CAR_Public/190705.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 5, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 134

                            Headlines

1-800-REMODEL: Rivera Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage
3M COMPANY: Edlin Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Plunkett Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
ADESA INC: Lopez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
AEROTEK INC: Hall Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime

AEROTEK, INC: Walker Seeks OT Pay for Hourly-Paid Employees
AIRSTREAM, INC. Godsey et al Seek to Certify Hourly Employees Class
AMERICORE HEALTH: Jackson-Bolinger Sues over Health Insurance Plan`
ASPIRE BUSINESS: Kokic Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Premium Pay
AVECTUS HEALTHCARE: Raymond et al. Seek to Certify Class

B&G FOODS: Toney Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Machine Operators
BAKEMARK USA: Martin Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
BIOSCRIP INC: Wheby Says Proxy Statement Misleading
BLUE HERON FARM: Amaral Guijaro et al Sue over Unlawful Deductions
BOEING COMPANY: Pilot Alleges Aircraft Design Flaw Cover-Up

BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Weston Suit Challenges Merger With IFM Global
C6 DISPOSAL: Taylor Seeks to Certify Waste Disposal Drivers Class
CARIBOU COFFEE: Village Bank Sues over Data Breach
CASBY HARRISON: Sebren Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Patrick Williams Sues over Share Price Drop

CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE: Deardoff, Chapman Seek OT Pay
CHARLIE'S ENTERPRISES: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
CHASE BANK: Rotondo Sues over Less Parental Leave for Male Staff
CHESAPEAKE: Kent Sues over Misleading Merger Documents
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Ramus et al Sue over Data Breach

CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Baker Seeks Proper OT Pay for Account Execs
CLOUDERA INC: Cannizzo Says Hortonworks Merger Docs "Misleading"
COINBASE, INC: Leidel Seeks Class Certification
CONSUEGRA & DUFFY: Shows Seeks Class Certification
COUNTRY MUTUAL: Class Certification Bid Proceeds to Briefing

CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Lin Sues over Disclosure of Personal Info
CRAZY BUFFET: Drios Seeks OT & Minimum Wages for Restaurant Staff
CREATIVE REALITIES: Court Conditionally Certifies Technicians Class
CULINARY CUISINE: Denied Welch Breaks, Overtime, Last Pay
DSW SHOE: Chu Sues Over Web Site Inaccessible by Blind People

ECOLAB INC: Lemm Seeks OT Pay for Route Sales Managers
FILLMORE HOSPITALITY: Lydon's BIPA Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
FIRST FLEET: Carnegie Class Action Settlement Wins Final OK
FMC CORPORATION: Conant Suit Removed to Maine District Court
GAW MINERS: Audet et al. Win Class Certification

GENERAL MOTORS: Duffy et al. Sue over Vehicle Transmission Defects
GFE BROADWAY-BROOKLYN: Sanchez Seeks Pay for Uniform Maintenance
GODIVA AMERICAN: Porta Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
GOOGLE LLC: Dinerstein Sues Over Disclosed Medical Records
H&R BLOCK: Olosoni et al Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California

HERSHEY COMPANY: Winston Questions Sale of White Chocolate Cups
HEWLETT PACKARD: Hamilton Seeks Unpaid Lawful Wages
HILLSBOROUGH: South Tampa Car Service et al Sue over New Permits
HOMEAWAY.COM: Kirkpatrick, et al Seek Class Certification
IATSE LOCAL 16: Smith Sues over Suspension of Pensions

INSTANT CHECKMATE: Fischer Sues over Sale of Background Info
INTERNATIONAL CARS LTD: Galvin Seeks Overtime & Sunday Premium Pay
ITT AEROSPACE: Removes Toribio Case to Central Dist. of California
JAMES WILLIAMS: Borrowers Sue Over Usurious Lending Rates
JAMESTOWN TN: Slaughter Sues over Mass Layoff without Notice

JENNINGS GATE: Buesos to Revise Joint Class Certification Bid
JHPDE FINANCE: Gachett Sues over Debt Collection Practices
JP MORGAN CHASE: Faces Ellis Suit over Unauthorized Fund Transfers
JPMORGAN CHASE: Conditionally Certifies Settlement Class
JPMORGAN CHASE: Grant Sues over Improper Use of COBRA Notice

JPMORGAN CHASE: Leitzke Seeks OT Premium Pay for Fraud Investigator
KOPP COLLECTION SERVICE: Faces Perry Suit in NY
LASER SPINE: Ali Wants to Adopt Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Embry"
LOANDEPOT.COM: Elliott Sues over Autodialed Calls
LTD COMMODITIES: Reid Sues over ADA Violations

MACY'S INC: Fortune Society Sues Over Employment Discrimination
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Simon et al. Suit Moved to D. Connecticut
MCCLATCHY USA: Evans Sues over Autodialed Telemarketing Calls
MDL 2741: Glick v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Kuhlman v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Maudlin v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2887: Chapman et al Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
MILLER RECOVERY: Shotwell Seeks Overtime Pay for Repo Agents
MONSANTO COMPANY: Bankses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Brooks Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Francises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Gutierrezes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Herrings Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Jenks Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Massey Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Myers Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Rizzuto Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Thirstrup Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Walker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Wesley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MURPHY OIL USA: Taylor's Fraud Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Amara et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
NEW YORK: Viera et al. Seek OT Pay for Motor Vehicle Operators
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: Alonzo Suit Claims Final Pay "Untimely"
PAY-O-MATIC: Luyando's Labor Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.

PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Hill Sues over Misleading IPO-Related Statements
PORSCHE CARS: Cohens Allege Defective Wireless Entry System
POSTURE WORKS: Morton Grove Sues over Unsolicited Advertisements
PURITAN'S PRIDE: Reid Sues over Web Accessibility
QUALITY WELLNESS: Kowalski Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Julin Sues over Data Breach
R.E.A.C.H.: Johnson Sues over Marketing Text Messages
RECKITT BENCKISER: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Yamagata Suit
REPLACEMENTS LTD: Reid Sues over ADA Violations
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Mack Seeks to Certify Class

ROCA CAFE: Removes Benitez Suit to Southern District of Florida
ROUND ONE ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Paulette's Labor Suit in Calif.
SEABREEZE ELECTRIC: Court Certifies Class of Electricians
SECOND ROUND: Grey Sues over Deceptive Debt Collection Practices
SENTRY ELECTRICAL: Lewis Seeks to Certify Hourly Employees

SSA CONTAINERS: Faces Haggerty Labor Suit in Calif. State Court
STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Sued over University Admission Scheme
STEVENS TANKER: Hernandez Seeks OT & Minimum Wage for Coordinators
STRUCTURE ENTERPRISE: Yang et al. Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages
TARGET CORP: Atherton Seeks OT Premium Pay

TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Hatten Suit Moved to District of Arizona
TOUCHPOINT 360: Iglesias Seeks Unpaid Wages for Merchandisers
TRIVAGO: Del Valle et al. Allege Unlawful Trafficking of Property
TRIVAGO: Echevarria et al. Allege Unlawful Trafficking of Property
U.S. LEADER: Perez et al. Seek Regular & OT Wages for Supervisors

UCMC: Gray's Suit over Biometrics Data Transferred to N.D. Ill.
UMG RECORDINGS: Soundgarden Sues over Destroyed Master Recordings
UNITED AIRLINES: Ward Suit Moved to Northern District of California
VMSB, LLC: Stewart Seeks Overtime Pay for Kitchen Staff
WALMART: Diamos Sues over Misleading Label of Glucosamine Sulfate

WELLS FARGO: Bid for Class Certification taken under Submission
WESLEY FINANCIAL: Burgess Seeks to Certify Class of Sales Reps
WHITEPAGES INC: Lukis Sues over Unauthorized Use of Identities
WILD ATTIRE INC: Reid Sues over Civil Rights Violations
WORLF RETAIL: Bradley Seeks Overtime Premium Pay

WWRD US LLC: Reid Sues over ADA Violations
ZAYO GROUP: Dixon Sues over Misleading Proxy Statement

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 114 Suits v Sempra Energy Units Pending at May 2
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $314MM for PI Matters at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Defends Mesothelioma Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GTX Has $1.2MM for Honeywell Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,700 PI Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Still Faces PL Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 87 Cases at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Firefighter Sues 3M Over Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $574MM Asbestos Liability at March 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widower Sues J&J Over Wife's Ovarian Cancer Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yedor Couple Sues Companies Over Lung Cancer


                            *********

1-800-REMODEL: Rivera Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wage
------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against David Hirsch and
1-800-REMODEL for alleged violations of the California Labor Code,
the California Business & Professions Code, the applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and for wrongful
termination. The case is captioned LOUIE RIVERA, individually, and
on behalf of other similarly situated current or former employees
of Defendants, Plaintiff, vs. DAVID HIRSCH, an individual,
1-800-REMODEL; and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19STCV21135 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 17, 2019).

Plaintiff Louie Rivera was allegedly terminated for his complaints
of Defendants' illegal business operations. In his complaint,
Plaintiff Rivera asserts several Labor Code violations including
failure to provide overtime, failure to provide accurate itemized
statements, failure to pay statutory minimum wages, and failure to
maintain proper time records. In addition, Plaintiff Rivera claims
that the Defendants have also violated the Business and Professions
Code by failing to pay wage premiums for denied meal and rest
breaks.

1-800-REMODEL is a private business entity doing business and
authorized to do business in Los Angeles, California under the laws
of the state of California. Located at 5850 W. 3rd Street #160, Los
Angeles, California, the company engages in residential
home-remodeling industry. At all relevant times, David Hirsch was
an owner, employee, partner, officer, director, managing agent,
servant and/or representative of some or all of the 1-800-REMODEL's
entities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven Waisbren, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN WAISBREN
     5850 Canoga Ave., Suite 400
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Telephone: (818) 710-7102
     Facsimile: (818) 532-1214
     E-mail: steve@waisbrenlaw.com


3M COMPANY: Edlin Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSHUA H. EDLIN, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01717-RV-EMT
(N.D. Fla., June 21, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing
loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously
in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

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

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Michael W. Gaines, esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net

3M COMPANY: Plunkett Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAMES ANDREW PLUNKETT, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY,
AEARO HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01716-MCR-MJF
(N.D. Fla., June 21, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing
loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously
in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

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

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

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Michael W. Gaines, esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net

ADESA INC: Lopez Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------
Xochitl Lopez on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Adesa Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1902843 (Cal. Super., May 9, 2019),
is removed to the Central District of California on June 26, 2019
under Case No. 19-cv-01183.

Lopez seeks redress for failure to provide meal periods, rest
periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage
statements, reimbursement of business-related expenses and
resulting from unfair business practices, waiting time penalties
for unpaid wages due upon termination and in violation of the
California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code,
including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief,
costs and attorneys' fees.

Defendants cite that the class easily exceeds the 100-member
requirement imposed by the Class Action Fairness Act, that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and that Plaintiff and
Defendant are citizens of different states, as basis for removal.

Adesa owns and operates an automobile auction business in
California.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Joshua D. Klein, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd.,Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      Email: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
             jklein@mahoney-law.net

             - and -

      JOSE GARAY, APLC
      249 E Ocean Blvd., #814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (949) 208-3400
      Facsimile: (949) 713-0432
      Email: jose@garaylaw.com

Adesa is represented by:

      Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
      BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
      11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
      Tel: (310) 442-8893
      Fax: (310) 820-8859
      Email: mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com


AEROTEK INC: Hall Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------
Leon Hall, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Aerotek, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01094, (M.D.
Pa., June 26, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

Aerotek is a company operating a staffing agency in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania where Hall was assigned to one of its
client-companies, Syncreon. He regularly worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek and was entitled to an attendance bonus. He did not
receive overtime. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
     Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
     Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Hwy N., Suite 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 09034
     Telephone: (856) 685-7420
     Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
     Email: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
            jswidler@swartz-legal.com
            rswartz@swartz-legal.com


AEROTEK, INC: Walker Seeks OT Pay for Hourly-Paid Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
RISHAN WALKER, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AEROTEK, INC. and ALLEGIS
GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00178 (E.D. Tenn.,
June 14, 2019), seeks damages for unpaid "off the clock" and
"edited-out/shaved" straight time and overtime compensation in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The "off the clock" and
"edited-out/shaved" wage claims of Plaintiff and those similarly
situated are unified by common theories of FLSA violations.

The suit is brought against Defendants Aerotek, Inc. and Allegis
Group, Inc. on behalf of all current and former hourly-paid
employees who worked at the Volkswagen manufacturing facilities in
Chattanooga, Tennessee during the past three years.

The Plaintiff and class members have been "employees" of Defendants
as defined by Section 203(e)(1) of the FLSA, and worked for
Defendants within the territory of the United States within three
years preceding the filing of this collective action. The
Defendants have had a timekeeping system that hourly-paid employees
were required to sign-in and sign-out on paper documents for the
purpose of recording their compensable time during all times
material to this action. Defendants did not utilize a centralized
electronic timekeeping system that is prevalent with many other
employers in the same field.

The Defendants' timekeeping policy and practice required Plaintiff
and those similarly situated to write down their compensable time
only at the scheduled beginning time of their shifts, irrespective
of compensable time in which they were engaged prior to the
beginning of their assigned shifts.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees
have been subject to Defendants' timekeeping and payroll plans,
policies, and practice, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants provide staffing personnel to businesses and
institutions throughout the world, including staffing personnel for
the Volkswagen manufacturing facilities in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and for others similarly situated are:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Robert E. Turner, Esq.
          Nathan A. Bishop, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  rturner@jsyc.com
                  nbishop@jsyc.com

AIRSTREAM, INC. Godsey et al Seek to Certify Hourly Employees Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW GODSEY, et al, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AIRSTREAM, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00107-WHR (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. section 216(b), to enter an order:

  1. conditionally certifying a proposed collective FLSA class of:

     "all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
     Defendant, who (a) received additional forms of remuneration
     with their base hourly rate of pay during any workweek that
     they worked over 40 hours in any workweek beginning three
     years preceding the filing date of this Complaint and
     continuing through the date of final disposition of this
     case; and (b) did not opt in to or join the FLSA Collective
     in Funk v. Airstream, Inc., et al. from April 29, 2015 36 to
     the present";

  2. Implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of the

     Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to

     the Class;

  3. approving a Reminder Email to be sent to Putative Class
     Members halfway through the 90-day notice period; and

  4. requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's order,

     identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list
     in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses,

     and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who
     worked for Defendant at any time from three years preceding
     the filing of this Motion through the present."

Defendant's FLSA violations stem from its company-wide practice of
not fully compensating its hourly employees at one-and-one-half
times their correct regular rate of pay for all of their
compensable hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, including
the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members, during workweeks
when they work over 40 hours and  also receive Additional
Remuneration, including but not limited to payments of Attendance
Bonuses and AIRPOOL Bonuses, the lawsuit says.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614-949-1181
          Facsimile: 614-386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
          1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite 126
          Columbus, OH 43220
          Telephone: 614-704-0546
          Facsimile: 614-573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

AMERICORE HEALTH: Jackson-Bolinger Sues over Health Insurance Plan`
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americore Health, LLC
et al. alleging that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The case is a class action brought pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23 by
participants in an ERISA health insurance plan offered by Pineville
Community Hospital, against Pineville Community Hospital and
Americore Health, as sponsors of that plan and against the plan's
administrators. Under ERISA 29 U.S.C. section 1104, the plan
administrators owe strict fiduciary duties to the plan's
participants. Pineville Community Hospital, Americore Health, and
its plan's administrators breached those fiduciary duties in
numerous ways, to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the Class.

According to the terms of the administrative services agreement
that Pineville Community Hospital signed with Anthem, Pineville
Community Hospital “acknowledged that it or its designee(s)
serves as the plan sponsor, plan administrator and named fiduciary
as those terms are defined in ERISA.

The Defendants, however, breached these fiduciary duties by
choosing not to fund the health plan with money withheld from the
participants' payroll for specifically that purpose despite at
least 25 notifications from Anthem over a period of at least 11
months. The choice by the Defendants to continue withholding funds
from participants' paychecks without paying the amounts owed to
Anthem was a breach of the most fundamental of the Defendants'
fiduciary duties owed to the plan participants.

As a direct result of this breach, the Plaintiff Participants lost
their health care coverage costing Plaintiffs and the Class
millions of dollars in health care bills. As a result of the
substantial damages they suffered, Plaintiffs, individually and as
the representatives of a class of participants and beneficiaries of
the Plan, bring this action in order to recover these damages from
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members were injured as a result of the
Defendants' fraudulent representations or omissions, and are
entitled to compensatory damages, exemplary and /or punitive
damages, to the extent allowable at law, costs and attorney's fees,
as well as any other damages or relief allowable at law.

ERISA imposes the strictest and highest fiduciary duties of skill,
care and loyalty on those entrusted with funds for ERISA plans.
These fiduciary duties require ERISA plan administrators to act
solely in the interest of the plan participants.

The case is captioned as AMY JACKSON-BOLINGER, PAMELA JOHNSON, and
MELISSA NORTH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AMERICORE HEALTH, LLC, PINEVILLE
COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC., CHARLES BISHOP, ALBEY BROCK,
MATTHEW BROCK, HD CANNINGTON, JOHN COMBS, MANSFIELD DIXON, DAVID
GAMBREL, TALMADGE HAYES, ESTATE OF JOHN GARFIELD HOWARD, JOHNNY
JONES, GREG NUNNELLEY, JAY STEELE, JERRY WOOLUM, M.D., and The
PINEVILLE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGREEMENT
HEALTH CARE PLAN, the  Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00450-JHM-RSE
(W.D. Ky., June 20, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Ronald E. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah N. Emery, Esq.
          HENDY JOHNSON VAUGHN EMERY, PSC
          909 Wright's Summit Parkway No. 210
          Ft. Wright, KY 41011
          Telephone: 859 578 4444
          Facsimile: 859 578 4440
          E-mail: rjohnson@justicestartshere.com
          E-mail: semery@justicestartshere.com

ASPIRE BUSINESS: Kokic Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Premium Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Aspire Business
Services, LLC, d/b/a American Food Services and Raju Nakum for
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA)
and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (WOWA). The case is
captioned DENIS KOKIC, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, vs. ASPIRE BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC,
d/b/a AMERICAN FOOD SERVICES; and RAJU NAKUM, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-11888-LJM-EAS (E.D. Mich., June 25, 2019). Plaintiff Denis
Kokic and similarly situated hourly employees worked for Aspire
Business Services' pizza franchise selling, making, and delivering
pizzas. In his complaint, Plaintiff Kokic alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay their hourly employees legal minimum wages
and overtime premiums. In addition, Plaintiff Kokic asserts that
Defendants willfully and repeatedly flout the FLSA and the WOWA by
requiring employees to perform untipped work at tip-credit wages,
keeping in-store tips that should go to the employees who earned
them, and "rolling" overtime hours across consecutive workweeks to
avoid paying overtime premiums as required by the FLSA.

Aspire Business Services, LLC operates as a Papa John's Pizza
franchise primarily engaged in selling and serving prepared food
and beverages for consumption on or off the premises. Aspire is a
Michigan limited liability company whose registered address is 1962
S. Rochester Road, Rochester Hills, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Amy Marino, Esq.
     MARINO LAW, PLLC
     18977 W. Ten Mile Rd., Ste. 100E
     Southfield, MI 48075
     Telephone: (248) 797-9944
     E-mail: amy@marinopllc.com


AVECTUS HEALTHCARE: Raymond et al. Seek to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, KEITH RAYMOND, et al., the Plaintiffs,
vs. AVECTUS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:15-CV-00559-MRB (S.D. Ohio), Keith Raymond and Timothy Strunk
move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all health insured persons, with a health insurance plan
      accepted by Mercy Health, who: 1. Were patients at any Mercy

      Health operated facility in the State of Ohio between August

      27, 2009 and the present, who; 2. Presented evidence of
      health insurance to Mercy Health, and; 3. Thereafter paid,
      or were requested to pay, any amount of money for the
      treatment received at any Mercy Health operated facility,
      other than for co-pays and deductibles, if any"; and

   2. appointing Gary F. Franke, C. David Ewing and Michael D.
      O'Neill as class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).

The class action arises out of Defendants' common scheme of seeking
compensation from health insured patients in the State of Ohio in
violation of statutory and common law prohibitions. For example,
Ohio Revised Code section 1751.60 provides a hold harmless
requirement whereby a health provider "shall seek compensation for
covered services solely from the health insuring corporation and
not, under any circumstances, from the enrollees or subscribers,
except for approved co-payments and deductibles." Mercy operates
medical facilities providing medical care and treatment to patients
throughout Ohio, including hospitals, clinics and other treatment
facilities. The business practices and joint scheme of Mercy and
Avectus violated both common law and various statutes, including
R.C. section 1751.60.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Gary F. Franke, Esq.
          Michael D. O'Neill, Esq.
          GARY F. FRANKE CO., L.P.A.
          120 East Fourth Street, Suite 1040
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 564-9222
          Facsimile: (513) 564-9990

               - and -

          C. David Ewing, Esq.
          EWING & WILLIS, PLLC
          6009 Brownsboro Park Blvd., Ste. B
          Louisville, KY 40207
          Telephone: (502) 585-5800
          Facsimile: (502) 585-5858

B&G FOODS: Toney Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Machine Operators
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHARITY TONEY, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. B&G FOODS, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-14131 (D.N.J., June 21, 2019), seeks unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, in addition to liquidated damages, fees and costs,
and any other remedies to which they may be entitled pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act. The Defendant's breach of its contractual obligation to pay
Plaintiff and other hourly-paid machine operators for all hours
worked.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
machine operators employed by Defendant were victims of Defendant's
common unlawful policies in violation of the FLSA and North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act, including:

     a. Failing to pay hourly-paid machine operators for time spent
working "off the clock" before and/or after their scheduled
shifts;

     b. Maintaining a company policy of not paying hourly-paid
machine operators for time worked before and/or after their shifts;
and

     c. Failing to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid machine
operators the federal and state mandated rate of one and one-half
times their hourly rate for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek.

