     Phone: (210) 963-5297
     Email: brandon@g2.law
            matt@g2law


OXNARD SCHOOL: Class Certification Bid, Motion to Dismiss Shelved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, J.R., the Plaintiff v. Oxnard School
District, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04304-JAK-FFM
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an order on
June 17, 2019, taking the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification and Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' fourth
amended complain, under submission.

According to the civil minutes, the motion hearing was held. The
Court said it is inclined to grant Plaintiffs' renewed motion for
class certification and deny, with limited exception, Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint.  The Court
took the Plaintiffs' Motion and Defendants' Motion under submission
and a ruling will be issued.  Counsel shall be prepared to appear
before Chief Judge Walsh for a further mediation session upon the
issuance of the final ruling on the motions, the Court added.[CC]

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

          Shawna L. Parks, Esq.
          Stuart Seaborn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAWNA L. PARKS
          4470 W Sunset Blvd, Ste 107 No. 347
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (323) 389-9239
          Facsimile: (323) 389-9239
          E-mail: sparks@parks-law-office.com

               - and -

          Jessica Catherine Agatstein, Esq/
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          2001 Center Street, Fourth Fl
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 665-8644
          E-mail: jagatstein@dralegal.org

Attorneys Present for Defendants are:

          Albert A. Erkel Jr. Esq.
          101 Parkshore Dr Ste 100
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 932-7410
          Facsimile: (916) 932-7299

               - and -

          Norma Nava Franklin, Esq.
          GARCIA HERNANDEZ SAWHNEY LLP
          330 N Brand Blvd Ste 680
          Glendale, CA 91203-2385
          Telephone: (213) 347-0210
          Facsimile: (213) 347-0216
          E-mail: nnava@ghslaw.com

P.R.B.A. CORP: Logan Sues Over Discriminatory Employment Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAHARA LOGAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. P.R.B.A. CORP. d/b/a BARE EXPOSURE,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-13987 (D. N.J., June 19, 2019) is a
suit brought individually and on behalf of all
black/African-American dancers similarly situated, seeking relief
from systemic discriminatory employment practices of Defendant in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Defendant has intentionally created and maintained a culture
that is hostile towards its black/African-American employees,
including its dancers. This hostility is displayed through manifest
discrimination in the hiring and termination of its employees, as
well as its failure to hire black/African-American individuals to
work at the club as dancers. While Plaintiff was employed at the
club, Defendant subjected her and other black/African-American
dancers to discriminatory treatment, including but not limited to
heightened scrutiny and unequal working conditions. The Defendant
further discriminated against Plaintiff by refusing to rehire her
because of her race, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Sahara Logan is a resident and citizen of the State of
Pennsylvania who was employed by Defendant as a "dancer" at the
Bare Exposure Club from July 2016 and working at various times
until approximately August 2017.

Defendant P.R.B.A. Corp. owns and operates the Bare Exposure club
located at 2303 Pacific Ave., Atlantic City, New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Katrina Carroll, Esq.
     Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH LLP
     111 West Washington Street, Suite 1240
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 750-1265
     Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
            eciolko@carlsonlynch.com



PAUL F. PEDERSEN: Reyes Files Suit in Illinois Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS REYES, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. PAUL F.
PEDERSEN COMPANY, AN ILLINOIS CORPORATION AND BRITTANY PEDERSEN,
INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04163 (N.D. Ill., June
20, 2019) is an action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Portal-to-Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA").

Plaintiff was required by Defendants to perform work off-the-clock
before and after scheduled shifts that resulted in Plaintiff
failing to receive both overtime and straight time compensation for
unrecorded hours worked up to and, in excess of, 40 hours in a work
week pursuant to the requirements of the federal and state
statutes, says the complaint. Members of the Plaintiff Class also
experienced the same or similar work off the clock and were denied
time and one half their regular rates of pay for hours worked over
40 in a workweek pursuant to the requirements of the federal and
state statutes, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff, JESUS REYES is a former employee of Defendants who,
between approximately April 2015 and December 2018, was employed
seasonally (approximately April to December) by Defendants as a
landscaper.