As a result, there were many weeks in which Plaintiff and other
machine operators did not receive compensation calculated at
time-and-a-half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek, in violation of the FLSA and North
Carolina Wage and Hour Act, the lawsuit says.

B&G Foods, Inc. "manufactures, sells, and distributes a portfolio
of shelf-stable and frozen foods in the United States, Canada, and
Puerto Rico."[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Lotus Cannon, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Pl Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  lotus.cannon@jtblawgroup.com

BAKEMARK USA: Martin Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
-----------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against BakeMark USA, LLC
for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned
PHILLIP MARTIN, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. BAKEMARK USA, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19CV348971 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., June 14,
2019).

Plaintiff Phillip Martin, among other things, alleges that the
Defendants have failed to provide him and all other similarly
situated individuals with meal and rest periods; failed to pay them
premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods; failed to pay
them overtime wages at the correct rate; failed to provide them
with accurate written wage statements; and failed to pay them all
of their final wages following separation of employment. Plaintiff
Martin also asserts that the Defendants' conduct constitutes unfair
competition within the meaning of the California Business and
Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

BakeMark USA, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company doing
business in the state of California. The company manufactures and
distributes bakery ingredients. It also offers cake decorating
products, donuts, cakes and muffins, chocolates, cookies, and other
bakery products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shaun Setareh, Esq.
     William M. Pao, Esq.
     Alexandra R. McIntosh, Esq.
     SETAREH LAW GROUP
     315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: (310) 888- 7771
     Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
     E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
             william@setarehlaw.com
             alex@setarehlaw.com


BIOSCRIP INC: Wheby Says Proxy Statement Misleading
---------------------------------------------------
EARL M. WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BIOSCRIP, INC., R. CARTER
PATE, DAN GREENLEAF, MICHAEL G. BRONFEIN, DAVID W. GOLDING, MICHAEL
GOLDSTEIN, STEVEN NEUMANN, and CHRISTOPHER S. SHACKELTON, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01106-UNA (D. Del., June 14, 2019),
alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Proxy
Statement.

On March 14, 2019, the Board of Directors of BioScrip, Inc. caused
the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with HC
Group Holdings II, Inc. and HC Group Holdings I, LLC, pursuant to
which BioScrip and Option Care agreed to combine their respective
businesses.

Option Care is owned by investment funds affiliated with Madison
Dearborn Partners, LLC and Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.

Upon consummation of the Proposed Transaction, all shares of Option
Care's common stock will be cancelled and converted into the right
of Omega Parent to receive 542,261,567 shares of BioScrip's common
stock. Following the close of the Proposed Transaction, Omega
Parent will own approximately 79.5% of the issued and outstanding
shares of the combined company. Additionally, 28,193,428.41 shares
of BioScrip common stock will be issued to Omega Parent in respect
of certain outstanding unvested contingent restricted stock units
of BioScrip.

On June 6, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), which
seeks stockholder approval of the issuance of shares of BioScrip
common stock to Omega Parent pursuant to the Merger Agreement, as
well as approval of a third amended and restated certificate of
incorporation of BioScrip and an amendment to the certificate of
designations of Series A preferred stock of BioScrip. The Proxy
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading.

BioScrip, Inc. provides infusion and home care management solutions
in the United States. It engages in the preparation, delivery,
administration, and clinical monitoring of pharmaceutical
treatments that are administered to a patient through intravenous,
subcutaneous, intramuscular, intra-spinal, and enteral
methods.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

BLUE HERON FARM: Amaral Guijaro et al Sue over Unlawful Deductions
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Blue Heron Farm,
LLC for alleged violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Worker Protection Act and Oregon wage deduction statutes. The case
is captioned ANA MARIA AMARAL GUIJARO, CONSUELO AMARAL GUIJARO,
ALMA LOPEZ RUBIO, ELIZABETH AMARAL GUIJARO AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED Plaintiffs, v. BLUE HERON FARM, LLC, an Oregon limited
liability company, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01003-AA (D. Ore.,
June 26, 2019).

Plaintiffs are seasonal agricultural workers who worked seasonally
for defendant in 2017 and resided in Blue Heron's labor camp
housing in Marion County, Oregon. Blue Heron allegedly took
deductions from Plaintiffs' wages for the labor camp housing
without their written authorization, resulting in failure to pay
the Oregon minimum wage during one or more pay periods and failure
to pay wages when due.

Blue Heron is an Oregon limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Salem, Oregon. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark J. Wilk, Esq.
     Veronica Digman-McNassar, Esq.
     Oregon Law Center
     230 W. Hayes Street
     Woodburn, OR 97071
     Telephone: (503) 981-0336
     E-mail: mwilk@oregonlawcenter.org
             vdigman@oregonlawcenter.org

             - and -

     David Henretty, Esq.
     Oregon Law Center
     522 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 812
     Portland, OR 972014
     Telephone: 503-473-8684
     E-mail: dhenretty@oregonlawcenter.org


BOEING COMPANY: Pilot Alleges Aircraft Design Flaw Cover-Up
-----------------------------------------------------------
PILOT X, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH07505 (Ill. Cir., June
21, 2019), seeks compensation on behalf of the Plaintiff and more
than 400 pilots qualified to fly the Boeing 737 MAX series of
aircraft (the "MAX") as employees of an international airline
("Airline X"), whose professional and personal lives were harmfully
impacted when BOEING and the Federal Aviation Administration
engaged in an unprecedented cover-up of the known design flaws of
the MAX, which predictably resulted in the crashes of two MAX
aircraft and subsequent grounding of all MAX aircraft worldwide.

The Plaintiff relied on BOEING's representations that the MAX was
safe when qualifying to fly the MAX, and thus suffered -- and
continues to suffer -- significant lost wages, among other economic
and non-economic damages, since the MAX was grounded.

Additionally, the Plaintiff suffered severe emotional and mental
stress when they were effectively forced to fly the MAX -- and
required to place their own life and the lives of their crew and
passengers in clanger -- despite the growing awareness of the
dangerous nature of the previously concealed software on board the
MAX and other problems, the lawsuit says.

Boeing Company is an American multinational corporation that
designs, manufactures, and sells airplanes, rotorcraft, rockets,
satellites, comms gear and missiles worldwide.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the proposed Class are:

          Patrick M. Jones, Esq.
          Sarah M. Beaujour, Esq.
          PMJ PLLC
          100 South State Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 255-7976
          E-mail: pmj@patjonespllc.com
                  smb@patjonespllc.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Wheeler, Esq.
          IALPG PTY LTD
          (t/as International Aerospace Law & Policy Group)
          ID, 7/139 Junction Road
          Clay field
          Queensland, Australia 4011
          Telephone: 617 3040 1099
          E-mail: jwheeler@ialpg.com

BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Weston Suit Challenges Merger With IFM Global
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Weston, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., Clark C. Smith, Frank S.
Sowinski, Oliver G. Richard III, Martin A. White, Joseph A. Lasala
Jr., Barbara M. Baumann, Mark C. Mckinley, Larry C. Payne, Pieter
Bakker, and Barbara J. Duganier, Case No. 1:19-cv-01208-UNA (D.
Del., June 26, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
other public unitholders of Buckeye for alleged violations the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed
merger between Buckeye and IFM Global Infrastructure Fund.

On May 10, 2019, the Company's Board of Directors caused Buckeye to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which
Buckeye's unitholders stand to receive $41.50 in cash for each unit
of Buckeye they own.  On June 7, 2019, in order to convince Buckeye
unitholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board
authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading
Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

According to the complaint, the Proxy contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial
projections for Buckeye that were prepared by Buckeye and relied on
by Defendants in recommending that Buckeye unitholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain
valuation analyses conducted by Buckeye's financial advisor, Wells
Fargo Securities, LLC, in support of its opinion that the Merger
Consideration is fair to unitholders, on which the Board relied.

Buckeye is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal
executive offices in Houston, Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Buckeye owns and operates a network of integrated assets that
provides midstream logistics solutions, primarily consisting of the
transportation, storage, processing and marketing of liquid
petroleum products.  The Partnership owns approximately 6,000 miles
of pipeline and operates and/or maintains third party pipelines and
terminals.  Additionally, the Partnership performs engineering and
construction services for its customers.  The Partnership has over
115 liquid petroleum product terminals with aggregate tank capacity
of over 118 million barrels across Buckeye's pipeline
portfolio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 201
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 482-3182
          E-mail: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com


C6 DISPOSAL: Taylor Seeks to Certify Waste Disposal Drivers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit CHARLES TAYLOR, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. C6
DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00347-ESC
(W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice and
      discovery:

      "all Waste Disposal Drivers Who Worked for C6 Disposal
      Systems, Inc. Anywhere in the United States, At Any Time From

      April 3, 2016 Through the Final Disposition of this Matter";

   2. approving that judicially-approved notice be sent to all
      Putative Class Members;

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

   4. directing Defendant to produce to Plaintiff's counsel the
      contact information (including the names, address, telephone

      number and e-mail address) for each Putative Class Member in

      a usable electronic format;

   5. authorizing 60-day notice period for Putative Class Members
      to join the case; and

   6. authorizing notice to be sent via First Class Mail and e-mail

      to the Putative Class Members.

Taylor said, "Conditional certification is appropriate here because
the employees that Plaintiff Taylor seeks to represent performed
similar job duties and were all the victims of a single
company-wide policy that uniformly failed to compensate them for
all hours worked (regardless of any allegedly individualized
factors) and are thus similarly situated.

Taylor has met the lenient standard for conditional certification,
he respectfully requests that this Court conditionally certify this
case as a collective action and authorize notice to the class of
Drivers who are owed overtime wages. Notice at this stage is
critical so that these workers can make an informed decision about
whether to join this suit and stop the statute of limitations from
running on their claims for unpaid overtime compensation.

C6 Disposal Systems, Inc. provides waste collection services to
commercial, industrial, and residential customers across the State
of Texas. To provide these services, C6 Disposal employs numerous
Waste Disposal Drivers -- including Plaintiff and the Putative
Class Members. While exact job titles may differ, these employees
were subjected to the same or similar illegal pay practices for
similar work in the waste disposal industry.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com

CARIBOU COFFEE: Village Bank Sues over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
Village Bank, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Caribou Coffee Company, Inc.,
Bruegger's Enterprises, Inc., Einstein & Noah Corp., and Einstein
Noah Restaurant Group, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01640
(D. Minn., June 21, 2019), seeks to recover costs the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated have been forced to bear as a direct
result of the Coffee & Bagel Brands' data breach and to obtain
other equitable relief. The Plaintiff asserts claims for
negligence, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The class action lawsuit arises out of a data breach at 473
locations 2 located throughout 24 different states 3 and operated
by Coffee & Bagel Brands.

Despite the growing threat of computer system intrusion, Coffee &
Bagel Brands systematically failed to comply with industry
standards and their statutory and common law duties to protect the
payment card data of their customers.

Coffee & Bagel Brands' systemic failure exposed their customers'
payment cards from at least August 28, 2018 to December 3, 2018,
and allowed hackers to steal that data and misuse it for various
purposes.

Had Coffee & Bagel Brands put reasonable processes and procedures
in place, they would have had a reasonable chance to prevent the
breach. In fact, Coffee & Bagel Brands' data practices were so
deficient that their customers' data was exposed for over three
months and Coffee & Bagel Brands failed to detect any issues. The
costs and financial harm caused by Coffee & Bagel Brands' negligent
conduct is borne primarily by financial institutions, like
Plaintiff, that issued the payment cards compromised in this data
breach. These costs include, but are not limited to, cancelling and
reissuing compromised cards and reimbursing its members for
fraudulent charges, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the P laintiffs are:

          Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2048
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
          E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
                  bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                  jbores@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
                 kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Michael J. Laird, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  michael.laird@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5 th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Direct: 412.253.6307
          Office: 412.322.9243
          Facsimile: 412.231.0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
          Caroline T. White, Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 593-6473
          Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
          E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                  cthomas@murray-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin G. Comite
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@scott-scott.com

CASBY HARRISON: Sebren Seeks to Certify FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit SARAH SEBREN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant, vs. CASBY HARRISON, III, the Defendant and
Counterclaim-Plaintiff, Case No. 1:18-cv-00667-JJM-PAS (D.R.I.),
Sarah Sebren moves the court pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective with
her as its representative, consisting of:

   "all employees who worked for Defendant Casby Harrison, III,
   from December 10, 2015 to the present without receiving federal

   minimum wage, overtime pay, or a guaranteed base salary of not
   less than $455 per week, excluding those who at the time of the

   work held valid law licenses and who were actually engaged in
   the practice of law."

Ms. Sebren said, "The Court should grant this Motion because
Defendant Casby Harrison, III has subjected his current and former
employees, including her, to common unlawful practices. Mr.
Harrison unlawfully misclassified them as independent contractors,
he failed to pay them minimum wage, he failed to pay them
guaranteed base salaries, and he failed to pay them requisite
overtime pay in violation of FLSA Sections 206(a)(1)(C) and
207(a)(1).

Harrison practices law in Providence, Rhode Island. Over the years,
he has hired many employees to work for him as associates,
paralegals, and administrative assistants. Harrison hired Sebren in
July 2008. Among other things, Sebren helped Harrison with
bookkeeping, answering the phones, maintaining his information
technology, keeping track of his schedule, updating his website,
photocopying, and filing. Sebren worked for Harrison for nearly ten
years, with the majority of that time spent performing the work of
an administrative assistant and paralegal. She only began to
perform limited work as an attorney in July 2017, after she was
admitted to the Rhode Island bar.[CC]

Attorneys for the Sarah Sebren are:

          Robert Clark Corrente, Esq.
          Matthew H. Parker, Esq.
          WHELAN CORRENTE & FLANDERS LLP
          100 Westminster Street, Suite 710
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 270-4500
          Facsimile: (401) 270-3760
          E-mail: rcorrente@whelancorrente.com
                  mparker@whelancorrente.com

CBL & ASSOCIATES: Patrick Williams Sues over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK WILLIAMS, On Behalf of Himself And All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CBL & ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES, INC.,
STEPHEN D. LEBOVITZ, CHARLES B. LEBOVITZ, A. LARRY CHAPMAN, and
FARZANA KHALEEL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-181 (E.D. Tenn,
June 21, 2019). alleges that Defendants have knowingly or
recklessly, directly or indirectly, violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

CBL, through its two operating subsidiaries, is organized as a real
estate investment trust ("REIT"). In its Annual Report for the year
ended December 31, 2018, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on Form 10-K on March 1, 2019 (the "2018 10-K"), CBL
describes its business as follows: "We own, develop, acquire,
lease, manage, and operate regional shopping malls, open-air and
mixed-use centers, outlet centers, associated centers, community
centers, office and other properties. Our Properties are located in
26 states but are primarily in the southeastern and midwestern
United States."

CBL's 173.5 million common shares trade on the New York Stock
Exchange ("NYSE"), as do the shares of its two series of Preferred
Stock, Series D and Series E. Because it is an REIT, CBL must pay
out 90% of its earnings as dividend distributions per the
requirements of the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). This leaves
CBL with relatively little in cash on its balance sheet at the end
of each quarter. As of December 31, 2018, CBL's balance sheet
showed $25.1 million in cash. See 2018 10-K, p. 87. The Company is
subject to the federal securities laws and is obligated to follow
generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") as promulgated by
the Financial Standards Accounting Board ("FASB"). Both the federal
securities laws and GAAP require a public company to report threats
to its business which could result in a material change in the
Company's cash position in its quarterly and annual SEC filings.

Among other things, potential legal liabilities and lawsuit filed
against the company may pose a material threat. Accordingly, if
such a lawsuit is filed, the Company's litigation must be discussed
under a section entitled "Legal Proceedings" which must disclose:
(a) the existence of the lawsuit; (b) the nature of the claims; (c)
the potential materiality of a loss; and (d) the size of the claim,
if such can be estimated. In addition, the financial statement must
reflect a "reserve" against the contingency that the Company could
pay out a substantial settlement or verdict, again to the extent an
estimate can be made. Without such disclosures, investors were
unable to assess the risks that CBL faced during the Class Period
and, as a result, its share price was fraudulently inflated during
the Class Period.

On March 16, 2016, a class action suit that could result in tens of
millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in liability was
filed in Florida federal court under styled of Wave Length Hair
Salons of Fla., Inc. v. CBL & Assocs. Props., No. 2:16-cv-206 (M.D.
Fla. Mar. 16, 2016) (the "Overbill Litigation").

In the Overbill Litigation, the plaintiff alleged on behalf of a
class of CBL retail tenants that CBL entered into leases providing
that CBL would charge its tenants for electricity at cost, but
instead engaged in theft by marking up the electricity bills by
large amounts and pocketing the difference. The plaintiff asserted
numerous causes of action, including RICO claims, which were upheld
in April 2017 against a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff's class
claims, if trebled, amounted to $180 million, not counting
attorneys' fees. Although CBL defended the Overbill Ligation for
years, it turned out to have no true defense -- it had been caught
with its hands in the cookie jar.

In 2019, CBL was forced to settle all claims by paying the class
100% of damages ($60 million) and paying an additional $28 million
to cover its adversary's attorneys' fees. No insurance covered
these sums, as CBL's insurer had disclaimed coverage.

Because allegations of theft would have been viewed very
unfavorably by both investors and potential mall tenants,
Defendants herein embarked on a fraudulent scheme whereby they
issued SEC reports that (until the tail end of the Class Period)
simply pretended that CBL faced no material litigation at all.
Indeed, Defendants made no mention of the Overbill Litigation at
all. Thus, investors had no idea that there was a putative class
action pending against CBL.

Because CBL's insurance policy did not provide coverage for
intentional wrongful acts, Defendants could not have reasonably
believed that the Overbill Litigation was not material due to the
availability of coverage. Any hopes they may have had for coverage
were dashed when the insurance carrier, Catlin Specialty Insurance
Company, won a September 20, 2017 declaratory ruling that it had no
coverage obligation.

On March 1, 2019, CBL disclosed in the 2018 10-K that on January 7,
2019, class certification was granted in "a putative class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida based on allegations that the Company and certain
affiliated entities overcharged tenants at bulk metered malls for
electricity" and that the action had been set "for the trial term
starting on April 1, 2019." CBL further advised investors that
"[w]e have not recorded an accrual relating to this matter at this
time as a loss has not been determined to be probable. Further, we
do not have sufficient information to reasonably estimate the
amount or range of reasonably possible loss at this time."

On this news, CBL's stock price fell $0.16 per share, or roughly
7.5%, to close at $1.98 per share on March 1, 2019.  Then, on March
26, 2019, CBL disclosed that it had settled the foregoing
litigation and that the Company would be required "to set aside a
common fund with a monetary and non-monetary value of $90
million".

On this news, CBL's stock price fell $0.47 per share, or 24.61%, to
close at $1.44 per share on March 27, 2019. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct,
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class suffered damages in
connection with their respective purchases of CBL securities during
the Class Period and were harmed upon the disclosure that the
Company had been disseminating misrepresented financial statements
to the investing public.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Al Holifield, Esq.
          Sarah R. Johnson, Esq.
          HOLIFIELD JANICH & FERRERA, PLLC
          11907 Kingston Pike Suite 201
          Knoxville, TN 37934
          Telephone: (865) 566-0115
          Facsimile: (865) 566-0119
          E-mail: aholifield@holifieldlaw.com
                  sjohnson@holifieldlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE: Deardoff, Chapman Seek OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Cellular Sales of
Knoxville, Inc., Cellular Sales of Pennsylvania, LLC, and Cellular
Sales of North Carolina, LLC for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act
(NCWHA). The case is captioned JESSICA DEARDORFF and DAVID CHAPMAN,
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC.,
CELLULAR SALES OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, and CELLULAR SALES OF NORTH
CAROLINA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02642-NIQA (E.D. Pa.,
June 18, 2019).

Deardorff and Chapman allege that the Defendants have violated the
FLSA by their failure to pay overtime wages to their employees for
hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Plaintiffs also claim that the
Defendants failed to pay wages when due in violation of NCWHA.

Organized under the laws of the State of Tennessee, Cellular Sales
of Knoxville, Inc. is a privately held, for-profit corporation
engaged in the business of selling cellular phone service and
related equipment across the country. Its principal place of
business is located at 9040 Executive Park Drive, Knoxville,
Tennessee. Cellular Sales of Pennsylvania, LLC is a privately held,
for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Pennsylvania
for the purpose, among others, of selling cellular phone service
and related equipment in Pennsylvania. Its principal place of
business is 309 Lancaster Ave., Malvern, Pennsylvania. Cellular
Sales of North Carolina LLC is a privately held, for-profit
corporation organized under the laws of the State of North
Carolina. The company is engaged in selling cellular phone service
and related equipment in North Carolina. Its principal place of
business is located at 160 Mine Lake Court, Suite 200, Raleigh,
North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Deirdre A. Aaron, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 245-1000
     Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
     E-mail: daaro@outtengolden.com

             - and -

     Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 245-1000
     Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
     E-mail: mb@outtengolden.com

             - and -

     Maya S. Jumper, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third A venue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 245-1000
     Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
     E-mail: mjumper@outtengolden.com

             - and -

     Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
     GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
     260 Fair Street
     Kingston, NY 12401
     Telephone: (845)255-9370
     Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
     E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com


CHARLIE'S ENTERPRISES: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Charlie's
Enterprises for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and
the California Business and Professions Code. The case is captioned
MARTIN AVITIA GONZALEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. CHARLIE'S ENTERPRISES, a
California corporation, dba OK PRODUCE; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 19CECG02085 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., June
14, 2019).

Plaintiff Martin Avitia Gonzalez alleges that the Defendants have
violated the California Labor Code by failing to all overtime wages
and the legal minimum wage to their employees. Among other things,
Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants failed in their affirmative
obligation to provide all of their non-exempt employees in
California, including Plaintiff and members of the class, with all
legally compliant meal periods in accordance with the mandates of
the California Labor Code and Wage Order 8, Section 11. Defendants
also failed to indemnify Plaintiff and the members of the class for
all necessary business expenses incurred, including, among other
things, cell phone usage and the cost of purchasing and repairing
necessary tools. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid
wages and penalties.

Founded in 1950, Charlie's Enterprises operates a produce
distribution warehouse in Fresno, California. It purchases and
supplies fruits and vegetables to retail stores and foodservice
companies in California, Arizona, and Nevada. [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., Suite 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@haineslaewgroup.com

             - and -
        
     Asaf Agazanof, Esq.
     ASAF LAW, APC
     2300 Westwood Blvd., Second Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Telephone: (424) 254-8870
     Facsimile: (888) 254-0651
     E-mail: asaf@lawasaf.com


CHASE BANK: Rotondo Sues over Less Parental Leave for Male Staff
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DEREK ROTONDO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE Bank, N.A.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00408-MRB (S.D. Ohio, May 30,
2019), challenges Chase's policies and practice of discriminating
against birth fathers on the provision of paid parental leave.

According to the complaint, during his employment with Chase, Mr.
Rotondo and his wife have had two children. After the birth of both
of his children, Mr. Rotondo was eligible for and took paid
parental leave under Chase's paid parental leave policy, but Chase
limited the amount of paid parental leave that Mr. Rotondo was
eligible to take on the basis of his sex.

Until revising its procedures in December 2017, Chase presumptively
treated biological mothers as primary caregivers who are eligible
for 16 weeks of paid parental leave and presumptively treated
fathers as non-primary caretakers who are eligible for 2 weeks of
paid parental leave.

Chase's policy previously afforded primary caregivers 12 weeks of
paid parental leave while affording non-primary caregivers 1 week
of paid parental leave. Beginning March 1, 2016, and retroactively
for births occurring on or after December 8, 2015, Chase's policy
afforded primary caregivers 16 weeks of paid parental leave and
afforded non-primary caregivers 2 weeks of paid parental leave.

Under both versions of the policy prior to December 2017, as they
were applied by Chase, fathers could only be treated as primary
caregivers if they were able to show that their spouse or domestic
partner had returned to work or that they were the spouse or
domestic partner of a mother who was medically incapable of caring
for the child. Birth mothers did not need to make a similar
showing.

Mr. Rotondo initiated this action to challenge Chase's policy that
discriminated against male employees by affording birth fathers
less parental leave than what Chase offered to birth mothers.

By depriving fathers of paid parental leave benefits that are equal
to what Chase afforded to birth mothers, Chase's policies and
practices constituted sex discrimination in the terms and
conditions of employment. These policies and practices constituted
a sex-based classification and a sex-based stereotype that violates
Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. section
2000e-2(a)(1)-(2), and equivalent antidiscrimination laws in effect
in numerous other states. Chase's policies replicated gender
stereotypes about the caregiving roles of mothers and fathers and
prevented Mr. Rotondo and other birth fathers from taking paid
parental leave that was presumptively afforded to birth mothers
unless they established that they were the primary caregiverm the
lawsuit says.

Chase is a financial services company with its home office, as
designated by its articles of association, in Ohio. The company
employs over 250,000 employees and operates branches and offices
nationwide.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Freda Levenson, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          OF OHIO FOUNDATION
          4506 Chester Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44103
          Telephone: (614) 586-1958
          E-mail: flevenson@acluohio.org

               - and -

          Peter Romer-Friedman
          Pooja Shethji
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          601 Massachusetts Ave NW, Suite 200W
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 770-7886
          E-mail: prf@outtengolden.com
                  pshethji@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Deirdre Aaron, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          E-mail: daaron@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Galen Sherwin, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          WOMEN'S RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2644
          E-mail: gsherwin@aclu.org

CHESAPEAKE: Kent Sues over Misleading Merger Documents
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Chesapeake Lodging
Trust, its Board of Trustees, Park Hotel & Resorts Inc., PK
Domestic Property LLC, and PK Domestic Sub LLC for alleged
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is
captioned MICHAEL KENT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CHESAPEAKE LODGING TRUST, JAMES
L. FRANCIS, DOUGLAS W. VICARI, THOMAS A. NATELLI, THOMAS D. ECKERT,
JOHN W. HILL, ANGELIQUE G. BRUNNER, JEFFERY D. NUECHTERLEIN, PARK
HOTELS & RESORTS INC., PK DOMESTIC PROPERTY LLC, and PK DOMESTIC
SUB LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01201-UNA (D. Del., June 25,
2019).

On May 5, 2019, Chesapeake's Board of Trustees caused the
Chesapeake to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Park
Hotel & Resorts Inc., PK Domestic Property LLC, and PK Domestic Sub
LLC. This class action complaint stems from a proposed transaction
announced on May 6, 2019, pursuant to which Chesapeake Lodging
Trust will be acquired by Park Hotel & Resorts Inc., PK Domestic
Property LLC and PK Domestic Sub LLC. On June 14, 2019, defendants
filed a registration statement with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission in connection with the proposed
transaction. However, the said registration statement allegedly
omitted material information with respect to the proposed
transaction, which renders it false and misleading. Plaintiff
Michael Kent alleges that the registration statement failed to
disclose financial information with respect to the financial
projections of Chesapeake and Park Hotel & Resorts Inc, including
the unlevered free cash flow and the adjusted funds from operations
available to common shareholders.

Chesapeake is a Maryland corporation engaged in the business of
real estate investing and lodging industry. It currently owns 20
hotels with an aggregate of 6,288 rooms in eight states and the
District of Columbia. The company's common stock is traded on the
NYSE under the ticker symbol CHSP. [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


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Ramus et al Sue over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE RAMUS, CHARLES RAMUS, and NATALIE YOUNG individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61568-WPD
(S.D. Fla., June 23, 2019), alleges that Defendant breached its
duty to implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and
practices for the protection of its current and former employees'
Personal Financial Information. The Plaintiffs seek damages and
equitable relief, including an injunction, requiring Defendant to
implement and maintain reasonable security procedures for the
protection of PFI.

On March 6, 2019, the Federal Bureau of Investigation informed
Citrix, an approved vendor of the U.S. Department of Defense, that
cyber criminals had infiltrated Citrix's internal network.

On March 8, 2019, Citrix disclosed on its website blog that "the
FBI contacted Citrix to advise they had reason to believe that
international cyber criminals gained access to the internal Citrix
network".  Citrix, however, did not give written notice to
Plaintiffs and Class members that its network had been compromised
until April 29, 2019 -- almost two months after it learned of the
Data Breach from the FBI.

Criminals had access to Citrix's systems between October 13, 2018
and March 8, 2019 and stole files that contained the information of
current and former Citrix employees, and beneficiary and dependent
information of Citrix employees. The stolen information includes
names, Social Security numbers, and financial information, such as
bank routing numbers and checking account numbers (Personal
Financial Information or PFI).

Both current and former employees, including their beneficiaries
and/or dependents, have either suffered identity theft and/or will
be at a heightened risk for identify theft for the rest of their
lives. Criminals can use the Personal Financial Information to
steal money from checking and/or savings accounts; fraudulently
open credit card accounts; take out loans; file tax returns; apply
for benefits; and obtain employment, among other things.

Ms. Ramus has suffered damages, including the loss of use of her
credit card that she uses to earn cash back. As a result of the
data breach, during the time period of discovering the fraudulent
charges, receiving her first replacement card, and now waiting for
her second replacement card, Ms. Ramus was unable to use her Bank
of America credit card to earn cash back on her purchases.

Moreover, as a result of the Data Breach, Ms. Ramus has spent time,
and continues to spend time, researching and monitoring her
financial accounts, including online accounts, in an effort to
detect and prevent any misuses, the lawsuit says.

Citrix Systems, Inc. is an American multinational software company
that provides server, application and desktop virtualization,
networking, software as a service, and cloud computing
technologies.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Cullin O' Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 NE 21 st Way
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308-1062
          Telephone: (561) 676-6370
          Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
          E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

               - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 373-1671
          Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
          E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com
                  rmah@zlk.com

CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Baker Seeks Proper OT Pay for Account Execs
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against ClearOne Advantage,
LLC for its unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned Frank Baker, on
behalf of himself and all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ClearOne Advantage, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04568-DWL (D.
Ariz., June 26, 2019). Plaintiff Frank Baker also accuses ClearOne
Advantage of unlawfully failing to pay wages due in violation of
the Arizona Wage Statute.

Plaintiff is a full-time, non-exempt employee of ClearOne employed
as an account executive in Arizona beginning in or around January
2019 and until in or around June 2019. As an account executive for
ClearOne, Plaintiff is paid an hourly wage of $19.23 per hour plus
non-discretionary incentive pay, which the company terms a
"commission" or "bonus." For at least three years prior to the
filing of this action, ClearOne had and continues to have a
consistent policy and practice of suffering or permitting employees
who worked in Arizona and were paid on an hourly basis plus
incentive pay, including Plaintiff, to work well in excess of 40
hours per week, without paying them proper overtime compensation
and incentive pay due as required by federal and state wage and
hour laws. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, including interest thereon, statutory penalties,
reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated Class Members.

ClearOne Advantage, LLC is a Maryland corporation authorized to do
business in Arizona. The company provides debt relief services to
consumers throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ty D. Frankel, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Telephone: (602) 274-1100
     E-mail: tfrankel@bffb.com

             - and -

     Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
     600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 756-7748
     E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com


CLOUDERA INC: Cannizzo Says Hortonworks Merger Docs "Misleading"
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Cloudera, Inc., its
corporate executives and directors, and Intel Corporation for
alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The case is
captioned JACQUELINE CANNIZZO, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. CLOUDERA, INC., THOMAS J.
REILLY, JIM FRANKOLA, PRIYA JAIN, MICHAEL A. OLSON, MARTIN I. COLE,
KIMBERLY HAMMONDS, ROSEMARY SCHOOLER, STEVE J. SORDELLO, MICHAEL A.
STANKEY, ROBERT BEARDEN, PAUL CORMIER, PETER FENTON, KEVIN
KLAUSMEYER, INTEL CORPORATION and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19CV348974 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., June 14,
2019).

Plaintiff Jacqueline Cannizzo brings this action on behalf of all
persons and entities who acquired Cloudera common stock pursuant or
traceable to the its registration statement and prospectus
(offering documents) issued in connection with the merger of
Hortonworks, Inc. with Cloudera. Plaintiff Cannizzo alleges that
the Defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 by disseminating
materially false and misleading statements contained in the
offering documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). The offering documents claimed that the Merger
would create a big data powerhouse that would allow the Cloudera to
increase its competitive advantages.  However, the documents failed
to describe any known trends or uncertainties that have had or that
the registrant reasonably expects will have a material favorable or
unfavorable impact on net sales or revenues or income from
continuing operations. In the "Risk Factors" section of
registration statements and prospectus, the Defendants failed to
disclose the most significant factors that make an investment in
the offering speculative or risky.

Cloudera is a data management and software company based in Palo
Alto, California. Its stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange
under the symbol CLDR. Intel Corporation is a multinational
technology company headquartered in Santa Clara, California.
According to the Cloudera's SEC filings, Intel is a principal
stockholder with substantial control over Cloudera and the ability
to control its management and affairs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James I. Jaconette, Esq.
     Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &DOWDLLP
     11655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101-8498
     Telephone: (619) 231-1058
     Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
     E-mail: jjaconette@rgrdlaw.com
             bcochran@rgrdlaw.com


COINBASE, INC: Leidel Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit BRANDON LEIDEL, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
COINBASE, INC., a Delaware corporation d/b/a, Global Digital Asset
Exchange (GDAX), the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-81992-KAM (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to grant his motion and issue
an order certifying:

   NATIONWIDE CLASS:

   "all CRYPTSY account owners who held bitcoin, alternative
   cryptocurrencies, or any other form of monies or currency at
   CRYPTSY as of November 1, 2015 to the present. Excluded from the

   Class are: (1) employees of CRYPTSY, including its shareholders,

   officers and directors and members of their immediate families;

   (2) employees of COINBASE, including its shareholders, officers

   and directors and members of their immediate families; (3) any
   judge to whom this action is assigned and the judge’s
immediate
   family; and (4) persons who timely and validly opt to exclude
   themselves from the Class"; and

   ALTERNATIVE FLORIDA CLASS:

   "all CRYPTSY account owners who are residents of Florida that
   held bitcoin, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form of

   monies or currency at CRYPTSY as of November 1, 2015 to the
   present."

   The Nationwide Class asserts claims alleged in Plaintiff’s
   Complaint under California law. Excluded from the Class are: (1)

   employees of CRYPTSY, including its shareholders, officers and
   directors and members of their immediate families; (2) employees

   of COINBASE, including its shareholders, officers and directors

   and members of their immediate families; (3) any judge to whom
   this action is assigned.and the judge’s immediate family; and

   (4) persons who timely and validly opt to exclude themselves
   from the Class

Over the course of approximately three years, CRYPTSY and VERNON
illegally deposited and liquidated $4,900,000.00 worth of bitcoin
through the CRYPTSY COINBASE Account and $3,300,000.00 worth of
bitcoin through the VERNON COINBASE Account.

Based on the value of the assets deposited and liquidated through
the CRYPTSY COINBASE Account, applying the 0.3% fee CRYPTSY
charged, CRYPTSY would have had to process nearly $1.7 billion USD
in cryptocurrency transactions over the stated time period to
generate the revenues that passed through the CRYPTSY COINBASE
Account.

Likewise, VERNON would have had to personally mine the
$3,300,000.00 USD he deposited and liquidated through the VERNON
COINBASE Account. These numbers -- which would have made CRYPTSY
and VERNON among the most prolific cryptocurrency exchanges
(CRYPTSY) and miners (VERNON) in the world -- should have raised
serious alarm bells at COINBASE and a full compliance review of the
CRYPTSY and VERNON COINBASE Accounts, the lawsuit says.

Bitcoin is a virtual currency that may be traded on online
exchanges for conventional currencies, including the U.S. Dollar,
or used to purchase goods and services online. VERNON created
CRYPTSY as a Florida for profit corporation to operate an online
cryptocurrency exchange platform in and from Florida.

CRYPTSY solicited members of the public to register new accounts,
deposit bitcoin or other cryptocurrency with CRYPTSY, and
thereafter actively engage in the exchange and trade of bitcoin and
other cryptocurrencies. CRYPTSY charged its users a 0.3%
transaction based on the value of each transaction. CRYPTSY
provided each user with a unique digital address (known as a
"cryptocurrency wallet address"). Each user funded his or her
account by transferring cryptocurrency to the unique wallet address
CRYPTSY provided. A user' account, once populated with a
cryptocurrency balance, could buy, sell, or trade in
cryptocurrencies.

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Jason S. Miller, Esq.
          David C. Silver, Esq.
          SILVER MILLER LAW
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 516-6000
          E-mail: DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com
                  JMiller@SilverMillerLaw.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Wites, Esq.
          WITES LAW FIRM
          4400 N. Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 993-4400
          Facsimile: (954) 354-0205
          E-mail: MWites@witeslaw.com

CONSUEGRA & DUFFY: Shows Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit MYIAH SHOWS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONSUEGRA &
DUFFY, P.L.L.C., d/b/a LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL C. CONSUEGRA, P.L., a
Florida professional limited liability company, DANIEL C.
CONSUEGRA, an individual, AMANDA R. DUFFY, an individual, CHAD W.
HOWARD, an individual, and JOSHUA D. MOORE, an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-02633-CEH-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting her motion for class certification and certifying
      the classes in this matter pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

      Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2):

      "all persons in the United State against whom Defendants
      brought an action to collect a consumer debt in a judicial
      district other than: (A) the judicial district in which the
      debtor-defendant signed the agreement sued upon, or (2) the
      judicial district in which the debtor-defendant resided at
      the commencement of the action, between October 26, 2017 and

      the date of approval of this Class Action settlement".
      Excluded from the Class are all directors, officers, agents,

      and employees of Defendants and the courts to which this case

      may be assigned. Also excluded from the Class are the Judge,

      members of the Judge’s staff, and the Judge’s immediate
      family members.;

   2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative;

   3. appointing Plaintiff counsel as Class Counsel, and granting
      Plaintiff any other and further relief which Plaintiff may
      show herself justly entitled to under the circumstances.

Alternatively, the plaintiff asks that the court reserve ruling on
plaintiff's motion for class certification pending a ruling on the
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and
incorporated memorandum of law and eventual motion for final
approval of class action settlement, and to potentially supplement
his motion for class certification with information further
procured through discovery, if needed, should the court deny the
parties' request for approval of the class action settlement.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and Class Members:

          Ian R. Leavengood, Esq.
          LEAVEN LAW
          Northeast Professional Center
          3900 First Street North, Suite 100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33703
          Telephone: (727) 327-3328
          Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
          E-mail: consumerservice@leavenlaw.com
                  ileavengood@leavenlaw.com

COUNTRY MUTUAL: Class Certification Bid Proceeds to Briefing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Chad Hansen, et al., the Plaintiff,
vs. Country Mutual Insurance Company, et al., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00244 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
entered an order continuing Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification for briefing as previously set.

According to docket entry made by the Clerk on Tuesday, June 4,
2019, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint
is denied. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
entered and continued for briefing as previously set. Motion for
leave to file excess pages is granted.[CC]

CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS: Lin Sues over Disclosure of Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Crain
Communications Inc. for alleged violations of Michigan's
Preservation of Personal Privacy Act (PPPA). The case is captioned
GARY LIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CRAIN COMMUNICATIONS INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-11889-VAR-APP (E.D. Mich., June 25, 2019). Between June
25, 2016 and July 30, 2016, defendant Crain Communications Inc.
allegedly rented, exchanged, and/or otherwise disclosed personal
information about Plaintiff Gary Lin's Autoweek magazine
subscription, from within the State of Michigan, to data
aggregators, data appenders, data cooperatives, and list brokers,
among others, which in turn disclosed his information to aggressive
advertisers, non-profit organizations, and other third-party
companies. As a result, Mr. Lin has received a barrage of unwanted
junk mail. Accordingly, Plaintiff Garry Lin brings this class
action complaint against Crain for its intentional and unlawful
disclosure of its customers' Personal Reading Information in
violation of the PPPA, and for unjust enrichment.

Crain Communications Inc. is a multi-industry publishing
conglomerate headquartered in Detroit, Michigan. The company
publishes several nationally-circulated publications, including
Autoweek, Automotive News, Advertising Age, Modern Healthcare,
Crain’s Cleveland Business, Crain's Chicago Business, Crain's
Detroit Business, Investment News, Pensions & Investments, Plastics
News, Tire Business, and Plastics News, among several others. It
does business throughout Michigan and the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and –

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

              - and –

     Nick Suciu III, Esq.
     BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
     1644 Bracken Road
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
     Telephone: (313) 303-3472
     E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


CRAZY BUFFET: Drios Seeks OT & Minimum Wages for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN RAMON PEREZ DRIOS, individually, the Plaintiff, vs. CRAZY
BUFFET OF FLORIDA INC, a Florida Corporation, and QIAOMING HUANG,
individually, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-01148 (M.D. Fla.,
June 21, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wage
compensation, as well as an additional amount as liquidated
damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Crazy Buffet operated as an organization which purchased equipment
and products manufactured outside the state of Florida; provided
services to or sold, marketed, or handled goods and materials to
customers throughout the United States; provided services for goods
sold and transported from across state lines; obtained, solicited,
and accepted funds from sources outside the state of Florida; used
telephonic transmissions traversing state lines in the ordinary
course of business; transmitted funds outside the state of Florida;
and otherwise regularly engaged in interstate commerce.

Crazy Buffet employed Plaintiff from January 10, 2016 through June
24, 2017. The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt Dishwasher
earning an average of $1,800 per month. Throughout his employment
with Crazy Buffet, Plaintiff routinely worked for a total of 72
hours per week, 40 regular hours and 32 overtime hours.