PAUL F. PEDERSEN COMPANY, owns and operates a landscaping business
located at 6N543 Route 25, Saint Charles, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Alexandria Santistevan, Esq.
     FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
     33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 784-3541


PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Doherty Sues over Misleading IPO Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Pivotal Software,
Inc., Robert Mee, and Cynthia Gaylor for alleged violations of the
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the
company's April 2018 initial public offering (IPO). The case is
captioned STEVEN DOHERTY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PIVOTAL SOFTWARE, INC., ROBERT
MEE, and CYNTHIA GAYLOR, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03589 (N.D.
Cal., June 20, 2019).

Plaintiff Steven Doherty alleges that the Defendants made a
registration statement that contains materially false and
misleading information regarding the company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Pivotal was facing major problems with its sales execution and
a complex technology landscape; (ii) the foregoing headwinds
resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and
diminished growth as its customers and the industry's sentiment
shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because company's
products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with the
industry-standard platform.

Pivotal was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California. The company, together with its subsidiaries, provides a
cloud-native application platform and services in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLASTIQ INC: Griffith Sues Over EFTA Breach
-------------------------------------------
Denis Griffith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PLASTIQ, INC., and KLEINER PERKINS CAUFIELD
& BYER, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02202 (S.D. Tex., June 19,
2019) seeks redress in the form of statutory damages, actual
damages, and attorney fees under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act
(the "EFTA"), actual damages under the Texas common law claim of
bailment and punitive damages thereto; and treble damages,
injunctive relief and attorney fees, per the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practice Act ("TDTPA").

These claims arise from damages suffered by Griffith because
Plastiq mishandled, lost, lost and failed to render an electronic
payment for rent, which needed to be paid on time and which
Griffith entrusted Plastiq to pay on time; Platiq's failure to make
Griffith's rent payment on time; as well as Plastiq's failure to
remedy the damages this failure caused to Griffith. This all
occurred despite Griffith repeatedly advising Plastiq that he had
been and was continuing to be damaged by Platiq's failures, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff Denis Griffith is a natural person and a resident of
Houston, Texas.

Platiq is a company that offers a bill payment service to
customers. This service is touted by Plastiq as allowing consumers
to pay virtually any of their bills via credit card, even bills
which traditionally are paid by check or cash, such as rent.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert Zimmer, Esq.
     ZIMMER & ASSOCIATES
     707 West Tenth Street
     Austin, TX 78701
     Phone: (512) 434-0306
     Fax: (310) 943-6954
     Email: zimmerlawTX@gmail.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Hit With Class Suit After Patient Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mackenzie Garrity, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports
that Florida law firm Morgan & Morgan filed a class-action lawsuit
on June 12 in New Jersey against Quest Diagnostics after the
laboratory testing company disclosed that it had experienced a data
breach that exposed 11.9 million patients, according to the
Connecticut Law Tribune.

Attorneys general in Connecticut and Illinois have also opened
investigations into the security incident.

Quest Diagnostics announced a data breach at its billing vendor
American Medical Collection Agency on June 3. The data breach
affected patients' financial information, including credit card
numbers and bank account information. Some medical information and
personal data also may have been affected.

In the 36-page lawsuit, Quest Diagnostic is accused of failing to
properly notify patients of the breach, the Connecticut Law Tribune
reports. Quest Diagnostics said hackers had access to an AMCA web
payments portal between Aug. 1, 2018 and March 30, 2019.

The data breach "was a direct result of defendants' failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and
protocols necessary to protect patients personally identifiable
information," the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit seeks class certification, monetary damages and a
mandatory injunction directing Quest Diagnostics to properly
protect members' personal information and implement improve
security processes.

Quest Diagnostics did not respond to the Connecticut Law Tribune's
request for comment. [GN]


RA MEDICAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Ra Medical Systems, Inc. (RMED) pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with Ra Medical's September 2018 initial public offering (the
"IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Ra Medical
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Ra Medical class action, go to
https://tinyurl.com/yxhtv8co or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at
866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement was false
and/or misleading and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ra Medical's
evaluation of sales personnel candidates was inadequate; (2) Ra
Medical's training program for sales personnel was inadequate; (3)
Ra Medical could not reasonably assure that its newly hired sales
personnel were adequately experienced; (4) Ra Medical would suffer
a shortage of qualified sales personnel; (5) Ra Medical's
manufacturing process could not reasonably support increased
catheter production; (6) Ra Medical would suffer production delays;
and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about Ra Medical's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 6,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to https://tinyurl.com/yxhtv8co

Contact:

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


RAILROAD CONSULTANTS: Jones Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
BILLIE JONES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RAILROAD CONSULTANTS, PLLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00512 (M.D. Tenn., June 19, 2019) is an action
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated to
recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, all pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, (the
"FLSA").