The Plaintiff received an average of $6.25 per hour for all hours
worked by him each month. Notwithstanding, employer failed/refused
to pay to Plaintiff the required minimum and overtime wages as
required by the FLSA, and Florida law. As a result, the Plaintiff
has suffered damages and is entitled to receive overtime and
minimum wage compensation, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Monica Espino, Esq.
          ESPINO LAW
          2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305 704 3172
          Facsimile: 305 722 7378
          E-mail: me@espino-law.com
          Secondary: legal@espino-law.com

CREATIVE REALITIES: Court Conditionally Certifies Technicians Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON KYLE RODGERS and ELAINE KORFF, On Behalf of THEMSELVES and
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CREATIVE
REALITIES, INC., and CONEXUS WORLD GLOBAL, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00244-JHM-RSE (W.D. Ky., April 2, 2019), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   A. conditionally certifying the action as a collective action
      (without prejudice to Defendants' right to later seek
      decertification) with the class of potential opt-ins
      described as:

      "all NOC technicians currently or formerly employed by
      Defendants at any time since April 2, 2016";

   B. requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the

      name, last-known home address, and email address for each
      member of the above-referenced class within 14 days from the

      entrance of an order from this Court granting this Motion;

   C. requiring Plaintiffs' counsel to mail and email the Notice to

      each member of the class within seven days from receipt
      of the potential class members' contact information from
      Defendants.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          J. Chris Sanders, Esq.
          CHRIS SANDERS LAW PLLC
          517 West Ormsby Avenue
          Louisville, KY 40203
          Telephone: (502) 814-0094
          E-mail: csanders@chrissanderslaw.com

Attorneys for th Defendants are:

          Edward F. Busch, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Bohnert, Esq.
          Edward L. Lasley, Esq.
          CONLIFFE , SANDMANN & SULLIVAN, PLLC
          2000 Waterfront Plaza
          325 West Main Street
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 587-7711
          E-mail: kbohnert@cssattorneys.com
                  tlasley@cssattorneys.com
                  ebusch@cssattorneys.com

CULINARY CUISINE: Denied Welch Breaks, Overtime, Last Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Marianne Welch on behalf of herself and all aggrieved employees,
Plaintiff, v. Culinary Cuisine, LLC, and Does 1 to 100, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV22415 (Cal. Super., June 26, 2019), seeks redress
for failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages,
overtime, complete and accurate wage statements, reimbursement of
business-related expenses and resulting from unfair business
practices, waiting time penalties for unpaid wages due upon
termination and in violation of the California Labor Code,
California Business and Professions Code, including declaratory
relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys'
fees.

Culinary Cuisine operates as Killamey Pub & Grill where Welch was
employed as a server.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore R. Tang, Esq.
      Manny M. Starr, Esq.
      FRONTIER LAW CENTER
      23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2074
      Calabasas, CA 91302
      Telephone: (818) 914-3433
      Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
      Email: theodore@frontierlawcenter.com
             manny@frontierlawcenter.com


DSW SHOE: Chu Sues Over Web Site Inaccessible by Blind People
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyo Hak Chu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DSW Shoe Wwarehouse, Inc., a Missouri corporation; and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-03720 (N.D. Cal., June
26, 2019), is brought to secure redress against the Defendants for
their alleged failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
their Web site -- https://www.dsw.com/en/us/ -- to be fully and
equally accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.

DSW is a Missouri corporation, with its headquarters in Ohio.  The
Defendant conducts a large amount of its business in California,
and the United States as a whole.  The Plaintiff is unaware of the
true names, identities, and capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Defendant's Web site provides consumers with access to an array
of footwear for women, men and kids including sandals, flip flops,
boots, booties, pumps, heels, athletic sneakers, flats,
espadrilles, boat shoes, slip-ons, wedges, loafers, oxfords, mules,
slides, slippers; accessories including handbags, wallets, leather
bags, totes, satchels, backpacks, duffle bags, clutches,
sunglasses, jewelry, kimonos, wraps, scarves, socks, hosiery,
leggings, shapewear, belts, wallets, travel, luggage, and other
products, which are available online and in retail stores for
purchase.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com


ECOLAB INC: Lemm Seeks OT Pay for Route Sales Managers
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Ecolab Inc. for
violations of the Private Attorneys General Act, the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the relevant Wage
Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. The case is captioned
STEPHEN LEMM, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. ECOLAB INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV21322 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 19, 2019).

Plaintiff Stephen Lemm that during the relevant time period, he and
other non-exempt Ecolab employees regularly worked more than eight
hours a work day and 40 hours a workweek. However, under Ecolab's
compensation scheme, Plaintiff and the other route sales managers
did not receive the correct overtime rate for hours worked.

Ecolab Inc. is an international sanitation company headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota, with offices in the State of California. The
company provides sanitation and pest control service and supplies,
commercial kitchen equipment and appliance maintenance, repair and
products, and food safety services to restaurants, hospitals, food
and beverage plants, laundries, schools, and retail and commercial
properties. It had estimated sales of over $14 billion globally in
2014 and more than 47,000 employees as of August 2016. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alejandro P. Gutierrez, Esq.
     HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER, POWERS, CHRISMAN & GUTIERREZ, APC
     5450 Telegraph Road,
     Ventura, CA 93006-3
     Telephone: (805) 644-7111
     Facsimile: (805) 644-8296
     E-mail: agutierrez@hathawaylawfirm.com

             - and -

     Daniel J. Palay, Esq.
     Brian D. Hefelfinger, Esq.
     PALAY HEFELFINGER, APC
     1746 S. Victoria Avenue, Suite 230
     Ventura, CA 93003
     Telephone: (805) 628-8220
     Facsimile: (805) 765-8600
     E-mail: djp@calemploymentcounsel.com
             bdh@calemploymentcounsel.com


FILLMORE HOSPITALITY: Lydon's BIPA Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DONAL LYDON, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. FILLMORE HOSPITALITY, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability corporation, and FH CHI, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
2019CH05679 (Filed May 16, 2019), was removed from Illinois Circuit
Court to the U.S. District for the Northern District of Illinois on
June 14, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03989 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings the class action complaint against Defendants
for their violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act, and to obtain redress for persons injured by their
conduct.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
          Jad Sheikali, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, II, 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: wkingston@mcgpc. com
                  jsheikali@mcgpc.com

FIRST FLEET: Carnegie Class Action Settlement Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit CHRISTOPHER CARNEGIE, individually and
on behalf of all others similary situated, the Plainitff, vs. FIRST
FLEET, INC., OF TENNESSEE d/b/a FIRST FLEET, INC., Case No.
8:18-cv-01070-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge William F. Jung
entered an order on June 21, 2019, granting final approval to the
class action settlement.

The Court awards class counsel attorneys' fees and expenses in the
amount of the Settlement Agreement, plus costs. The Court also
grants a service award in the amount of $10,000 to Christopher
Carnegie.[CC]

FMC CORPORATION: Conant Suit Removed to Maine District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit titled Todd Conant, Thomas Ames,
Gregory Gould, Rodney Mason and Karen Migliore, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. FMC Corporation,
Case No. CV-1908, was removed on June 26, 2019, from the Knox
County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maine.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-00296-JDL to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, unpaid wages, an additional
amount equal to twice the amount of those wages as liquidated
damages, and an award of costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, for
themselves and all similarly situated workers, under the Maine
Wages and Medium of Payment laws.  The Plaintiffs allege that FMC
refused to pay its Crockett's Point employees for the value of the
paid vacation they had accrued at FMC from January 1, 2017, until
the deal's close on November 1, 2017.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carol J. Garvan, Esq.
          Max I. Brooks, Esq.
          David G. Webbert, Esq.
          JOHNSON, WEBBERT & YOUNG, LLP
          160 Capitol St., Suite 3
          P.O. Box 79
          Augusta, ME 04332-0079
          Telephone: (207) 623-5110
          E-mail: cgarvan@work.law
                  mbrooks@work.law
                  dwebbert@work.law


GAW MINERS: Audet et al. Win Class Certification
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, DENIS MARC AUDET, et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. STUART A. FRASER, GAW MINERS, LLC, and ZENMINER,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00940-MPS (D. Conn.), the
Hon. Judge Michael P. Shea entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

      "all persons or entities who, between August 1, 2014 and
      January 19, 2015, (1) purchased Hashlets, Hashpoints,
      HashStakers, or Paycoin; or (2) acquired Hashlets,
      Hashpoints, HashStakers, or Paycoin by converting,
      upgrading, or exchanging other products sold by the
      Companies. Excluded from the Class are any defendants, any
      parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or employee of any defendant,
      any co-conspirator, and any governmental agency"; and

   2. denying as moot Fraser's motion to strike the declarations
      of Plaintiffs' experts Robert Mills and Lou Kerner.

The Court said, "because the parties have not yet had a chance to
comment on the modified class definition, they may, by July 5,
2019, file briefs not exceeding 10 pages in which they address any
new issues raised by the modified class definition that the Court
has not already addressed in this decision."[CC]

GENERAL MOTORS: Duffy et al. Sue over Vehicle Transmission Defects
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against General Motors,
Inc. for breach of express warranty, for breach of implied warranty
of merchantability, and for violations of several state consumer
protection statutes including the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Acts.
The case is captioned DENNIS DUFFY, RICHARD SULLIVAN, DANIEL
BAPTIST, DENNIS SPEERLY, MICHAEL PLAFKER, JOHN IASIELLO, and BENJY
TOMPKINS individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-11875-AC-MKM (S.D. Fla., June 25, 2019).

Plaintiffs and class members purchased or leased new and used
vehicles manufactured by General Motors (GM) between 2015 and 2018.
Each of these vehicles is equipped with one of two models of
eight-speed automatic transmissions, both manufactured by GM: the
GM 8L90 or the 8L45. However, these transmissions have common
defects in which drivers attempting to accelerate or decelerate
their cars feel a hesitation, followed by a significant shake,
shudder, jerk, clunk, or "hard shift" when the vehicle's automatic
transmission changes gears. However, GM failed to disclose the
transmission defect to purchasers or lessees like Plaintiffs at the
point of purchase or through advertisements. GM's omissions
artificially inflated the market price for the subject vehicles
equipped with defective transmissions.

GM is headquartered in Delaware, and its principal office is
located at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan. The company
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes cars, trucks, and
other passenger vehicles, as well as vehicle parts. It is the
largest American automobile manufacturer and is the tenth largest
United States corporation by revenue. It sells vehicles under a
variety of brand names, including Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and
Cadillac. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Telephone: (561) 515-1400
     Facsimile: (561) 515-1401

               - and -

     Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
     Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
     Julia A. Horwitz, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     1100 New York Ave. NW
     East Tower, 5th Floor
     Washington, DC 20005
     Telephone: (202) 408-4600
     Facsimile: (202) 408-4699

               - and -

     Robert Gordon, Esq
     Steven Calamusa, Esq.
     GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
     4114 Northlake Blvd.,
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Telephone: (561) 799-5070
     Facsimile: (561) 799-4050

GFE BROADWAY-BROOKLYN: Sanchez Seeks Pay for Uniform Maintenance
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against GFE
Broadway-Brooklyn LLC et al for alleged violations of the New York
State Labor Law, the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, and
the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. The case is captioned
IRDELISA SANCHEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, -against- GFE BROADWAY-BROOKLYN LLC, GFE
DYCKMAN STREET LLC, GFE FORDHAM ROAD LLC, GFE EAST 167 STREET LLC,
GFE FLATBUSH AVE LLC, GFE GRAND STREET LLC, GFE JEROME AVENUE LLC,
GFE RIVER AVENUE LLC, GFE WESTCHESTER AVE LLC, GFE WEST 207 STREET
LLC, GFE W. FORDHAM ROAD LLC, GFE NOSTRAND AVENUE, GFE
KNICKERBOCKER LLC, G.F. ENTERPRISE LLC, Defendants, Case No.
156045/2019 (N.Y. Sup., June 18, 2019).

Sanchez alleges that the Defendants never paid any uniform
maintenance pay or reimbursement for the cost of maintaining the
uniform. She also asserts that the Defendants never provided
Plaintiff with accurate wage statements accompanying each payment
of wages.

Defendants are foreign corporations organized pursuant to the laws
of the state of Delaware. Defendants maintain and operate fast food
locations throughout New York City, including New York County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Gaylord, Esq.
     BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
     445 Broadhollow Road, Suite 110
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (516) 742-4949
     E-mail: mark@bglawny.com


GODIVA AMERICAN: Porta Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
------------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN PORTA, and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. GODIVA AMERICAN, CORP., d/b/a SANTA FE NEWS AND ESPRESSO, THE
GRAND CAFE S 1 CORP, SUNNY ISLES BEACH RESTAURANT CORP. and
ALEJANDRO SCOLNIK, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-22572-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2019), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the laws
of the United States and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 40
weeks at Santa Fe News and Espresso and then he worked
approximately 14 weeks for Grand Cafe and for Santa Fe News and
Espresso, simultaneously and within the same week. The Plaintiff
held different positions and different payment plans.

The Plaintiff performed multiple tasks such as working on floor
plans, setting tables, taking care of proper level of sanitation,
receiving and stocking restaurant supplies; Plaintiff worked in any
position covering absent servers, food runners, drink runners,
Plaintiff also has some clerk duties such as producing schedules,
reporting the hours worked and sales of other, and if needed taking
restaurant supplies to The Grand Cafe. The Plaintiff worked more
than 40 hours weekly, but he was not paid for overtime hours as
required by the FLSA, the lawsui says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33157
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

GOOGLE LLC: Dinerstein Sues Over Disclosed Medical Records
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Dinerstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Google, LLC, the University of Chicago
Medical Center and the University of Chicago, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-04311 (N.D. Ill., June 26, 2019), seeks all appropriate
damages and injunctive relief in violation of the Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Google allegedly obtained the electronic health records of nearly
every patient from the University of Chicago Medical Center from
2009 to 2016 via its own proprietary and commercial system,
containing patients' highly sensitive and detailed medical records
without their express consent.

Dinerstein was admitted to the University Medical Center on June 4,
2015 and checked out on June 7, 2015 and was again admitted on June
25, 2015 and checked out on June 27, 2015. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     Christopher L. Dore, Esq.
     J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
     Michael W. Ovca, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, Illinois 60654
     Tel: (312) 589-6370
     Fax: (312) 589-6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com
            cdore@edelson.com
            ewadescott@edelson.com
            movca@edelson.com


H&R BLOCK: Olosoni et al Suit Moved to Northern Dist. of California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Pelanatita Olosoni and Derek Snarr, on behalf of
themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., and HRB
Digital LLC, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-576093, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on June 21, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assinged Case No. 3:19-cv-03610-SK to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim.

H&R Block, is an American tax preparation company operating in
North America, Australia, and India. The company was founded in
1955 by brothers Henry W. Bloch and Richard Bloch. As of 2018, H&R
Block operates approximately 12,000 retail tax offices staffed by
tax professionals worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Nathaniel Peardon Garrett, Esq.
          Darren Keith Cottriel, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1500
          Telephone: (415) 875-5731
          Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
          E-mail: ngarrett@jonesday.com
                  dcottriel@jonesday.com

HERSHEY COMPANY: Winston Questions Sale of White Chocolate Cups
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Winston, Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Hershey Company, Case No. 1:19-cv-03735
(E.D.N.Y., June 26, 2019), arises from the alleged misleading
marketing and sale of peanut butter cups in a white confection
coating under the Reese's brand name.

The Hershey Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal
place of business in Hershey, Pennsylvania.  Hershey manufactures,
distributes, markets, labels and sells peanut butter cups in a
white confection coating under the Reese's brand name
("Products").

The Products are uniformly marketed as "white" alternatives to the
standard peanut butter cups enrobed in milk, and dark, chocolate,
the Plaintiffs allege.  The Plaintiffs contend that the Products
are misleading because despite being portrayed and represented as a
"white [chocolate]" alternative to the milk and dark varieties,
through association, common usage, omission and absence of
clarification, they do not contain white chocolate, because the
ingredient list reveals the absence of cocoa butter (cacao
fat).[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com


HEWLETT PACKARD: Hamilton Seeks Unpaid Lawful Wages
---------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY W. HAMILTON on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation, HP, Inc. California corporation and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-19-576854 (Cal. Super., June
20, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid lawful wages, unpaid rest and
meal period compensation, penalties and other equitable relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor
Code and Industrial Welfare Commission. The Plaintiff also seeks
restitution from Defendants for their failure to pay all lawful
wages owed and rest and meal period premiums to each of their
Non-Exempt Employees, pursuant to Business and Professions Code
sections 17200-17208.

According to the complaint, the Defendants enforced shift
schedules, employment policies and practices, and workload
requirements wherein Plaintiff and Class Members: (1) were not paid
all lawful wages owed including proper overtime compensation and
accrued vacation pay; (2) were not permitted to take their full
statutorily authorized rest and meal periods, or had their rest and
meal periods shortened and/or provided to them late due to the
scheduling and work load and time requirements placed upon them by
Defendants. The Defendants failed to pay such employees one hour of
pay at the employees regular rate of compensation for each workday
that the meal period and/or rest period that was not properly
provided.

During the liability period, Defendants have also failed to
maintain accurate itemized records reflecting total hours worked
and have failed to provide Non Exempt Employees with accurate,
itemized wage statements reflecting total hours worked and
appropriate rates of pay for those hours worked. During the
liability period, Defendants have also failed to pay all wages owed
to discharged or resigned Class Members in a timely manner, the
lawsuit says.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company is an American multinational
enterprise information technology company based in San Jose,
California, founded on November 1, 2015 as part of splitting of the
Hewlett-Packard company.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, are:

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Sandra Fernandez, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387-6676

HILLSBOROUGH: South Tampa Car Service et al Sue over New Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Hillsborough County
for its unlawful taking of a private property without a formal
exercise of the power of eminent domain. The case is captioned
SOUTH TAMPA CAR SERVICE, LLC., BLACK DIAMOND CAB SERVICE, LLC., A+
CAB TAMPA, INC., AFTAH ABDERRAHMANE d/b/a MOE TAXI, and GUSTAVO
BOJORQUEZ d/b/a G & Y TRANSPORTATION, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY,
Defendant, Case No. 91344620 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough
Cty., June 19, 2019).

Hillsborough County has taken the private property held by the
Plaintiffs by negating the taxicab medallions, rendering them
valueless. However, it has never offered to purchase Plaintiffs'
medallions, nor paid for damages for their taking of the taxicab
medallions.

Hillsborough County is a political subdivision of the state of
Florida. On Nov. 1, 2017, the Hillsborough County Board of County
Commissioners enacted the Hillsborough County Vehicle for Hire
Ordinance No. 17-22 which now requires any person who desires to
engage in the business of operating vehicles for hire to obtain new
certificates from the Hillsborough County Tax Collector in order to
provide such services and new permits for each vehicle for hire,
prior to operating as such. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony D. Martino, Esq.
     CLARK MARTINO, P.A.
     3407 W. Kennedy Blvd.
     Tampa, FL 33609
     Telephone: (813) 879-0700
     Facsimile: (813) 879-5498
     Primary E-mail: admartino@clarkmartino.com
     Secondary E-mail: dlayfield@clarkmartino.com


HOMEAWAY.COM: Kirkpatrick, et al Seek Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit THEODORE KIRKPATRICK, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. HOMEAWAY.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00733-LY (W.D. Tex.,
June 21, 2019), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order on
October 16, 2019, granting class certification pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
          CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
          & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: 610 642-8500
          Facsimile: 610 649-3633
          E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com awf@chimicles.com

               - and -

          Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
          JONES WARD PLC
          The Pointe
          1205 East Washington St., Suite 111
          Louisville, KY 40206
          E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com

               - and -

          Michael Singley, Esq.
          EDWARDS LAW
          The Haehnel Building
          101 E. 11th St.
          Austin, TX 78702
          Telephone: 512-623-7727

               - and -

          Ketan U. Kharod, Esq.
          KHAROD LAW FIRM, P.C.
          P.O. Box 151677
          Austin, TX 78715-1677
          Telephone: 512-293-1556
          Facsimile: 512-852-4506
          E-mail: ketan@kharodlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON , PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: 310-474-9111
          Facsimile: 310-474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com

IATSE LOCAL 16: Smith Sues over Suspension of Pensions
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against IATSE Local 16
Pension Plan for alleged violations of anti-cutback provisions of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The
case is captioned KIM SMITH individually, and on behalf of a class
of those similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. I.A.T.S.E. LOCAL 16
PENSION PLAN, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03573 (N.D. Cal., June
19, 2019). Plaintiff Kim Smith asserts that the Defendant has
violated ERISA by suspending payment of benefits already accrued to
her and the class members through an amendment, which expands
categories of prohibited postretirement employment.

Plaintiff is a participant in the Plan, and the Plan began paying
her pension in 2010. However, effective Aug. 1, 2017, the Plan
purported to add a new definition of "Prohibited Employment" --
post-retirement employment that triggers suspension of pension
benefits. The Plan's new definition is substantially broader than
its old definition and provides for suspension of pension payments
to Plan participants whose employment falls within the new,
broader, definition. The Plan has now "made a determination" that
plaintiff's 2018 employment falls within its new definition and
threatens to suspend plaintiff's pension payments. Moreover, both
before and after the "determination," the Plan engaged in confusing
and inconsistent communications with plaintiff in particular and
plan participants and beneficiaries generally with respect to the
2017 amendment, its impact and its applicability.

IATSE Local 16 Pension Plan is an employee pension benefit plan
within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(2)(A). The Plan
resides, may be found and is administered in Pleasanton,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dennis Canty, Esq.
     Elaine Canty, Esq.
     CANTY LAW
     1990 N. California Blvd., Eighth Floor
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     E-mail: dennis@canty.law
             elaine@canty.law

             - and -

     Richard Johnston, Esq.
     JOHNSTON LAW OFFICE
     131A Stony Circle, Suite 500
     Santa Rosa, CA 95401-9507
     E-mail: Richard.Johnston@Johnston-Law-Office.com


INSTANT CHECKMATE: Fischer Sues over Sale of Background Info
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fischer and Stephanie Lukis, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Instant
Checkmate LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2019CH07517 (Ill. Cir., June
21, 2019), seeks to enjoin Defendant for alleged violations of the
Illinois Right of Publicity Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant owns and operates a
website that sells "background reports" on people to the general
public. The Defendant sells its reports on its website:
www.instantcheckmate.com. Upon accessing Instant Checkmate's
website, the public-at-large is free to enter the first and last
name of a particular individual via a search bar on the homepage.

The purpose behind Instant Checkmate's free preview is singular: to
entice users to purchase Defendant's services. These services
include "background reports" and "histories" relating to
individuals on its database.

Instant Checkmate uses these free previews to advertise its monthly
subscription services whereby a user can access and retrieve
"background reports" and "histories" on any individual in its
database.

In order for a user to view a person's "background report" or other
background "histories" generated by the Defendant, a user needs to
purchase Defendant's services. Clicking on "view report" or "open
report" in the above image, leads users to a pay screen which
presents them with an option to pay for Instant Checkmate's monthly
subscription services.

Instant Checkmate's most popular monthly subscription costs $34.78
per month to access and search anyone on its database.

Instant Checkmate's monthly subscription allows users to obtain
background reports using its services on an unlimited number of
individuals per month.

Instant Checkmate compiles and generates the content it sells on
its website. According to Defendant: "Instant Checkmate continually
searches for new data and adds it to [its] reports the minute it
becomes available", the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Roberto Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
          107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Telephone: (773) 83 1-8000
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com

INTERNATIONAL CARS LTD: Galvin Seeks Overtime & Sunday Premium Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ltd., Inc., its president Richard Collins, and its treasurer,
Marshall Jespersen for the Massachusetts Overtime Law and the
Massachusetts Wage Act. The case is captioned RICHARD GALVIN,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. INTERNATIONAL CARS LTD., INC., RICHARD COLLINS, and MARSHALL
JESPERSEN, Defendants, Case No. 1977CV00890C (Mass. Cmmw., June 17,
2019).

Galvin brings this action on behalf of himself and similarly
situated individuals against his former employers for the failure
to pay overtime wages and Sunday Premium Pay as required by state
law. The Plaintiff and putative class members are former and
current employees of the defendants engaged in the sale of
automobiles and related products. These employees work in excess of
40 hours per week, but do not receive overtime pay for their
overtime hours and/or Sunday Premium Pay in violation of
Massachusetts law. Furthermore, Defendants require that their sales
employees work numerous off-the-clock hours, further depriving them
of earned wages, including overtime wages and Sunday Premium Pay.

Headquartered in Danvers, Massachusetts, International Cars Ltd.,
Inc. is a domestic corporation engaged in dealerships of new and
used vehicles. The company also sells OEM automobile parts and
provides automotive repair and maintenance services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
     Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
     David T. Musen, 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
             nfo@mass-legal.com
             dtm@mass-legal.com


ITT AEROSPACE: Removes Toribio Case to Central Dist. of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Aerospace Controls, LLC removes case ITXEL TORIBIO, an
individual, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ITT AEROSPACE CONTROLS, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company; ITT, INC., an Indiana, Case
No.: 19STCV17469 (Filed May 20, 2019) from the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, to the  US District Court for the Central District
of California on June 21, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assinged Case No. 2:19-cv-05430 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages
at the lawful rate of pay for all time worked; failed to pay
minimum wages; failed to pay meal and rest period premiums; failed
to timely pay final wages; failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; and failed to reimburse business expenses pursuant to
the California Labor Code.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Tamara Devitt, Esq.
          Matthew E. Costello, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 202-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 202-3001
          E-mail: tamara.devitt@haynesboone.com
                  matthew.costello@haynesboone.com

JAMES WILLIAMS: Borrowers Sue Over Usurious Lending Rates
---------------------------------------------------------
Renee Galloway, Dianne Turner, Dominique De La Bay, Lori
Fitzgerald, Andrea Scarborough, Earl Browne, Rose Marie Buchert,
Regina Nolte, Kevin Minor, Teresa Titus, Burry Pough, Lisa
Martinez, Sonji Grandy, Anastasia Sherman, Jerry Avent, Lucinda
Gray, Anthony Green, Linda Madison, Derek Geter, Keisha Hamm, Faith
Thomas, Sharon Paavo and Latanya Tarleton, as individuals and as
representatives of the classes, Plaintiffs, v. James Williams, Jr.,
Tribal Chairman of the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians Tribal Council, Michelle Hazen, Henry Smith, Vice
Chairman of the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians Tribal Council, Alice Brunk, Secretary of the Lac Vieux
Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians Tribal Council,
Andrea Russell, Treasurer of the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake
Superior Chippewa Indians Tribal Council, Tina Caron, Council
Member of the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians Tribal Council, Mitchell Mcgeshick, Council Member of the
Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians Tribal
Council, Jeffery Mcgeshick, Council Member of the Lac Vieux Desert
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians Tribal Council, Roberta
Ivey, Council Member of the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians Tribal Council and June Saad, Council Member of
the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians Tribal
Council, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00470 (E.D. Va., June 26,
2019), seeks injunctive and declaratory relief for the LVD Tribal
Council's continuous and ongoing violations of Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations laws.

Defendants are allegedly involves in a "rent-a-tribe" scheme where
they channel their lending business over the internet through a
Native American tribe to attempt to insulate itself from federal
and state law, thus making them bound by the laws of that
reservation or tribe only, not applicable federal and state law,
thus avoiding state and federal law, with the vast majority of the
revenues going to non-tribal entities. These loans carry
triple-digit usurious interest rates. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
      Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
      Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A
      Newport News, VA 23601
      Telephone: (757) 930-3660
      Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
      Email: lenbennett@clalegal.com
             craig@clalegal.com
             elizabeth@clalegal.com

             - and -

      Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
      Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
      Casey S. Nash, Esq.
      KELLY GUZZO, PLC
      3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
      Fairfax, Virginia 22030
      Telephone: (703) 424-7572
      Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
      Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
             aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
             casey@kellyguzzo.com

             - and -

      E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
      John Albanese, Esq.
      BERGER AND MONTAGUE
      43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
      Minneapolis, MN 55414
      Tel: (612) 594-
      Email: emdrake@bm.net
             jalbanese@bm.net

             - and -

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      Jennifer Murray, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
      936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, Washington 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
      Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
             eadams@terrellmarshall.com
             jmurray@terrellmarshall.com

             - and -

      Matthew Wessler, Esq.
      GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
      1735 20th Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202) 888-1741
      Facsimile: (202) 888-7792
      Email: matt@guptawessler.com


JAMESTOWN TN: Slaughter Sues over Mass Layoff without Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JOSHUA SLAUGHTER; and KAREN ANETTE BILBREY COOPER, the
Plaintiff, vs. JAMESTOWN TN MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; RENNOVA HEALTH,
INC.; and RENNOVA HEALTH SERVICE TN, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00048 (M.D. Tenn., June 21, 2019), is a class action
complaint brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

On or about June 13, 2019, Jamestown Regional Medical Center made a
mass layoff and/or plant closing by unilaterally and without notice
shutting down the Jamestown Regional Medical Center without any
notice to employees, staff, or patients.

Jamestown Regional Medical Center failed to provide 60 days'
advance written notice as required by the WARN Act, 29 USC section
2101 et seq., to the affected employees. The Medical Center
informed the affected employees that their services would no longer
be required and that they were not required nor allowed to report
for work.

Because of the June 13, 2019 terminations, Jamestown Regional
Medical Center's reduction in forces constituted a mass layoff or
plant closing which became effective on June 13, 2019. As such
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees, should have
received the full protection afforded by the WARN act.

By failing to provide its affected employees who were temporarily
or permanently terminated on or around June 13, 2019, with WARN Act
Notices and other benefits, Defendants have acted willfully and
cannot establish that it had any reasonable grounds or basis for
believing its actions were not in violation of the statute, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH &
            JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: 615/254-8801
          Facsimile: 615/255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  beng@bsjfirm.com
                  joeyl@bsjfirm.com

JENNINGS GATE: Buesos to Revise Joint Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann held a Telephone Conference
on July 1, 2019, to consider approval of the settlement reached in
the class action lawsuit DANIA BUESO, and FREDY BUESO, On behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
JENNINGS GATE RESTAUANT INC., d/b/a Storyville American Table and
SANDRA FINLEY AND SHANNON FINLEY In their individual capacity, the
Defendants, Case No. CV 18-0380 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2018).

Following the hearing, the Court identified "certain errors and
omissions in the proposed notice to the class and questions the
temporal scope of the class and collective."  The parties agree to
withdraw without prejudice their joint motion to certify class and
will file a revised motion by July 12.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter and order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the settlement on the terms
      set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release

   2. conditionally certifying proposed settlement class, for
      settlement purposes only, under Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23(b)(3);

   3. appointing The Law Offices of Delvis Melendez P.C. as Class
      Counsel;

   4. approving the proposed Notice of Proposed Settlement of
      Class Action Lawsuit and Fairness Hearing and direct its
      distribution; and

   5. scheduling a fairness hearing for final approval of the
      settlement.

The Parties have agreed to pay a maximum settlement amount of
$425,000 to cover payment to Authorized Claimants, and
Court-approved Costs and Fees, including attorneys' fees of
Plaintiffs' Counsel, costs, Settlement Claims Administrator fees
and any Court-approved Service Awards ("Gross Settlement Fund").

The Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law, by failing to provide them
and others similarly situated "back of the house" employees and
"bussers" overtime pay when they worked more than 40 hours in a
given week; by not providing tipped employee with notice informing
them of the tip credit taken; by not paying minimum wage to the
"bussers;" not providing spread of hours pay and not providing wage
statements to the class.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are:

          Delvis Melendez, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DELVIS MELENDEZ P.C.
          90 Bradley St.
          Brentwood, NY 11717
          Telephone: 631-434-1443

JHPDE FINANCE: Gachett Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against JHPDE Finance I,
LLC, Federated Law Group, PLLC, Douglas C. Jacobsen, Bryan Manno,
Richard Russell, and John Does 1 to 10 for alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Act. The case is captioned GACHETT v.
JHPDE FINANCE I, LLC et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-13865-ES-CLW (D.N.J.,
June 15, 2019). This consumer credit-related lawsuit is assigned to
Hon. Judge Esther Salas.

JHPDE Finance I, LLC is a debt buyer and collection agency located
in Hazelwood, Missouri. Federated Law Group, PLLC is a debt
collection law firm. It is hired by banks, financial institutions,
insurance companies, and creditors to attempt to resolve consumer
or commercial debt. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
     KIM LAW FIRM LLC
     411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Telephone: (201) 273-7117
     Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
     E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


JP MORGAN CHASE: Faces Ellis Suit over Unauthorized Fund Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against JP Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A. for alleged violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer
Act, for breach of contract and for unjust enrichment. The case is
captioned JAMES ELLIS and DARRYL ELLIS, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE
BANK NA, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00879-JPS (E.D. Wis., June 25,
2019).

Notwithstanding that Plaintiffs did not execute a modification or
agree to modify the terms of an existing "Budget bi-weekly
drafting" authorization agreement and that Plaintiffs' payment was
scheduled for Feb. 15, 2019, Defendant made an electronic funds
transfer in the amount of $712.56 from Plaintiffs' checking account
to Nationstar on Feb. 11. The Feb. 11 transfer caused Plaintiffs'
checking account to be overdrawn, and Chase Bank charged Plaintiffs
a $34.00 overdraft fee. Plaintiffs did not provide any
authorization for Chase Bank to make the Feb. 11, 2019 transfer.
The only authorization Chase Bank had to transfer funds to
Nationstar was the electronic funds transfer authorization that
Plaintiffs executed with Pacific Union Financial, LLC. The
unauthorized electronic funds transfer on April 2, 2019 caused a
ripple effect whereby Plaintiffs incurred at least three overdraft
fees, each in the amount of $34.00. Further, it appears that
Defendant reordered the transactions of April 2, 2019 so that
Defendant could impose two improper overdrafts instead of one.
Because Defendant improperly processed the unauthorized Nationstar
transfer before processing a $55.52 payment to Heights Finance,
Plaintiffs' account incurred an overdraft fee not only for the
unauthorized Nationstar payment but also for the Heights Finance
payment.

Plaintiffs James Ellis and Darryll Ellis allege that such
reordering of transactions is a breach of the implied duty of good
faith and fair dealing. They also assert that the Defendant did not
reorder these transactions for any legitimate purpose but instead,
it reordered them for the purpose of maximizing the number of
overdraft fees that accrue for consumers like Plaintiffs.

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a multinational investment bank and
financial services company headquartered in the United States, and
one of the largest banks in the world. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: Conditionally Certifies Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit DEREK ROTONDO, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JPMORGAN CHASE
Bank, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02328-GCS-CMV (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge George C. Smith entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of
      the $5,000,000 class action settlement;

   2. conditionally certifying the settlement class;

   3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; and

   4. approving proposed notice of settlement and class
      action settlement procedure.

For settlement purposes only, the Court conditionally certifies the
Settlement Class defined in the Settlement Agreement pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Settlement Class meets
all of the requirements for class certification under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) for purposes of settlement
only.

The Settlement Class Period for Settlement Class Members who worked
in any state outside of those included in separately-defined State
Settlement Class Periods is from August 19, 2016 (300 days before
the charge was filed) through December 4, 2017 (when Chase revised
the 2016 policy). The Settlement Class Member's non-primary
caregiver leave or request for non-primary or primary caregiver
leave must have occurred during the Settlement Class Period or
within 16 weeks before the Settlement Class Period (as the person
still would have been eligible for paid parental leave benefits
during the Settlement Class Period). If a Settlement Class Member
worked in a state included in the State Settlement Class Periods,
the Settlement Class Member's non-primary caregiver leave or
request for non-primary or primary caregiver leave must have
occurred during the applicable State Settlement Class Period or
within 12 weeks before the State Settlement Class Period (as the
person still would have been eligible for paid parental leave
benefits during the State Settlement Class Period), except that for
Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, South
Dakota, Tennessee and District of Columbia the Settlement Class
Member's non-primary caregiver leave or request for non-primary or
primary caregiver leave must have occurred during the applicable
State Settlement Class Period or within 16 weeks before the State
Settlement Class Period.

The following State Settlement Class Periods apply for these
states:

   a. Alaska, Maine, New Jersey, and West Virginia: June 15,
      2015 through December 4, 2017

   b. Michigan, New York, Washington, and Vermont: June 15,
      2014 through December 4, 2017

   c. California: June 15, 2013 through December 4, 2017

   d. Kentucky: June 15, 2012 through December 4, 2017

   e. Ohio: June 15, 2011 through December 4, 2017

   f. Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon,
      South Dakota, Tennessee, and District of Columbia: June 15,
      2016 through December 4, 2017.

Appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel

The Court finds that Named Plaintiff Derek Rotondo has claims
typical of the Settlement Class Members and is an adequate
representative of the Settlement Class Members. The Court appoints
him to serve as the class representative of the Settlement Class
Members.

Outten & Golden LLP and the American Civil Liberties Union Women's
Rights Project ("ACLU"), have, separately and collectively,
extensive experience and expertise in prosecuting employment
discrimination class action cases. The Court appoints these firms
as Class Counsel for the Settlement Classes under Rule 23(g).

Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement

Based upon the Court's review of the Preliminary Approval Motion,
the Court grants preliminary approval of the settlement and all
terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement and finds that the
settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate, reasonable, and
binding on all members of the Settlement Class who have not timely
and properly opted out pursuant to Section 2.7 of the Settlement
Agreement. The Court concludes that the proposed Settlement
Agreement is "within the range of possible [settlement] approval,"
such that notice to the Settlement Class Members is appropriate. In
re Inter-Op Hip Prosthesis Liability Litig., 204 F.R.D. 330, 350
(N.D. Ohio 2001) ("In re Inter-Op Litig.") (quoting Manual for
Complex Litigation (Third) section 30.41 (1995)).

Having conducted an initial evaluation of the fairness of the
proposed settlement on the basis of the Preliminary Approval
Motion, the supporting declarations, and its attached documents,
the Court finds that because the settlement is "fair, reasonable,
and adequate," and is not a "product of fraud or collusion,"
preliminary approval should be granted. Clark Equip. Co. v. Int'l
Union, Allied Indus. Workers of Am., AFL-CIO, 803 F.2d 878, 880
(6th Cir. 1986). The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement is
the result of extensive, arm's length negotiations by counsel
well-versed in the prosecution of complex employment class
actions.[CC]

JPMORGAN CHASE: Grant Sues over Improper Use of COBRA Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against JPMorgan Chase &
Co. for alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended by the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). The case is
captioned LARRY M. GRANT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Defendant,
Case No. 91130046 (Fla. 13th Jud. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., June 14,
2019).

Plaintiff Larry M. Grant alleges that JPMorgan Chase & Co. has
violated ERISA by failing to provide him with a COBRA notice that
complies with the law. Despite having knowledge of and access to
the Department of Labor's Model COBRA form, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
chose not to use the model form - but only to the extent it served
JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s interests. The JPMorgan Chase & Co. COBRA
notice process pushes beneficiaries and participants, like
Plaintiff Grant here, toward the marketplace and away from
enrolling in COBRA continuation coverage, presumably to save
Defendant money. JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s notice failed to identify
the Plan's COBRA Administrator, Alight Solutions. The notice also
fails to identify the Plan Administrator, who actually has the
fiduciary responsibility for the administration and operation of
the entire Plan. As a result, Plaintiff Grant suffered a tangible
injury in the form of economic loss, specifically the loss of
insurance coverage and incurred medical bills, due to Defendant's
deficient COBRA election notice.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a foreign corporation with its headquarters
in New York. The company is also registered to do business in the
state of Florida. It employed more than 20 employees who were
members of the Plan in each year from 2011 to 2017. It is a leading
global financial services firm and one of the largest banking
institutions in the United States, with operations worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
     Direct No.: (813) 379-2565
     Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
     Direct No.: (813) 337-7992
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Main No.: 813-224-0431
     Facsimile: 813-229-8712
     E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
             bhill@wfclaw.com
             jcornell@wfclaw.com
             rcooke@wfclaw.com
             twells@wfclaw.com
             tsoriano@wfclaw.com

             - and -

     Chad Andrew Justice, Esq.
     JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE
     1205 N. Franklin St. Suite 326
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Telephone: (813) 544-7616
     E-mail: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Leitzke Seeks OT Premium Pay for Fraud Investigator
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). The case is captioned DUSTY LEITZKE, On Behalf of Herself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02679-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio,
June 25, 2019). Plaintiff Dusty Leitzke and other fraud
investigators nationwide were misclassified by Chase as exempt,
salaried employees who are not eligible or overtime compensation
for any hours worked over 40 per week. In his complaint, Plaintiff
Dusty Leitzke alleges that Chase's deliberate illegal
misclassification treatment of its fraud investigators, which
denies them overtime compensation, results in Chase willfully
violating the FLSA.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a nationwide banking association with
a principal office located at 1111 Polaris Parkway, Columbus, Ohio.
Chase does business in this judicial district and nationwide thru
the internet and other media. The company is considered as a leader
in investment banking, financial services for consumers and small
businesses, commercial banking, financial transaction processing
and asset management whose stock is traded on the New York Stock
Exchange. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     34 N. High St., Ste. 502
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: (614) 824-5770
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

             - and -

     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Telephone: (330) 470-4428
     Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
     E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
             sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


KOPP COLLECTION SERVICE: Faces Perry Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed by Julia Perry against Kopp
Collection Service Inc. The case is captioned PERRY, JULIA ON
BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL vs. KOPP COLLECTION SERVICE INC, Case No.
1703238/2018 (N.Y. Sup., June 14, 2019). It is assigned to Hon.
Judge Bernadette T. Clark.

Based in Syracuse, New York, Kopp Collection Service Inc. provides
billing and accounts receivable services to the health care
providers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     MITCHELL L. PASKIN ATTORNEY AT LAW
     775 Park Avenue Ste 255
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Telephone: (631) 335-1107


LASER SPINE: Ali Wants to Adopt Class Cert. Bid Filed in "Embry"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, DEANNA E. ALI, on behalf of herself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
LASER SPINE INSTITUTE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-00535-SDM-JSS  (M.D. Fla., June 21, 2019), Deanna E. Ali
asks the Court to enter an order:

   a. allowing her to adopt the class certification motion filed
      by Heather Embry in Case No. 8:19-cv-535-T-23JSS;

   b. granting interim certification of a class pursuant to
      Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   c. appointing her and Heather Embry as interim class
      representatives;

   d. appointing Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A., and Kwall Barack
      Nadeau PLLC Nadeau PLLC as interim class counsel; and

   e. granting any other appropriate relief.

Before permanently closing its doors without warning on March 1,
2019, LSI operated a large medical-services company, specializing
in minimally invasive spinal procedures. At its peak LSI employed
more than 1,000 people at various locations throughout the country,
including locations in Tampa, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Oklahoma City,
Philadelphia, Scottsdale, and St. Louis. On March 1, 2019, the
Plaintiff Dr. Ali and hundreds of other LSI employees were
terminated as part of a "mass plant shutdown" as defined by the
WARN Act.