Defendant provides third-party engineering and consulting services
for railroad construction projects. Plaintiff was employed by
Defendant from approximately May 12th, 2016 through January 22nd,
2019 as an Observer for railroad projects serviced by the
Defendant.

The Defendant willfully violated the FLSA's overtime requirements
by: Paying Observers straight-time for overtime, i.e. their regular
hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek; and
Failing to pay Observers for time spent attending mandatory
briefings. As a result, there were many weeks in which Plaintiff
and other Observers did not receive overtime compensation at a rate
of one-and-one-half times their rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA, says the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Lisa A. White, Esq.
     Justin G. Day, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW, PC
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: (865) 247-0080
     Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
     Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
            lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
            justin@gregcolemanlaw.com

          - and -

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


REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS: Rezke Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Time Resolutions
Inc. The case is styled as Edward P. Reszke, III, Heather L.
Reszke, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Real Time Resolutions Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-04141 (N.D. Ill., June 20, 2019).

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

Real Time Resolutions is a full-service loan servicing and recovery
company specializing in mortgage, auto, student, credit card, and
other consumer loans.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq.
     Joseph Scott Davidson
     Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.
     2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
     Lombard, IL 60148
     Phone: (630) 575-8181 x116
     Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
            jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com



RODEO REALTY: Smith Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
----------------------------------------------------
MIEKO SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RODEO REALTY, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV21617 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 20, 2019)
is a representative action, pursuant to the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004.

The Defendants have had a consistent policy or practice of failing
to pay wages, including minimum and overtime wages, to Plaintiff
and other non-exempt aggrieved employees in the State of California
in violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of,
including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time worked. The
Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff and other similarly
aggrieved employees or former employees within the State of
California rest periods of at least 10 minutes per 4 hours worked
or major fraction thereof, and failed to provide compensation for
such unprovided rest periods as required by California wage and
hour laws, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is employed by Defendants as a non-exempt employee in Los
Angeles County in the State of California.

RODEO REALTY, INC. ("RODEO") is a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Nourmand, Esq.
     James A. De Sario, Esq.
     Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
     THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
     8822 West Olympic Boulevard
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Phone: (310) 553-3600
     Fax: (310) 553-3603


SAFE HARBOR: McGrath Files Class Action in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------
KELLY MCGRATH, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated v. SAFE HARBOR FUNDING LLC, Case No. 19-1809 H
(Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., June 6, 2019), alleges that SHF sent
form notices to Massachusetts consumers, which failed to provide
class members with the rights and disclosures mandated by the
Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code.

SHF is a credit lender that enters into consumer loans, including
auto loans, in Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SLEEPY'S LLC: Third Circuit Appeal Filed in Hargrove Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Marco Eusebio, Andre Hall and Sam Hargrove filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Sam Hargrove,
et al. v. Sleepy's LLC, Case No. 3-10-cv-01138, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
sought certification of a class defined as:

    "All individuals who performed deliveries for Sleepy's
     pursuant to independent contractor agreements in New Jersey
     at any time since March 4, 2004, who were single-route
     operators at all times that they worked for Sleepy's, or who
     did so for at least six months."

The appellate case is captioned as Sam Hargrove, et al. v. Sleepy's
LLC, Case No. 19-8019, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners SAM HARGROVE, ANDRE HALL and MARCO EUSEBIO,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Benjamin J. Weber, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994 5800
          E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                  bweber@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony L. Marchetti, Jr., Esq.
          MARCHETTI LAW, P.C.
          900 N. Kings Highway, Suite 306
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 414-1800
          E-mail: amarchetti@marchettilawfirm.com

Defendant-Respondent SLEEPY'S LLC is represented by:

          Marc Esterow, Esq.
          DREXEL UNIVERSITY
          3320 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 571-4807

               - and -

          Theo E.M. Gould, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          900 Third Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9600
          E-mail: tgould@littler.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Lantis, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Shaw, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          1601 Cherry Street
          Suite 1400, Three Parkway
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 402-3073
          E-mail: plantis@littler.com
                  jlshaw@littler.com


SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC: Customers to Get $146MM in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Live 5 Web Staff reports that current and former customers of South
Carolina Electric and Gas will split $146 million in what is
considered the largest private class action settlement in state
history.

A judge finalized the decision Tuesday and signed an order that
reduced the legal fees going to lawyers for SCE&G customers. More
than 1 million customers were involved in the lawsuit, represented
by 13 law firms.

The attorneys sued SCE&G and parent company SCANA Corp. for its
role in the abandoned construction of two nuclear plants in the
state that never generated power. Virginia-based Dominion Energy
took over the utility in January.

SCE&G agreed to pay $115 million and sell properties valued at $85
million.

The attorneys who argued the case will get $51 million plus nearly
$900,000 for expenses.

It's unclear when SCE&G customers will get paid and how much each
customer will receive. [GN]


ST. ANTHONY MEDICAL: Owens' Bid to Certify Denied Over Deal Talks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman denied without prejudice the
motion to certify class in the lawsuit entitled Lenore R. Owens, et
al. v. St. Anthony Medical Center, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-04068 (N.D. Ill.).

In light of the Court's preliminary approval of the parties'
settlement, the previously filed motion to certify the class is
denied without prejudice, according to the Notification of Docket
Entry.  The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to file excess
pages is granted.[CC]


TEN: Forton Sues Over Unlawful Data Disclosure
-----------------------------------------------
THOMAS FORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TEN: PUBLISHING MEDIA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-11814-JEL-PTM (E.D. Mich., June 19, 2019) is a Class Action
Complaint against TEN for its intentional and unlawful disclosure
of its customers' Personal Reading Information in violation to the
Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (the "PPPA"), and
for unjust enrichment.

Between June 19, 2016 and July 30, 2016, Defendant TEN: Publishing
Media, LLC ("TEN") rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed
personal information about Plaintiff Thomas Forton's Hot Rod
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, Mr. Forton
has received a barrage of unwanted junk mail. By renting,
exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing Mr. Forton's Personal
Reading Information between June 19, 2016 and July 30, 2016, TEN
violated the PPPA, says the complaint.

TEN'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, the complaint adds. In
fact, almost any organization can rent a customer list from TEN
that contains a number of categories of detailed subscriber
information. While TEN 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
TEN does not obtain its customers' written consent prior to
disclosing their Personal Reading Information, the complaint
notes.

Plaintiff Forton is a subscriber to Hot Rod magazine, and was a
subscriber between June 19, 2016 and July 30, 2016, as well.

TEN Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business at 2221 Rosecrans Avenue, Ste 195, El Segundo, CA
90245. Hot Rod magazine is published by TEN.[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
     Phone: 646.837.7150
     Fax: 212.989.9163
     Email: 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
     Phone: 305.357.2107
     Fax: 305.200.8801
     Email:fhedin@hedinhall.com
            dhall@hedinhall.com

          - and -

     Nick Suciu III, Esq.
     BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
     1644 Bracken Road
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
     Phone: 313.303.3472
     Email:nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


TROPICANA: Johnson Sues Over Products' Deceptive Labels
-------------------------------------------------------
SUSIE JEAN JOHNSON, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. TROPICANA
MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. a Delaware corporation; PEPSICO., INC.,
a North Carolina corporation, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01164-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal., June 20, 2019) is an action
against Defendants alleging that Defendants' Tropicana Pure Premium
100% Orange Juice with Calcium & Vitamin D Product (the "Product")
is misbranded and falsely advertised and otherwise violates
consumer protection laws.