LSI provided no advance written notice of the mass layoff to Dr.
Ali, or to any of the putative class members she seeks to
represent. The terminations of Dr. Ali and the class members who
worked for LSI resulted in the loss of employment for more than 500
individuals nationwide. Because LSI failed to comply with the WARN
Act's notification requirements, LSI is liable for statutory
damages under the WARN Act, according to the lawsuit.[BN]

Attorneys for Heather Embry are:

          Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
          Michelle Erin Nadeau
          Kwall Barack Nadeau PLLC
          304 S. Belcher Road, Suite C
          Clearwater, FL 33765
          Telephone: (727) 441-4947
          Facsimile: (727) 447-3158
          E-mail: rbarack@employeerights.com
                  jackie@employeerights.com
                  mnadeau@employeerights.com

Attorneys for Dr. Ali are:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: 813 224-0431
          Facsimile: 813 229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com


LOANDEPOT.COM: Elliott Sues over Autodialed Calls
-------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Loandepot.com, LLC
for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). The case is captioned ANDREW ELLIOTT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of
them, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01276 (C.D. Cal., June 25,
2019). Plaintiff Andrew Elliott received numerous calls from
Defendant using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice, without his prior express consent.
Plaintiff and the Class members were harmed by the acts of
Defendant in at least the following ways: Defendant illegally
contacted Plaintiff and Class members via their cellular telephones
thereby causing Plaintiff and Class members to incur certain
charges or reduced telephone time for which Plaintiff and Class
members had previously paid by having to retrieve or administer
messages left by Defendant during those illegal calls, and invading
the privacy of said Plaintiff and Class members. Accordingly,
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting such illegal conduct
in the future.

Based in California, LoanDepot is a holding company that sells
mortgage and mortgage lending products. The company offers debt
consolidation, home improvement, small business, consumer, and
mortgage loans. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LTD COMMODITIES: Reid Sues over ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against LTD Commodities,
LLC for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990. The case is captioned Reid v. LTD Commodities, LLC, Case
No. 1:19 cv-05557-ER (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2019). This civil
rights-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Edgardo Ramos.

LTD Commodities, LLC operates and maintains its website,
www.ltdcommodities.com, selling books, gifts, purses, travel bags,
electronics, stationery, crafts, home improvement, baby, and
holiday related items. The company also sells and markets its items
by television, catalog, and mail-order. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MACY'S INC: Fortune Society Sues Over Employment Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Fortune Society, Inc., on behalf of itself and its participants
and Jenetta Rolfer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Macy's, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-05961 (S.D. N.Y., June 26, 2019), seeks monetary, equitable,
and declaratory relief for violations of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the New York City Human Rights Law and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act. [BN]

Macy operates retail stores throughout the country. It allegedly
rejects job applicants, revokes job offers, and terminates the
employment of people with criminal histories and discriminates with
respect to age and race.

Fortune is a nonprofit community-based organization that provides
alternatives to incarceration and reentry assistance to individuals
and seeks equal opportunity for its participants to compete for
jobs, lateral positions and promotions without facing the
discriminatory barriers. It represented Rolfer, a 36-year-old black
woman who worked as a Credit Granting Representative at a call
center located in Clearwater, Florida. Macy's terminated  Rolfer
employment based on information that it obtained from a third-party
consumer reporting agency which showed a misdemeanor conviction for
public nuisance stemming from a 10-year-old traffic-related
incident. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ossai Miazad, Esq.
     Lewis Steel, Esq.
     Cheryl-Lyn Bentley, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     60 East 42nd Street, 25th floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (646) 509-2060
     Email: om@outtengolden.com
            ls@outtengolden.com
            cbentley@outtengolden.com

            - and -

     Rachel Kleinman, Esq.
     NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
     40 Rector Street, 5th Floor
     New York, New York 10006

            - and -

     Coty Montag, Esq.
     Sparky Abraham, Esq.
     700 14th Street NW, Suite 600
     Washington, DC 20005
     Tel: (202) 216-5573

            - and -

     Michael Pope, Esq.
     Eric Eingold, Esq.
     Dale Ventura, Esq.
     YOUTH REPRESENT
     11 Park Place, Suite 1512
     New York, NY 10007
     Tel: (646) 759-8080


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Simon et al. Suit Moved to D. Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Aryeh Simon and Sassya Simon , on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Marriott
International, Inc., Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide LLC, Arne
Sorenson, and Does 1-5, the Defendants, Case No.
FST-CV-19-6041703-S (Filed ) from the Superior Court of the
Judicial District of Stamford, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut (New Haven) on June 5, 2019. The District
of Connecticut Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-00873 to the
proceeding.

Marriott International is an American multinational diversified
hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio
of hotels and related lodging facilities.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Michael J. Jones, Esq.
          IVEY, BARNUM & O'MARA LLC
          170 Mason Street
          Greenwich, CT 06830
          Telephone: (203) 661-6000
          Facsimile: (203) 661-9462
          E-mail: mjones@ibolaw.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. Folkman, Esq.
          PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP
          One Liberty Square, 13th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 313-7401
          E-mail: tfolkman@piercebainbridge.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Brian W. Song, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - NY
          45 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10111
          Telephone: (212) 589-4200
          Facsimile: (212) 589-4201
          E-mail: bsong@bakerlaw.com

MCCLATCHY USA: Evans Sues over Autodialed Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against McClatchy U.S.A.,
Inc. for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act. The case is captioned DIONTAI EVANS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MCCLATCHY U.S.A.,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-at-00529 (E.D. Cal., June 25, 2019).
Plaintiff Diontai Evans alleges that McClatchy U.S.A., Inc. is
engaged in a practice of placing phone calls using an automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS) to the cellular telephones of
consumers nationwide without their prior express written consent.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Evans brings this complaint to stop such
practice; to enjoin Defendant from continuing to place calls using
an ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice to consumers who did
not provide their prior express written consent to receive them;
and to obtain redress for all persons injured by the Defendant's
conduct.

McClatchy U.S.A., Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
Delaware, with a principal place of business at 2100 Q Street,
Sacramento, California. It is a publicly-traded publishing company
that operates 29 daily newspapers in fourteen states and has an
average weekday circulation of 1.6 million and Sunday circulation
of 2.4 million. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Telephone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

             - and -

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


MDL 2741: Glick v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
TARA GLICK, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 5:19-cv-267
(Filed May 28, 2019) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on June 21, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03598-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
          KAGAN LEGAL GROUP
          295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
          Humacao, Puerto Rico 00791
          Telephone: (939) 220-2424
          Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
          E-mail: andrew@kaganlegalgroup.com

MDL 2741: Kuhlman v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHARRON KUHLMAN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:19-cv-01465
(Filed May 28, 2019) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on June 21, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03557-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2741: Maudlin v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
JERALD MAUDLIN and LINDA MAUDLIN, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01505 (Filed May 29, 2019) to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on
June 21, 2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03558-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MDL 2887: Chapman et al Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, AMANDA CHAPMAN, BETTY LEE, and DIANE MCDANIEL, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC., the Defendant, and John Navarrete,
the Movant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00070 (Filed Feb. 27, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
(Kansas City) on June 21, 2019. The District of Kansas Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02333-JAR-TJJ to proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. The suit
alleges Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation. The lead case is Case
No. 2:19-md-02887-JAR-TJJ.

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Class:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Jeffrey H. Glaspie, Esq.
          William A. Ladnier, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: 865-247-0080
          Facsimile: 865-522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  jeff@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  will@gregcolemanlaw.com

MILLER RECOVERY: Shotwell Seeks Overtime Pay for Repo Agents
------------------------------------------------------------
RAY SHOTWELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MILLER RECOVERY SERVICE, INC. c/o
Statutory Agent Theresa Dixon 4500 Lee Road No. G Cleveland, OH
44128; and VANCE MILLER c/o Miller Recovery Service, Inc. 4500 Lee
Road Cleveland, OH 44128 and ROSA MILLER c/o Miller Recovery
Service, Inc. 4500 Lee Road Cleveland, OH 44128 , the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01444 (N.D. Ohio,  June 21, 2019), alleges that
Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees overtime compensation for hours worked over 40
per week and/or minimum wages for certain weeks under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

The case is a "collective action" instituted by Plaintiff as a
result of Defendants' practices and policies of not paying its
non-exempt employees, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, and failing to pay
them minimum wages for all hours worked, in violation of the

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants between June 2016 and
August 2016 as a Repo Agent. Other similarly situated individuals
were employed by Defendants as repo agents, tow truck drivers,
and/or camera car agents in Ohio. The Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees were classified by Defendants as
non-exempt employees, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants are in the repossession business and provide
full-service repossession services, including collateral locating,
collateral recovery, collateral transportation, locksmith services,
investigation, skip tracing, replevin, and impound.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Bankses Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN BANKS and MICHELE BANKS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01777 (E.D. Mo., June 21, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture,
testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Brooks Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
JESSIE BROOKS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00098-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., June 22, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Enochs, Esq.
          Richard L. Root, Esq.
          Betsy Barnes, Esq.
          MORRIS BART LLC
          601 Poydras Street, 24 th Floor
          New Orleans LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8000
          Facsimile: (833) 277-4214
          E-mail: bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com
                  jenochs@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Francises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICK FRANCIS and KATHLEEN FRANCIS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01769-SPM (E.D. Mo., June
21, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Gutierrezes Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN GUTIERREZ and LINDA GUTIERREZ, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01775 (E.D. Mo., June 21,
2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Herrings Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN HERRING and JANET HERRING, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-03564-VC (E.D. Mo., May
29, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Jenks Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
RAY JENKS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-03591-KAW (N.D. La., June 20, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
          Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
          155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 986-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
          E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com
                  jennie@andrusanderson.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Massey Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM V. MASSEY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00786 (W.D. La., June 20, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Betsy Barnes, Esq.
          Richard L. Root, Esq.
          MORRIS BART LLC
          601 Poydras Street, 24 th Floor
          New Orleans LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8000
          Facsimile: (833) 277-4214
          E-mail: bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Myers Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
RALEIGH LEHANE MYERS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No.  5:19-cv-00785 (W.D. La., June 20, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Betsy Barnes, Esq.
          Richard L. Root, Esq.
          MORRIS BART LLC
          601 Poydras Street, 24 th Floor
          New Orleans LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8000
          Facsimile: (833) 277-4214
          E-mail: bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Rizzuto Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
JARED J. RIZZUTO, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11294 (E.D. La., June 20, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lauren E. Godshall, Esq.
          Betsy Barnes, Esq.
          Richard L. Root, Esq.
          MORRIS BART LLC
          601 Poydras Street, 24 th Floor
          New Orleans LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8000
          Facsimile: (833) 277-4214
          E-mail: lgodshall@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Thirstrup Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT J. THIRSTRUP, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03327-VC (E.D. La., May 16, 2019),
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lauren E. Godshall, Esq.
          Betsy Barnes, Esq.
          Richard L. Root, Esq.
          MORRIS BART LLC
          601 Poydras Street, 24 th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8000
          Facsimile: (833) 277-4214
          E-mail: lgodshall@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Walker Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
MAXINE WALKER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-11295 (E.D. La., June 20, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard L. Root, Esq.
          Betsy Barnes, Esq.
          MORRIS BART LLC
          601 Poydras Street, 24 th Floor
          New Orleans LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8000
          Facsimile: (833) 277-4214
          E-mail: bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Wesley Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
SUSIE WESLEY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01774 (E.D. Mo., June 21, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MURPHY OIL USA: Taylor's Fraud Suit Transferred to E.D. Mo.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Taylor v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 19SL-CC01713,
was transferred from the Circuit Court for St. Louis County,
Missouri to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on June 14, 2019. This fraud-related lawsuit
is assigned to Magistrate Judge Nannette A. Baker. The district
court has now assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-01705-NAB to the
proceeding.

Headquartered in El Dorado, Arkansas, Murphy Oil Corporation is a
global oil exploration and production company. The firm produces
oil and/or natural gas in the United States, Canada, and Malaysia
and conducts exploration activities worldwide. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Christopher A. Smith, Esq.
     HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP
     190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
     St. Louis, MO 63105
     Telephone: (314) 480-1500
     Facsimile: (314) 480-1505
     E-mail: chris.smith@huschblackwell.com

             - and -

     Matthew D. Knepper, Esq.
     HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP
     190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
     St. Louis, MO 63105
     Telephone: (314) 480-1500
     E-mail: matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Amara et al. Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Idris Amara and Nicholas Parrino,
individually and on behalf of other members of the public similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, Xome Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and
Does 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CIV DS
1914909, was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Eastern Division – Riverside) on June 20, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-01153-AB-SS to the proceeding. The suit demand $300,000
worth of damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Andre
Birotte Jr.

Nationstar Mortgage offers mortgage services. The Company provides
mortgages loan, re-financing, and home equity loans.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Eric K Yaeckel, Esq.
          SULLIVAN LAW GROUP LLP
          2330 Third Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 702-6760
          Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
          E-mail: yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com

               - and -

          Derik Neil Lewis, Esq.
          VERITAS LAW OFFICE
          120 Vantis Suite 300
          Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
          Telephone: (949) 216-0935
          Facsimile: (949) 296-0935
          E-mail: Dlewis@vantislaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan T Kuhn, Esq.
          William Bransfield Sullivan, Esq.
          SULLIVAN LAW GROUP APC
          2330 Third Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (616) 702-6760
          Facsimile: (619) 702-6761
          E-mail: helen@sullivanlawgroupapc.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Raymond Yoon Ho Kim, Esq.
          Abraham J Colman, Esq.
          Dalar Abolian, Esq.
          Raffi Kassabian, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
          E-mail: rkim@reedsmith.com
                  acolman@reedsmith.com
                  dabolian@reedsmith.com
                  rkassabian@reedsmith.com

NEW YORK: Viera et al. Seek OT Pay for Motor Vehicle Operators
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER VIERA, GENADIY MINTS, DEVIN SPARKS, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05773 (S.D.N.Y., June 20, 2019),
alleges that Defendant unlawfully deprived Plaintiffs' right to
overtime compensation pay in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards.

According to the complaint, while working as Motor Vehicle
Operators (MVOs), the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated
routinely work over 40 hours a week. However, the City fails to
compensate plaintiffs for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek at
a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay.
Specifically, the City fails to compensate plaintiffs for hours
worked before the start of their scheduled shifts and during their
30-minute unpaid meal periods.

While working as MVOs, the Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated are occasionally compensated for hours worked over 40 in a
workweek if the overtime hours were pre-approved. However, when the
City compensates plaintiffs for overtime hours which were
pre-approved, the City systemically fails to pay plaintiffs for
this overtime work at the correct regular rate of pay.

The Defendant captures the work hours of MVOs, including time spent
working before their scheduled shift begins, on the defendant's
timekeeping system, "CityTime," which is maintained at most MVOs
work locations. CityTime tracks plaintiffs' work time on a
minute-by-minute basis, the lawsuit says.

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean. At its core is Manhattan, a densely
populated borough that’s among the world's major commercial,
financial and cultural centers. Its iconic sites include
skyscrapers such as the Empire State Building and sprawling Central
Park. Broadway theater is staged in neon-lit Times Square.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          Afroz Baig, Esq.
          McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
                  smb@mselaborlaw.com
                  ab@mselaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hope Pordy, Esq.
          SPIVAK LIPTON, LLP
          1700 Broadway, Suite 2100
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 765-2100
          E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC: Alonzo Suit Claims Final Pay "Untimely"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Pacific Gas and
Electric Company for alleged violations of Sections 201-203 of the
California Labor Code. The case is captioned DAVE ALONZO, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No.
CGC-19-576805 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., June 18, 2019).

This complaint alleges that the Defendant failed to pay timely
Plaintiff Dave Alonzo and the members of the Class all final wages
due to them at their separation from employment, including earned
and vested vacation pay.

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, Pacific Gas and
Electric Company is an American-investor owned utility that
provides natural gas and electric service to approximately 16
million people throughout a 70000-square mile service area in
northern and central California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John E. Lattin, Esq.
     OSTERGAR LAW GROUP, P.C.
     9110 Irvine Center Drive
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Telephone: (949) 357-2544
     Facsimile: (949) 305-4591

               - and -

     Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
     LEBE LAW, APLC
     777 South Alameda Street
     Second Floor, Unit 2089
     Los Angeles, CA 90021
     Telephone: (213) 358-7046
     Facsimile: (310) 820-1258


PAY-O-MATIC: Luyando's Labor Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, Carmen Luyando, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. PAY-O-MATIC CHECK CASHING CORP.,
THE PAY-O-MATIC CORP., and JOHN and JANE DOES 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 1:18-cv-11114 (Filed on Nov. 28, 2019), was transferred
from the United District Court for the Southern District of New
York to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on June 18, 2019. The parties in this class action have
jointly requested the United District Court for the Southern
District of New York to transfer it to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York as related to case
Buchanan v. Pay-O-Matic Check Cashing Corp. The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge Frederic Block. The Eastern District of New York
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03578-JS-SIL to the proceeding.

In this complaint, Plaintiff Carmen Luyando alleges that the
Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Laws for failing to pay proper minimum wage and overtime
compensation and for failing to provide accurate wage statement and
notice.

Pay-O-Matic Corporation is a domestic business corporation and
existing under the laws of the State of New York and lists its
principal corporate office and address for service of process as
160 Oak Drive, Syosset, New York. The company provides check
cashing and financial services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Hill Sues over Misleading IPO-Related Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Pivotal Software,
Inc., certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters
of the April 2018 initial public offering (IPO) for alleged
violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The case is captioned
JASON HILL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. PIVOTAL SOFTWARE, INC.; ROBERT MEE;
CYNTHIA GAYLOR; PAUL MARITZ; MICHAEL S. DELL; ZANE ROWE; EGON
DURBAN; WILLIAM D. GREEN; MARCY S. KLEVORN; KHOEZEMA Z.
SHIPCHANDLER; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC; GOLDMAN SACHS& CO. LLC;
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH INC.; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA)
LLC; RBCA CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC; UBS SECURITIES LLC; WELLS FARGO
SECURITIES LLC; KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC.; WILLIAM BLAIR & CO.,
LLC; MISCHLER FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.; SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ & CO., INC,;
SIEBERT CISNEROS SHANK & CO., LLC; WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P.;
Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-576750 (Cal. Super., San Francisco
Cty., June 1, 2019).

Plaintiff Jason Hill brings this securities class action on behalf
of all who purchased or otherwise acquired Pivotal common stock
pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
issued in connection with Pivotal's April 2018 IPO. Hill alleges
that registration statement contained untrue statements of material
fact and omitted to state material facts both required by governing
regulations and necessary to make the statements made therein not
misleading. Principally, the registration statement allegedly
failed to disclose that the company was suffering from deferred
sales, lengthening sales cycles, and diminished growth as its
customers and the industry's sentiment shifted away from Pivotal's
principal, yet outdated and inadequate; offering because it was
incompatible with the industry-standard platform.

Pivotal is a cloud platform technology company headquartered in San
Francisco, California. Pivotal is incorporated under the laws of
Delaware, and its common stock trades on the NYSE exchange under
the ticker "PVTL." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


PORSCHE CARS: Cohens Allege Defective Wireless Entry System
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Porsche Cars North
America, Inc. for alleged breaches of written and implied
warranties and for violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act, the California False Advertising Act, and the Unfair Business
Practices Act. The case is captioned LORI COHEN, DANIEL COHEN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
vs. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-05530 (C.D. Cal., June 25, 2019). Plaintiffs Lori Cohen and
Daniel Cohen bring this action to remedy violations of law in
connection with Porsche's design, manufacture, marketing,
advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of the certain
Porsche vehicles. Plaintiffs believe that the defective and flawed
wireless entry system is the cause of their vehicle being stolen,
and of being broken into. However, the Defendant failed to disclose
and actively concealed the defective wireless entry system from
Class members and the public.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is a limited liability company,
authorized to do business in the state of California and is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of motor vehicles and
related equipment and services. The company is also in the business
of marketing, supplying and selling written warranties to the
public at large through a system of authorized dealerships. It does
business in all counties of the state of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Telephone: (877) 206-4741
     Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com


POSTURE WORKS: Morton Grove Sues over Unsolicited Advertisements
----------------------------------------------------------------
MORTON GROVE LIVING & REHAB CENTER, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. THE POSTURE
WORKS, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04184 (N.D. Ill., June 21, 2019),
challenges Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited
advertisements via facsimile pursuant to the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has sent facsimile
transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to Plaintiff and the
Class in violation of the TCPA, including, but not limited to, the
facsimile transmission of an unsolicited advertisement on or about
May 8, 2019.

The Fax describes the commercial availability or quality of
Defendant's property, goods or services, namely, the Engage APOD
(Advanced Positioning Orthotic Device), an orthotic wheelchair
cushion designed by therapists for facility, home, and hospital
use. The Fax also references Defendant's wheelchair positioning
services, provided through licensed therapists who are stated to be
"wheelchair seating specialists," and who are "ready to support
your team with clinically appropriate seating and positioning
interventions."