According to the complaint, the Product is labeled as if its
flavored exclusively with natural ingredients. For example, the
Product shows a photo of an orange with a straw in it and says,
"100% Orange Juice" and "Pure Premium." The Defendants intended to
give reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff Johnson, the impression
that the Product was all-natural by packaging, labeling, and
advertising the Product in a manner that suggests the Product is
all-natural. However, the Product contains d-l-malic acid, which is
an undisclosed artificial flavoring ingredient. The Defendant
failed to include the legally required "artificially flavored"
disclosure on the Product's labels. Under these circumstances, the
Product's labels violate California and federal statutes and state
common law in multiple respects, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Susie Jean Johnson is an individual consumer over the age
of eighteen who resides in La Mesa, California.

Defendants manufacture, distribute, advertise, market, and sell the
Tropicana Pure Premium 100% Orange Juice with Calcium & Vitamin D
Product.[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
     Phone: (619) 696-9006
     Fax: (619) 564-6665
     Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
            mike@consumersadvocates.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Hit With Suit Over Wheelchair Accessibility
--------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that ride-sharing
giant Uber has been targeted in a potential class action lawsuit
over the company's alleged failure to provide wheelchair
accessibility to customers.

Pittsburgh class action firm Carlson Lynch and Disability Rights
Advocates filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on June 11.

"Uber occupies a prominent role in the future of on-demand
transportation," the complaint said. "However, Uber's policies and
practices are discriminatory and deny individuals who need
wheelchair accessible vehicles equal access to the service it
provides, and prevent them from obtaining the benefits of its
service. In the Pittsburgh area, Uber provides no wheelchair
accessible vehicles through its transportation service at all."

The plaintiffs -- four disabled individuals -- claimed that Uber's
alleged conduct violated the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Uber did not respond to a request for comment.

The complaint alleged that the Pittsburgh public transportation
service area is shrinking while Uber and similar ride-sharing
services are pushing traditional taxi services from the market.
Therefore, the complaint said, Uber's alleged discriminatory
practices have had a negative impact upon disabled riders in the
area.

"The mobility disabled community in Pittsburgh has historically had
limited accessible transportation options. The convergence of
Uber's discriminatory practices with its increasing market share
for on-demand transportation services is making an already bad
situation worse," the complaint said.

The plaintiffs were not able to identify a specific number of
disabled people who would be eligible as class members, but claimed
the number was sufficient enough to merit class status.

"Transportation can be a real challenge for people with mobility
disabilities, who often don't have access to their own vehicle and
who frequently can't depend on paratransit because it is
unreliable," said Disability Rights Advocates attorney, Michelle
Iorio, Esq. -- miorio@dralegal.org -- in a statement. "Accessible
ride sharing would facilitate societal integration for persons with
disabilities, and Uber's failure to provide wheelchair-accessible
service undermines this potential."

Bruce Carlson, a founding partner of Carlson Lynch, shared Iorio's
statement, noting "Uber's express business plan, as detailed in its
regulatory filings, is to displace public transportation with its
ride-sharing services. The problem is that public transportation,
where available, is largely accessible, but Uber's ride sharing
services are not. Uber wants to create a paradigm shift with
respect to the provision of transportation services. But will the
new paradigm realize the potential of exponentially increasing
accessibility, or will it leave individuals with mobility
disabilities behind?" [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN: $125M Settlement Has Prelim Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Los Angeles reports that a Los Angeles federal judge on June
12, 2019, gave preliminary approval to the $215 million
class-action settlement with women who say they were sexually
abused by former University of Southern California gynecologist Dr.
George Tyndall.

The class includes as many as 17,000 women seen by Tyndall at the
USC Student Health Center between August 1989 and June 2016.

"We are pleased that the court has granted preliminary approval,"
the plaintiffs' lawyers said in a joint statement. "This settlement
gives every single woman who saw Tyndall a choice in how they want
to participate and hold USC accountable, while also forcing the
school to change to ensure this doesn't happen again. The judge's
order is an important step toward providing each survivor the
relief and measure of closure she deserves, and we look forward to
obtaining final approval."

Tyndall served as the only full-time gynecologist at the USC
Engemann Student Health Center for nearly 30 years. In 2016, the
school began investigating him over allegations of improper pelvic
exams and making racist and sexually inappropriate remarks.

USC didn't terminate Tyndall's employment until June 2017. The Los
Angeles Times had been looking into Tyndall for months prior to the
university's acknowledgment in May of last year that the school had
been investigating him.