The Defendant has sent, and continues to send, unsolicited
advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of the TCPA,
including but not limited to those advertisements sent to
Plaintiff.  The Defendant's actions caused injury to Plaintiff and
the other class members. Receiving Defendant's junk faxes caused
Plaintiff and the other recipients to lose paper and toner consumed
in the printing of Defendant's faxes. Moreover, Defendant's faxes
occupied Plaintiff's and each class member's telephone lines and
fax machines. Defendant's faxes cost Plaintiff each class member's
time, as Plaintiff and its employees, as well as each class member
and their employees, wasted their time receiving, reviewing and
routing Defendant's unauthorized faxes, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847-368-1500
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com

PURITAN'S PRIDE: Reid Sues over Web Accessibility
-------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Puritan's Pride,
Inc. for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New
York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The case is captioned VALENTIN
REID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-05560-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2019). Plaintiff Valentin
Reid is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires
screen-reading software to read website content using his computer.
Plaintiff Reid brings this civil rights action against Defendant
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's
denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore
denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the ADA, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL.

Puritan's Pride, Inc. is a New York Corporation doing business in
New York. Its website, http://www.puritan.com,sells vitamins and
supplements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

QUALITY WELLNESS: Kowalski Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Quality Wellness
Home Care, LLC d/b/a Healthcare and Wellness Center for alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The
case is captioned MATTHEW KOWALSKI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, - against – QUALITY
WELLNESS HOME CARE, LLC d/b/a QUALITY HEALTHCARE AND WELLNESS
CENTER, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-14191
(D.N.J., June 25, 2019). Plaintiff Matthew Kowalski brings this
complaint against Defendant to secure redress because Defendant
willfully violated the TCPA and invaded Plaintiff's privacy by
causing unsolicited text messages to be made to Plaintiff's and
other class members' cellular telephones through the use of an
auto-dialer. In addition, Plaintiff Kowalski alleges that the
Defendant failed to have a procedure in place to ensure that they
were not calling and/or messaging consumers on the National Do Not
Call Registry.

Quality Wellness Home Care, LLC is duly formed under the laws of
the state of New Jersey with an office at 3342 Route 9 South, Old
Bridge, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
     MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
     701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
     Asbury Park, NJ 07712
     Telephone: (732) 695-3282
     Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
     E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Julin Sues over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
The case, TRACI DIANA JULIN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED, OPTUM360, LLC and AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13446 (D.N.J., June 5,
2019), alleges that Defendants failed to properly secure and
safeguard protected health information, as defined by the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"), medical
information, and other personally identifiable information
(collectively, "PII"); failed to provide timely, accurate, and
adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that the
integrity of their PII had been compromised; and failed to provide
timely, accurate, and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class
Members of the nature and scope of the PII that was exposed.

On June 3, 2019, Quest publicly announced that approximately two
weeks earlier on May 14, its billing collections vendor AMCA
advised Quest of "unauthorized activity on AMCA's web payment page"
which compromised the PII of approximately 11.9 million Quest
patients. The exposed PII included "financial information (e.g.,
credit card numbers and bank account information), medical
information and other personal information (e.g., Social Security 3
Numbers)" ("Data Breach"). Quest further revealed that the exposure
occurred between August 1, 2018, and March 30, 2019.

Despite the breadth and sensitivity of the PII that was exposed and
the attendant consequences to patients as a result thereof, the
Defendants failed to disclose the Data Breach for nearly two months
from the time it was first discovered, further exacerbating harm to
patients. Moreover, to date, Defendants have not disclosed the full
extent and nature of the Data Breach, nor offered anything to its
patients to address and compensate the harm they have suffered.

The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendants' failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect Patient PII. The Defendants
disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by:
intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to
take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems
were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose
that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and
security practices to safeguard Patient PII; failing to take
16 standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data
Breach; failing to monitor and timely detect the Data Breach; and
failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate
notice of the Data Breach.

As a result of Defendants' failure to implement and follow basic
security procedures, Patient PII is now in the hands of thieves.
Plaintiff and Class Members have had to spend, and will continue to
spend, significant amounts of time and money in an effort to
protect themselves from the adverse ramifications of the Data
Breach and will forever be at a heightened risk of identity theft
and fraud, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          James A. Barry, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
          801 N. Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 663-8200
          E-mail: jbarry@lockslaw.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Patrick Barthle, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, Florida 33602
          Tel: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  pbarthle@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          JAVERBAUM WURGAFT HICKS KAHN
          WIKSTROM AND SININS, P.C.
          1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Suite
          203 Voorhees, NJ 08043
          Telephone: (856) 596-4100
          E-mail: mgalpern@lawjw.com

               - and -

          Jared Michael Lee, Esq.
          Jackson Lee | PA
          1991 Longwood Lake Mary Rd
          Longwood, FL 32750
          Telephone: (407) 477-4401
          E-mail: Jared@JacksonLeePA.com

R.E.A.C.H.: Johnson Sues over Marketing Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. REAL ESTATE, EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY
HOUSING, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61569-XXXX (S.D.
Fla. June 23, 2019), seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendants
illegal conduct. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf
of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal
or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In efforts to drum-up business, the Defendant would often send
marketing text messages providing different types advertisements
for future services without first obtaining express written consent
to send such marketing text messages as required to do so under the
TCPA. These messages were sent using mass-automated technology
through a third-party company hired by Defendant to send marketing
text messages on Defendant's behalf en masse.

In sum, Defendant knowingly and willfully violated the TCPA,
causing injuries to the Plaintiff and members of the putative
class, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.

The TCPA prohibits any person from calling a cellular telephone
number; using an automatic telephone dialing system; without the
recipient's prior express consent. The TCPA defines an "automatic
telephone dialing system" as "equipment that has the capacity --
(A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a
random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such
numbers."[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          Thomas j. Patti, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-907-1136
          Facsimile: 855-529-9540
          E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
                  tom@jibraellaw.com

RECKITT BENCKISER: Court Certifies 2 Classes in Yamagata Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, GORDON NOBORU YAMAGATA, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-03529-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered
an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' request to certify a California class
      and a New York class;

   2. appointing Timothy G. Blood and Thomas J. O'Reardon II of
      Blood, Hurst, and O'Reardon LLP as class counsel; and

   3. denying Plaintiffs' request to certify a separate
      California senior subclass.

The court said, "The plaintiffs explain that they intend to seek
extra penalties that the CLRA authorizes against defendants who
direct unlawful business practices at senior citizens. Cal. Civ.
Code section 1780(b). The additional award is available only if the
trier of fact "finds that the consumer has suffered substantial
physical, emotional, or economic damage resulting from the
defendant's conduct." The challenged supplements are relatively
inexpensive and the plaintiffs have not pointed to any evidence
suggesting that this factor can be established on a classwide
basis. Because evaluating this factor would therefore require an
inquiry into the circumstances of each class member's purchases,
individualized questions predominate and certification is
inappropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)."[CC]

REPLACEMENTS LTD: Reid Sues over ADA Violations
-----------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed by Valentin Reid against
Replacements, LTD for alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). The case is captioned Reid v. Replacements,
LTD, Case No. 1:19-cv-05566-JMF (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2019). This
civil rights-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Jesse M.
Furman.

According to its website, Replacements, LTD is the world's largest
supplier of vintage and current dinnerware, crystal, silver and
collectibles. Founded by Bob Page in 1981, the company is
headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina and serves customers
through its showroom in McLeansville, North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Mack Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Yvonne Mack, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., and LVNV Funding, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06300 (N.D. Ill., Filed Sep. 14,
2018), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying a
class of:

    "all persons similarly situated in the State of Illinois from
    whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent consumer
    debt, via a collection letter, where said individuals sought
    validation within the 30-day validation period, from one year
    before the date of this complaint to the present."

The action seeks a finding that Defendants' collection actions
violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and asks that the
Court award damages as authorized by section 1692k(a)(2) of the
FDCPA.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

          Larry P. Smith, Esq.
          David M. Marco, Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 546-6539
          Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
          E-mail: lsmith@smithmarco.com
                  dmarco@smithmarco.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Nicole M. Strickler, Esq.
          Katherine M. Olson, Esq.
          Andrew G. Fullett, Esq.
          Kevin S. Borozan, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Strickler, Esq.
          MESSER STRICKLER, LTD.
          225 W. Washington Street, Suite 575
          Chicago, IL 60606
          E-mail: nstrickler@messerstrickler.com
                  kolson@messerstrickler.com
                  afullett@messerstrickler.com
                  kborozan@messerstrickler.com
                  sstrickler@messerstrickler.com

ROCA CAFE: Removes Benitez Suit to Southern District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants removed on June 26, 2019, the class action lawsuit
captioned SONIA ELIZABETH CRUZ BENITEZ, and others
similarly-situated v. ROCA CAFE, INC., d/b/a Cacique Corner, and
REINALDO ROCHA, Case No. 19-014609 CA 01, from the Circuit Court of
the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-22662-XXXX to
the proceeding.

On May 14, 2019, the Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Circuit
Court.  The Complaint seeks damages for unpaid overtime and minimum
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: zabogado@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
          2655 S. LeJeune Road, Suite 804
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile (786) 309-9978
          E-mail: em@eddymarbanlaw.com


ROUND ONE ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Paulette's Labor Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Round One Entertainment Inc. for alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code. The case is captioned GARY PAULETTE, on behalf of himself,
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ROUND ONE
ENTERTAINMENT INC, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV349041 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., June 17, 2019).

Plaintiff Gary Paulette worked for Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly employee from approximately March 24, 2018 through June 17,
2018. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have
maintained policy or practice of routinely interrupting Plaintiff
and the putative class while they were on their meal period. Among
other things, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants failed to
provide rest periods; failed to pay hourly wages; failed to pay
accrued vacation wages; and failed to provide accurate written wage
statements. Based on these alleged Labor Code violations, Plaintiff
now brings this class and representative action to recover unpaid
wages, restitution and related relief on behalf of himself, all 20
others similarly situated, and the general public.

Round One Entertainment Inc. operates multi-entertainment
facilities that offer bowling, arcade games, billiards, karaoke,
ping pong, darts, and even a children's play area. In 2008, Round
One Entertainment Japan began looking overseas to the United States
for more growth and expansion. In 2010, the company opened its
first U.S. location in the City of Industry, California. Within a
few years, two more locations in California were opened, and Round
One is now rapidly expanding nationwide, across the US market.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shaun Setareh, Esq.
     Thomas Segal, Esq.
     Farrah Grant, Esq.
     SETAREH LAW GROUP
     315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: (310) 888-7771
     Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
     E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
             thomas@setarehlaw.com
             farrah@setarehlaw.com


SEABREEZE ELECTRIC: Court Certifies Class of Electricians
---------------------------------------------------------
In a class action lawsuit SAMUEL BELTRAN  and CHRISTOPHER LUGO, the
Plaintiffs, vs. SEABREEZE ELECTRIC, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-00142-VMC-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Virginia M.
Hernandez Covington entered an order:

  1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and
     permitting Plaintiff to provide notice ro potential class
     members:

     "all current and former Electricans who worked for
     Seabreeze , nc., ay any time within the three year period
     preceding [date of Court's order approving Plaintiff's motion

     to be inserted] and who were not compensated for all of their

     overtime hours worked during one or more workweeks";

  2. directing Defendant to provide Plaintiff's counsel within 30
     days from the date of the Court's Order granting Plaintiff's
     motion, a lsit of names, last known addresses, e-mail
     addresses, and telephone numbers of all electricians who
     worked for Defendant from during the three year period
     preceding this Court's Order approving Plaintiff's motion";

  3. directing Plaintiff's counsel to provide all putative class
     members, notice and a reminder notice;

  4. at 45 days, permitting Plaintiff's counsel to provide a
     reminder notice to the putative class members via first-class

     and email; and

  5. giving putative class members 90 days [from the date the
     notice are initially mailed and emailed] to file his/her
     content to become an opt-in Plaintiff.[CC]

SECOND ROUND: Grey Sues over Deceptive Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Second Round LP
(SRL) and Second Round Sub, LLC (SRS) for alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The case is captioned
Jeff Grey Jr., Plaintiff, v. Second Round LP and Second Round Sub,
LLC, Defendant(s), Case No. 4:19-cv-02188 (N.D. Tex., June 18,
2019).

Grey alleges that the Defendants provided false, deceptive or
misleading settlement offers without disclosing the pitfalls of
making partial payments or promising to pay on the alleged debt.
Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendants have violated the FDCPA
when the Defendants provided false, deceptive or misleading
representation on the status of the Plaintiff's right and status of
the alleged debt when Defendants did not clearly state that they
"cannot sue" the Plaintiff for the alleged debt.

SRL and SRS are limited partnerships organized under the laws of
the state of Texas. SRL and SRS are collection agencies
headquartered at 1701 Director Blvd, Suite 900, Austin, Texas.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented:

    Shawn Jaffer, Esq.
    SHAWN JAFFER LAW FIRM PLLC
    9300 John Hickman Pkwy, Suite 1204
    Frisco, TX 75035
    Telephone: (214) 210-0730
    Facsimile: (214) 594-6100
    E-mail: Shawn@jafflaw.com


SENTRY ELECTRICAL: Lewis Seeks to Certify Hourly Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit JOHN LEWIS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SENTRY ELECTRICAL
GROUP, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00178-WOB (S.D.
Ohio.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   a. conditionally certifying case as a Fair Labor Standards Act
      collective action under section 216(b) against Defendant
      Sentry Electrical Group, Inc. on behalf of the Plaintiff
      and others similarly situated;

   b. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and by
      email to:

      "all of Defendant's current or former hourly employees who
      traveled to jobsites in which an overnight stay was required

      but for whom such travel time was neither paid nor counted
      as hours worked by Defendant for any workweek in which such
      travel time resulted in hours worked in excess of 40 in the
      same workweek at any time during the three-years preceding
      the filing of the Complaint to the present";

   c. directing the parties to jointly submit within 14 days a
      proposed Notice informing such present and former employees
      of the pendency of the collective action and permitting them

      to opt into the case by signing and submitting a directing
      Defendant to provide within 14 days a Roster of such present

      and former employees that includes their full names, their
      dates of employment, their last known home and email
      addresses, and their last known telephone numbers;

   e. directing that the Notice, in the form the Court approves,
      be sent to such present and former employees within 30 days
      using the home and email addresses listed in the Roster;
      and

   f. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent in

      the event new, updated, or corrected email or mailing
      addresses are found for one or more of such present or
      former employees.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Jeffrey J. Moyle, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 W. Superior Avenue, Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          7266 Portage Street, NW, Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

SSA CONTAINERS: Faces Haggerty Labor Suit in Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against SSA Containers,
Inc. and SSA Marine, Inc. for alleged violations of the California
Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code, for
wage theft, and for unjust enrichment. The case is captioned JOHN
HAGGERTY, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. SSA CONTAINERS, INC., a
Washington corporation; SSA MARINE, INC., a Washington corporation;
and DOES 1-25 inclusive; Defendants, Case No. 19STCV20816 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 14, 2019).

Among other things, Plaintiff John Haggerty alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide meal
periods, failed to authorize and permit rest periods, and failed to
provide accurate itemized wage statements. Accordingly, Plaintiff
John Haggerty seeks to recover damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, obtain injunctive relief, costs of suit and attorney’s
fees resulting from SSA's unlawful actions.

Headquartered in Seattle, Washington, SSA Containers, Inc. and SSA
Marine, Inc. provide a full spectrum of services for marine and
rail terminal operations. These companies claim as the global
leaders in cargo handling and terminal operations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Annette C. Clark, Esq.
     David G. Jensen, Esq.
     CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP
     1230 Columbia Street, Suite 930
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619)232-5700
     Facsimile: (949)261-6060
     E-mail: aclark@ctsclaw.com
             djensen@ctsclaw.com


STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Sued over University Admission Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stanford University
et al. involving alleged fraudulent university-admission scheme
coordinated between three distinct groups: (1) parents whose
college-age children had insufficient test scores and other
credentials to gain admission to highly selective universities, but
who nevertheless believed that they could bribe their child's way
through the college admissions door; (2) a California resident,
William "Rick" Singer, who, through the use of a fraudulent
college-admissions-mentoring company and a fraudulent California
charitable foundation, saw an opportunity to enrich himself to the
tune of millions of dollars through fraud and bribery; and (3)
individuals involved in the university admission pipeline who were
supposed to keep the college admission process honest (including
representatives of at least eight highly selective Universities)
who were willing to accept bribes and thereby taint the college
admission process.

The Student-Athlete Recruitment scheme involved parents who would
pay Singer, his business, or his fraudulent charity huge sums of
money; and, in exchange, Singer would create false sports profiles
for the parent's teenaged student, making it seem as though the
teenager was a superior athlete in a sport. Then Singer would offer
significant, hefty bribes to employees of the universities --
typically coaches or managers in the school's athletic department.
Under college admission practices, university admissions programs
would set aside a certain number of "slots" for admission of
students who excelled in certain sports. Excelling in sports was a
known, objective criterion applied by the universities. The bribed
university officials would then bypass otherwise qualified student
candidates and instead insert into those athletic admissions slots
applicants did not qualify as persons excelling in sports.

As a result of this coordinated, fraudulent scheme, conducted
through wire and mail, unqualified students found their way into
the admissions rolls of highly selective universities, while those
students who played by the rules were denied admission.

Meanwhile, each of the universities were negligent in failing to
maintain adequate protocols and security measures in place to
guarantee the sanctity of the college admissions process, and to
ensure that their own employees were not engaged in these type of
bribery schemes.

Each of the rejected students was damaged by the fraudulent and
negligent conduct of the Defendants in that, at a minimum, each
Class member paid college admission application fees to the
Defendant universities without any understanding or warning that
unqualified students were slipping in through the back door of the
admissions process by committing fraud, bribery, cheating, and
dishonesty.

Each of the universities took the students' admission application
fees while failing to take adequate steps to ensure that their
admissions process was fair and free of fraud, bribery, cheating
and dishonesty. They each promised an application process that was
fair and that objectively evaluated all applicants based on the
university's common set of application criteria, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as ALYSSA TAMBOURA, MARINE HALL-POIRIER,
KEITH HALL, LAURENCE POIRIER, YASAMIN GHODSBIN, MIKA TJOA, CANDACE
TJOA, TIMMY MAI, CHRISSY PHAM, ESTEBAN FRAUSTO, KARL ARMBRUST, DIRK
ARMBRUST, LEILANI DURDEN, LANAE DURDEN, JILLIAN GARCIA, VICTOR
GARCIA, LAILA KEYHAN, KASRA KEYHAN, CALEB CRANE, FALEN ROBINSON,
COLE SMITH, RONDA SMITH, KATHLEEN TATUSKO, AMY TATUSKO, ANGELIQUE
VOLLMER, and MICHAEL VOLLMER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. WILLIAM "RICK"
SINGER, THE KEY 2 WORLDWIDE FOUNDATION, THE EDGE COLLEGE & CAREER
NETWORK, LLC, d/b/a "THE KEY," THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, STANFORD
UNIVERSITY, THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT
AUSTIN, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, YALE UNIVERSITY, and GEORGETOWN
UNIVERSITY, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-03411 (N.D. Cal., June
14, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Class are:

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Alia M. Abdi, Esq
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com`
                  brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  alia.abdi@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          John F. Medler, Jr., Esq.
          THE MEDLER LAW FIRM, APC
          2030 Main Street Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-4940
          Facsimile: (949) 260-4944
          E-mail: john@medlerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          Mickey L. Stevens, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com
                  mstevens@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com

STEVENS TANKER: Hernandez Seeks OT & Minimum Wage for Coordinators
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, vs. STEVENS TANKER DIVISION, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00720-XR (W.D. Tex., June 20, 2019),
seeks to recover overtime and minimum wage under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the employees he
seeks to represent, are current and former non-exempt employees of
Stevens Tanker Division, LLC within the last three years. The
Defendant knowingly, deliberately, and voluntarily failed to pay
its employees overtime and minimum wage.

Consequently, the Defendant's conduct violates the FLSA because of
the mandate that non-exempt employees, such as Mr. Hernandez and
the Class Members, be paid one and one half their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 with in a single week and
be paid a minimum wage per hour, the lawsuit says.

Stevens uses a fleet of trucks to transport products and material
used in the oil and gas industry. Stevens provides its services in
Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and New Mexico.

The Plaintiff was a Sand Coordinator working at Stevens' Carrizo
Springs, Texas location. Coordinators, such as Plaintiff, are
Stevens' workforce on the ground responsible for directing incoming
trucks to the correct location for unloading, and generally
assisting in the unloading process from Stevens' trucks.

Coordinators commonly work in excess of 12 hours a day, often more
than 90 hours a week. In fact, coordinators are commonly called
upon to work day after day with little rest. Over the last three
years, Stevens has paid its coordinators a salary basis without
overtime which violates the law.

Stevens classified its coordinators, such as Plaintiff Hernandez,
as exempt and paid them on a flat salary basis or on a salary basis
with a day rate payment paid for each day spent in the field.
However, no exemption in the FLSA shelters Stevens from paying
overtime to its coordinators.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are :

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

STRUCTURE ENTERPRISE: Yang et al. Seek Minimum & Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
YONGFU YANG, DELIANG FU, XIAOJIANG ZUO, HECHAO CHEN, AIXIANG LIU,
KEZHENG ZUO, and SHUSHAN HANG, on their own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AN JU HOME INC. d/b/a
An Ju Home; STRUCTURE ENTERPRISE, INC d/b/a Structure Enterprise;
and TRINITY BUILDERS, INC. d/b/a Trinity Builders; HENGJIAN CUI,
PAUL LIOU, CANDICE COLUCCI, "JOHN" LIOU, and "JANE" ZHUO, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-05616 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2019),
alleges that Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed
widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including Plaintiffs, minimum wage for each hour worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

The Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to recover from the
Defendants: unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgement interest; and or attorney's
fees and cost.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully disregarded the provisions
of the FLSA as evidenced by failing to compensate Plaintiffs and
Collective Class Members at the statutory minimum wage when they
knew or should have known such was due and that failing to do so
would financially injure Plaintiff and Collective Action members,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class, are:

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

TARGET CORP: Atherton Seeks OT Premium Pay
------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Target Corporation
for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The case is captioned TRAVIS
ATHERTON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. TARGET CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:2019-cv-01093 (M.D. Pa., June 26, 2019).