Under the terms of the deal, Tyndall's former patients would
receive minimum payments $2,500. Beyond the payments, the
settlement requires USC to create a position tasked with ensuring
complaints about improper conduct are investigated. USC will also
have to conduct background checks on health center employees,
improve staff training and increase staffing that would allow
female patients to see female doctors.

The school announced the settlement last October. A January hearing
has been set to finalize the settlement. [GN]


VELOCITY INVESTMENTS: Viernes Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD VIERNES, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff.
vs. Velocity Investments, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-00317 (D. Hawaii, June 19, 2019), contends that Velocity
Investments' practices and procedures violate both the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Hawaii law because the means
used by Velocity Investments are false, misleading, unfair, and
deceptive or confusing to the least sophisticated consumer.

Velocity Investments, LLC is regularly engaged in the business of
buying consumer debts in default from banks and others at a steep
discount and then proceeding to collect the debt. Given the large
number of accounts that Velocity Investments, LLC buys each year,
it has established certain policies and practices to systemize its
collection practices. Velocity Investments collects its accounts by
filing collection lawsuits in Hawaii State Courts.

According to the complaint, Velocity Investments is not licensed as
a debt collector in the State of Hawaii and has an unfair advantage
over Hawaii's consumers and licensed business owners. Velocity
Investments uses the same means of collecting debts described above
as part of a regular and systemic approach to collect many accounts
claimed to have been acquired by Velocity Investments and alleged
to be owed by dozens or more of Hawaii's citizens. For this reason,
Plaintiff is pursuing this case individually and on behalf of
others who have also been pursued by Velocity Investments by the
same means or misrepresentation by defining an FDCPA and a Hawaiian
Class.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff is:

          Justin A. Brackett, Esq.
          JUSTIN A. BRACKETT LAW
          515 Ward Avenue
          Honolulu, HI 96814
          Telephone: (808) 377-6778
          E-mail: justinbrackettlaw@gmail.com

VITRA EYEWEAR: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vitra Eyewear Group,
LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Vitra Eyewear Group, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05807 (S.D. N.Y., June 20, 2019).

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

Vitra Eyewear Group LLC is a luxury optical company created by
three partners with a long history of innovation in luxury
retailing.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WAG LABS: Court Certifies Settlement Class of Dog Walks Performers
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, GARY D. DARSEY, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. WAG LABS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-07014-FMO-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M.
Olguin entered an order on June 18, 2019:

   1. granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for class
      certification and for preliminary approval of class action
      settlement

   2. preliminarily certifying settlement class of:

      "all individuals who performed dog walks in California
      during the Settlement Class Period [September 22, 2013,
      through date of preliminary approval] using the Wag app.";

   3. preliminarily appointing Gary D. Darsey as class
      representative for settlement purposes;

   4. preliminarily appointing Hhua Gallai & Gonzalez, LLP as
      class counsel for settlement purposes.

   5. preliminarily finding that the terms of the settlement are
      fair, reasonable and adequate, and comply with Rule 23(e)
      of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   6. approving the form, substance, and requirements of the
      class notice, and FLSA opt-in form;

   7. directing Rust Consulting, Inc. to complete dissemination
      of class notice, in accordance with the settlement
      agreement, no later than July 17, 2019;

   8. directing Plaintiff to file a motion for an award of class
      representative incentive payment and attorney's fees and
      costs no later than August 16, 2019, and notice it for
      hearing for the date of the final approval hearing;

   9. directing any class member who wishes to: (a) object to the
      settlement, including the requested attorney's fees, costs
      and incentive award; (b) exclude him or herself from the
      settlement; and/or (c) opt in to the FLSA collective
      action, to file his or her objection to the settlement,
      request for exclusion, or FLSA opt-in form no later than
      September 17, 2019, in accordance with the notice;

  10. directing Plaintiff, no later than October 3, 2019, to
      file and serve a motion for final approval of the
      settlement and a response to any objections to the
      settlement;

  11. directing Defendants to file and serve a memorandum in
      support of final approval of the settlement agreement
      and/or in response to objections no later than October 19,
      2019;

  12. directing any class member who wishes to appear at the
      final approval (fairness) hearing, either on his or her own
      behalf or through an attorney, to object to the settlement,
      including the requested attorney's fees, costs or incentive
      award, shall, no later than October 10, 2019, to file with
      the court a notice of intent to appear at fairness hearing;

  13. setting final approval (fairness) hearing for October 24,
      2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6d of the First Street
      Courthouse, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
      adequacy of the settlement as well as the award of
      attorney's fees and costs to class counsel, and service
      award to the class representative; and

  14. staying all proceedings in the action, other than
      proceedings necessary to carry out or enforce the
      settlement agreement or this order.[CC]


WAITR HOLDINGS: Halley's Cert. Bid Stayed; July 12 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Eldon E. Fallon stayed the Plaintiff's motion to certify
in the lawsuit styled HALLEY, ET AL. v. WAITR HOLDINGS INC., Case
No. 2:19-cv-01800-EEF-JCW (E.D. La.).

According to the Minute Entry, the Plaintiff's motion to certify
and Defendant's motion to compel arbitration are stayed until a
later status conference.  A telephone status conference is
scheduled for July 12, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.  The Court will initiate
the call.  The parties will submit a status letter to the Court two
days before the conference.[CC]


WEST POINT CHIPS: Angeion Group Says Class Suit Certified
---------------------------------------------------------
Angeion Group announced that a lawsuit involving WestRock CP, LLC
and West Point Chips, Inc., ("Defendants") has been certified by
the Court to proceed as a class action and your rights may be
affected. The lawsuit is in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, and is called
Ashton Bell et al. v. WestRock CP, LLC et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-829.

The Court decided this lawsuit should be a class action on behalf
of a "Class" or group of people that could include you, solely for
the purposes of determining whether Defendants are liable to
Plaintiffs for nuisance and/or trespass. The Defendants deny
Plaintiffs' allegations and contend they have not violated the law
or any applicable standard of care. No court has ruled on the
merits of any claims or defenses in this matter. There is no money
available from this lawsuit now and no guarantee that there ever
will be.

Are you Affected?

The lawsuit includes persons who on December 15, 2017, owned or
occupied property in West Point located one-half mile or less from
200 14th Street in West Point, Virginia.

What is the Case About?

The lawsuit claims that fugitive wood dust was emitted from
Defendants' properties, causing a loss of use and enjoyment of
property within the class area. The lawsuit asks for compensation
for this loss. Defendants deny all claims and allegations in the
lawsuit.

What Are Your Rights and Options?

Right now, you have two options: (1) do nothing; or (2) exclude
yourself from the Class.

If you do nothing, you are choosing to stay in the Class, will be
legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and will
not be able to sue or continue to sue Defendants about the legal
claims in this case. If you do nothing, and the case proceeds past
the liability stage, you will be notified of your option to
participate in the damages portion of the case, and will be
informed of the actions you must take to testify and remain
eligible to collect any portion of an amount awarded by the jury.

If you do not want to stay in the Class, you must submit a request
for exclusion. If you exclude yourself from the class, you will not
be legally bound by or entitled to take advantage of any of the
Court's judgments, and you will keep any rights you may have to sue
Defendants for the same claims in a different lawsuit, now or in
the future, To exclude yourself, send a letter or e-mail that says
you want to be excluded to the address below postmarked by August
13, 2019. Your letter must state that you want to be excluded from
Ashton Bell et al. v. WestRock CP, LLC et al., Case No.
3:17-cv-829. Include your name, address, telephone number, and
signature or electronic signature. You must mail your exclusion
request letter so that it is postmarked by August 13, 2019 to: West
Point Class, c/o Angeion, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210,
Philadelphia, PA  19103. Or, you must send your e-mail exclusion
request by August 13, 2019 to info@WestPointClassAction.com

Get More Information:

          Website: WestPointClassAction.com
          Toll-free: 1-855-571-0784
          Write to:
               West Point Class, c/o Angeion
               1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
               Philadelphia, PA  19103
           Email: info@WestPointClassAction.com

           Media Contact:  
           Angeion Group   
           Douglas S. Clauson   
           Director, Communications  
           Phone: (215) 563-4116 [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***