Plaintiff Travis Atherton alleges that Defendant Target Corporation
failed to use a "weighted average" when calculating Class
Plaintiff's regular rates by excluding additional remuneration,
including shift differentials, earned by Collective and Class
Plaintiffs from their regular rates, upon which their overtime
rates were/are based. Accordingly, Defendant paid Collective and
Class Plaintiffs less than 1.5 their regular rates for hours that
Class Plaintiffs worked more than 40 hours during workweeks in
which they earned additional remuneration, including bonuses.
Defendant's practice of excluding additional remuneration,
including bonuses from Atherton's and Collective and Class
Plaintiffs' regular rates occurred in all pay periods that Atherton
and Collective and Class Plaintiffs worked.

Target is a corporation doing business in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Target
operates over 1800 retail stores in 49 states and maintains 37
distribution centers in 22 states. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
     Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
     Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Highway N., Ste. 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Telephone: (856) 685-7420
     Facsimile: (856) 685-7417


TARONIS TECHNOLOGIES: Hatten Suit Moved to District of Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Chad Hatten and Kui Zhu, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TARONIS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,  ROBERT L DINGESS, SCOTT MAHONEY, ERMANNO P.
SANTILLI, KEVIN POLLACK, and WILLIAM W. STAUNTON, the Defendants,
and Armando Martin Campos and Vardan Petrosyan, the Movants, Case
No. 8:19-cv-00889 (Filed April 15, 2019), was transferred fom the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division) on
June 21, 2019. The District of Arizona Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-04529-GMS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge G Murray Snow.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Taronis
common stock between January 28, 2019 and February 12, 2019, both
days inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by
the 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.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Kevin G Cooper, Esq.
          Matthew M Guiney, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
             FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Ave., 9th Fl.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 686-0114

               - and -

          Kenneth Allen Tomchin, Esq.
          TOMCHIN & ODOM PA
          6816 Southpoint Pkwy., Ste. 400
          Jacksonville, FL 32216
          Telephone: (904) 353-6888
          Facsimile: (904) 353-0188

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Lisa Bugni, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          One Atlantic Center Ste 4900
          1201 W Peachtree St
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 572-4677
          E-mail: lbugni@kslaw.com

Attorneys for the Armando Martin Campos:

          Emily C Komlossy, Esq.
          KOMLOSSY LAW PA
          4700 Sheridan St., Ste. J
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 842-2021
          Facsimile: (954) 416-6223

Attorneys for the for the Vardan Petrosyan:

          Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq.
          ROSEN LAW FIRM
          275 Madison Ave., 34th Fl.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

TOUCHPOINT 360: Iglesias Seeks Unpaid Wages for Merchandisers
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA A. IGLESIAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TOUCHPOINT 360, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company; and E.A. LANGENFELD ASSOCS.,
LTD., a foreign corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05396
(C.D. Cal., June 20, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages and other
damages, back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs,
and all other remedies available under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and California law.

According to the complaint, Maria A. Iglesias was employed by
TouchPoint as a Merchandiser. No matter the precise job title,
TouchPoint's Merchandisers and the Project Managers who worked
alongside them, perform the same basic job duties. Merchandisers
and Project Managers were also paid in the same way. Until very
recently, TouchPoint paid its Merchandisers and Project Managers a
day rate and "layover bonuses," regardless of the number of hours
they worked each week.

TouchPoint did not pay its Merchandisers and Project Managers a
salary. Although Merchandisers and Project Managers frequently
worked in excess of 40 hours per week, TouchPoint did not pay them
at 1.5 times their regular rates of pay for 12 hours worked over 40
in a workweek or for those hours in excess of 8 per workday.  Nor
did TouchPoint pay them two times the overtime premium for hours in
excess of 12 per day. Nor did TouchPoint's pay of Mechandisers and
Project Managers otherwise comply with California law.

TouchPoint contracts with clients to provide marketing services
throughout the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., No. 1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Telephone: 713 999-5228
          Facsimile: 713 999-1187
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law

TRIVAGO: Del Valle et al. Allege Unlawful Trafficking of Property
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Trivago GmbH et al
for alleged unlawful trafficking of confiscated properties used in
the hospitality and tourism industry for their own economic gain.
The case is captioned MARIO DEL VALLE, CAROLINA FERNANDEZ, LUIS
FERNANDEZ, MARIO FERNANDEZ, ELENA DEL VALLE ARELLANO, ENRIQUE
FALLA, LAUREANO FALLA, MARIO ECHEVARRIA, ESTHER SANCHEZ, CONSUELO
CUEVAS, and CARMEN FLORIDO, as individuals and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, TRIVAGO GmbH, a German
limited liability company, BOOKING.COM B.V., a Dutch limited
liability company, GRUPO HOTELERO GRAN CARIBE, CORPORACION DE
COMERCIO Y TURISMO INTERNACIONAL CUBANACAN S.A., GRUPO DE TURISMO
GAVIOTA S.A., RAUL DOE 1-5, MARIELA ROE 1-5, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-22619-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 24, 2019).

On Jan. 1, 1959, Fidel Castro took power in Cuba and instituted a
communist regime. Shortly thereafter, in the early 1960's, the
Cuban government confiscated the Del Valle and Falla Properties, as
it ultimately did with all privately-owned property on the island.
In or around 1991, Blue Diamond developed the Del Valle and Falla
Properties, which had since been razed, along with the property on
which several other adjoining homes formerly sat, and built the
Cuatro Palmas. Since its construction, Blue Diamond has operated,
and continues to operate, the property together with Gran Caribe.
Vacation packages at the all-inclusive Cuatro Palmas can be
reserved directly from Blue Diamond through its website, or through
the Expedia and Booking.com Entities, securing those reservations
with a credit card. The booking of reservations online through
either Blue Diamond or through the Expedia and Booking.com Entities
is available to U.S. residents, including Florida residents. On
Aug. 16, 1960, the communist Cuban government also confiscated Cayo
Coco from the Angulo Cuevas family. Shortly thereafter, many of the
family members, including the Angulo Cuevas Heirs, fled Cuba to the
United States, where they lived ever since. Throughout the decades
following the confiscation of Cayo Coco, Gran Caribe, together with
Blue Diamond, developed the Cayo Coco Resorts. Vacation packages at
the Cayo Coco Resorts can be reserved either directly from Blue
Diamond through its website, or through Trivago, securing those
reservations with a credit card. The booking of reservations online
through either Blue Diamond or through Trivago is available to U.S.
residents, including Florida residents.

Together, the Cuban government, Blue Diamond, Expedia Entities, and
the Booking Entities have exploited and benefitted from the Del
Valle, Falla, and Angulo Cuevas families' properties for decades
without paying them-the rightful owners-any compensation whatever.
The Plaintiff Heirs now sue to right the defendants' unlawful
trafficking in their property and for just compensation for
themselves and persons who are in a similar situation.

Expedia, Inc. is the corporate parent company for a number of
brands, including Trivago. In fact, Expedia, Inc. lists a total of
21 subsidiaries or affiliates, through which it maintains more than
200 travel booking sites across more than 70 countries, and through
which it offers more than 1 million properties for rent. Expedia
Entities all provide online booking services for hotels in Cuba,
including those operated by Melia, Blue Diamond, Iberostar, Be
Live. Barcelo, and others. For example, Expedia.com lists a total
of 3,711 properties available for rent throughout Cuba, including
15 Blue Diamond properties, 3 Iberostar properties, 23 Melia
properties, 3 Be Live properties, and 3 Barcelo properties. These
properties include the Cuatro Palmas and the Cayo Coco Resorts.

Trivago GmbH, an affiliate of Expedia, Inc., is a German limited
liability company headquartered in Dtisseldorf, Germany, with
offices in New York, New York. Booking.com B.V. is a Dutch limited
liability company based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, with its
principal place of business in Amsterdam. Booking.com B.V. owns and
operates Booking.com. Booking Holdings is the corporate parent
company for a number of brands, including Booking.com, Kayak,
Priceline, Agoda, Rentalcars.com, and OpenTable. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andres Rivero, Esq.
     Jorge A. Mestre, Esq.
     Alan Rolnick, Esq.
     Carlos A. Rodriguez, Esq.
     MANUEL VAZQUEZ, P.A.
     2332 Galiano St., Second Floor
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Telephone: (305) 445 -2344
     Facsimile: (305) 445-4404
     E-mail: mvaz@mvazlaw.com


TRIVAGO: Echevarria et al. Allege Unlawful Trafficking of Property
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Trivago GmbH et al
for unlawful trafficking of property. The case is captioned MARIO
ECHEVARRIA, ESTHER SANCHEZ, CONSUELO CUEVAS, and CARMEN FLORIDO, as
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TRIVAGO GmbH, a German limited liability company,
BOOKING.COM B.V., a Dutch limited liability company, GRUPO HOTELERO
GRAN CARIBE, CORPORACION DE COMERCIO Y TURISMO INTERNACIONAL
CUBANACAN S.A., GRUPO DE TURISMO GAVIOTA S.A., RAUL DOE 1-5, and
MARIELA ROE 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-22620-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., June 24, 2019).

Angulo Cuevas family's property in Cayo Coco was confiscated when
Fidel Castro seized power and established a communist government in
Cuba. Castro forced much of the family to flee their native country
for the United States. After seizing Cayo Coco from the Angulo
Cuevas family, the communist Cuban government developed the island,
and together with various hotel chains, including Accor, built a
number of resorts. Among those resorts operated by Accor is the
Pullman Cayo Coco (Cayo Coco Resort). The Cayo Coco Resort is
offered to visitors directly through Accor's own websites,
including to Florida and other U.S. residents. But travelers,
including Florida and other U.S. residents, are also able to book
stays at the Cayo Coco Resort through online booking providers like
Trivago, a subsidiary of Expedia, Inc., as well as Booking.com.
Together, the Cuban government, Accor, the Expedia Entities, and
the Booking Entities have exploited and benefitted from the Angulo
Cuevas family' property for decades without paying them - rightful
owners - any compensation whatever. Permitted under the LIBERTAD
Act, the Angulo Cuevas Heirs now sue to right the defendants'
unlawful trafficking in their property and for just compensation
for themselves and persons who are in a similar situation.

Trivago GmbH, an affiliate of Expedia,Inc., is a German limited
liability company headquartered in Drisseldorf, Germany, with
offices in New York, New York. Booking.com B.V. is a Dutch limited
liability company based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, with its
principal place of business in Amsterdam. Booking.com B.V. owns and
operates Booking.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andres Rivero, Esq.
     Jorge A. Mestre, Esq.
     Alan Rolnick, Esq.
     Carlos A. Rodriguez, Esq.
     RIVERO MESTRE LLP
     2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Telephone: (305) 445-2500
     Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
     E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com
             jmestre@riveromestre.com
             crodriguez@riveromestre.com

             - and –

     Manuel Vazquez, Esq.
     MANUEL VAZQUEZ, P.A.
     Galiano St., Second Floor
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Telephone: (305) 445-2344
     Facsimile: (305) 445-4404
     E-mail: mvaz@mvazlaw.com


U.S. LEADER: Perez et al. Seek Regular & OT Wages for Supervisors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL A. PEREZ, OMAYRA MONTES, and other similarly-situated
individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. LEADER RESTAURANTS, INC.,
d/b/a TACO BELL and TONY CAPLEY, individually, the Defendants, Case
No. 6:19-cv-01154-RBD-TBS (M.D. Fla., June 21, 2019), seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid regular and overtime wages under
the laws of the United States and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was misclassified as a
Maintenance Supervisor. Moreover, sometimes he was referred even as
a Regional manager, the fact is that Plaintiff was a refrigeration
and A/C technician with handyman skills.

The Plaintiff had multiple duties and he performed all kind of
non-exempted work, such as air conditioning equipment installation
and repairs, maintenance and repair of kitchen and restaurant
equipment, electrical installations and repairs, plumbing,
construction and carpentry work, painting, flooring etc.

The Plaintiff and a few handymen worked in the maintenance of at
least 20 TACO BELL restaurants. In addition to his maintenance
duties, Plaintiff also had some clerical duties such as attending
numerous telephone calls from TACO BELL staff requesting
maintenance, repairs, attending emergency calls, tracking equipment
and supplies orders, shopping for necessary hardware and supplies
at local stores, reporting hours worked by the handymen
etc. etc.

The Plaintiff worked in excess of 94 hours weekly, but he was not
paid for overtime hours. The Plaintiff did not clock in and out,
but Defendants were in complete control of hours worked by
Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, the lawsuit
says.

U.S. Leader Restaurants, Inc was founded in 1997. The company's
line of business includes the retail sale of prepared foods and
drinks for on-premise consumption.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs are:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

UCMC: Gray's Suit over Biometrics Data Transferred to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GAIL GRAY, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. No. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2019 CH 05545 (Filed on
May 2, 2019), was transferred from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on June 24, 2019.  The United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-04229 to the proceeding.

In this complaint, Plaintiff Gail Gray alleges that University of
Chicago Medical Center, Inc. (UCMC) has violated the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Specifically, Plaintiff
alleges that UCMC collects, stores, uses and disseminates its
employees' allegedly biometric information (hand-scans) when the
employees gain access to stored materials without first complying
with various notice and consent provisions of BIPA.

UCMC, with a history dating to 1927, is a not-for-profit academic
medical health system based on the campus of the University of
Chicago in Hyde Park, and with hospitals, outpatient clinics and
physician practices throughout Chicago and its suburbs. [BN]

Attorneys for Defendant:

     Joseph A. Strubbe, Esq.
     Frederic T. Knape, Esq.
     Zachary J. Watters, Esq.
     VEDDER PRICE P.C.
     222 North LaSalle Street
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: +1 (312) 609-7500


UMG RECORDINGS: Soundgarden Sues over Destroyed Master Recordings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SOUNDGARDEN, a Partnership; TOM WHALLEY, as Trustee of the Afeni
Shakur Trust; JANE PETTY; HOLE, a Partnership; STEVE EARLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05449 (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2019), seeks
to recover Plaintiffs' contractual entitlement to 50% of any
settlement proceeds and insurance payments received by UMG for the
loss of master recordings, and 50% of any remaining loss of value
not compensated by such settlement proceeds and insurance
payments.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the class they seek
to represent, are recording artists and the heirs, successors or
assigns of recording artists, who entered into recording agreements
with UMG or its predecessors-in-interest to create and furnish
Master Recordings embodying their musical works to UMG for their
mutual commercial benefit and safekeeping.  Master Recordings are
the original sound recordings of songs and are the embodiment of a
recording artist's life's work and musical legacy. Master
Recordings are essential to releasing re-mixed and re-mastered
versions of previously released material in new configurations;
creating new releases from previously-unreleased tracks, outtakes,
and alternative versions from recording sessions; and generating
new sources of revenue as technology evolves.

UMG acknowledged the great trust and confidence reposed in UMG by
its recording artists and the need to protect their musical legacy
embodied in the Master Recordings. As its website touts: "Our vast
catalog of recordings and songs stretches back over a century and
comprises the largest, most diverse and culturally rich collection
of music ever assembled. Knowing that music, a powerful force for
good in the world, is unique in its ability to inspire people and
bring them together, we work with our artists and employees to
serve our communities. We are the home for music's greatest
artists, innovators and entrepreneurs."  UMG's "intellectual
property," which includes "the original studio master recordings,"
is described as among UMG's "most prized and valuable assets." UMG
promises to maintain and store them "only by secure,
company-approved methods." It promises to "use them responsibly so
that we deliver the best possible service to our artists."

However, UMG did not protect the Master Recordings that were
entrusted to it. It did not take "all reasonable steps to make sure
they are not damaged, abused, destroyed, wasted, lost or stolen,"
and it did not "speak up immediately [when it saw] abuse or misuse"
of assets. Instead, UMG stored the Master Recordings embodying
Plaintiffs' musical works in an inadequate, substandard storage
warehouse located on the backlot of Universal Studios that was a
known firetrap. The Master Recordings embodying Plaintiffs' musical
works stored in that warehouse were completely destroyed in a fire
on June 1, 2008.  UMG did not speak up immediately or even ever
inform its recording artists that the Master Recordings embodying
their musical works were destroyed. In fact, UMG concealed the loss
with false public statements such as that "we only lost a small
number of tapes and other material by obscure artists from the
1940s and 50s." To this day, UMG has failed to inform Plaintiffs
that their Master Recordings were destroyed in the Fire.

Yet, even as it kept Plaintiffs in the dark and misrepresented the
extent of the losses, UMG successfully pursued litigation and
insurance claims which it reportedly valued at $150 million to
recoup the value of the Master Recordings. UMG concealed its
massive recovery from Plaintiffs, apparently hoping it could keep
it all to itself by burying the truth in sealed court filings and a
confidential settlement agreement. Most importantly, UMG did not
share any of its recovery with Plaintiffs, the artists whose life
works were destroyed in the Fire -- even though, by the terms of
their recording contracts, Plaintiffs are entitled to 50% of those
proceeds and payments, the lawsuit says.

Universal Music Group is an American global music corporation that
is a subsidiary of the French media conglomerate Vivendi. UMG's
global corporate headquarters are located in Santa Monica,
California. It is considered one of the "Big Three" music
companies, along with Sony Music and Warner Music Group.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Howard E. King, Esq.
          Henry D. Gradstein, Esq.
          Andres Monserrate, Esq.
          KING, HOLMES, PATERNO & SORIANO, LLP
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, 25th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 282-8989
          E-mail: hking@khpslaw.com
                  hgradstein@khpslaw.com
                  amonserrate@khpslaw.com

               - and -

          Edwin F. McPherson, Esq.
          Pierre B. Pine, Esq.
          McPHERSON LLP
          1801 Century Park East, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-8833
          E-mail: emcpherson@mcpherson-llp.com
                  ppine@mcpherson-llp.com

               - and -

          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          Kalpana D. Srinivasan, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
                  ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com

UNITED AIRLINES: Ward Suit Moved to Northern District of California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CHARLES E. WARD; FELICIA VIDRJO and PAUL BRADLEY,
individually and on behalf of 14 all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., and Does 1 through 25,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC-19-575737 (Filed April 26,
2019), was removed from the California Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on June 14,
2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:19-cv-03423 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Laurel Beeler.

The Plaintiffs bring this action against United for violations of
California's wage and laws stemming from the following uniform
policies of Defendants: pilots and flight attendants required to
perform pre-flight duties without compensation; and pilots and
flight attendants work on-call in "reserve status, perform such
work without compensation, despite being subject to extensive
control of Defendants.

The Defendants provide air transportation.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Kirk D. Hanson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KIRK D. HANSON
          2790 Truxtun Rd.: Suite 140
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 523-1992
          Facsimile: (619) 523-9002

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Jackson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY C. JACKSON
          2790 Truxtun Rd., Suite 140
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: (619) 523 9001
          Facsimile: (619) 523 9002

VMSB, LLC: Stewart Seeks Overtime Pay for Kitchen Staff
-------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS E. STEWART, the Plaintiff, vs. VMSB, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-22593-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 21, 2019), seeks to
recover money damages for retaliatory discharge under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as an Executive
Chef for Defendant. The Defendant employs several non-exempt
employees in its restaurant and these non- exempt employees
("Kitchen Staff) worked under the supervision of Plaintiff.

The Defendant's Kitchen Staff has, at various times in the past 3
years, worked overtime (more than 40 hours per week).  On or about
January 14, 2019, Defendant terminated Plaintiff's employment.
Prior to his termination, the Plaintiff complained to Defendant
that VMSB was unlawfully manipulating the Kitchen Staff's time
records to avoid paying overtime. The Plaintiff demanded that the
Kitchen Staff be properly paid overtime.

Th Defendant's termination of Plaintiff was in direct violation of
29 U.S.C. section 215(a)(3) and, as a direct result, the Plaintiff
has been damaged, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
          20900 NE 30 th Avenue, Ste. 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com

WALMART: Diamos Sues over Misleading Label of Glucosamine Sulfate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Walmart Inc. for
unjust enrichment, breach of contract and for violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and the California False Advertising Law in
connection with the sale of Spring Valley brand glucosamine
sulfate. The case is captioned ANGELA DIAMOS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. WALMART
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05526 (C.D. Cal., June 25,
2019).

Plaintiff Angela Diamos purchased a bottle of Spring Valley brand
glucosamine sulfate, which states in large font on the label that
each serving contains 1000 mg of glucosamine sulfate per tablet.
However, laboratory testing confirms that the product actually
contains Glucosamine Hydrochloride and does not contain Glucosamine
Sulfate. Walmart is selling a dietary supplement that simply is not
what it claims to be. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf
of all purchasers of Spring Valley Glucosamine Sulfate in
California because Walmart breached a contract to sell glucosamine
sulfate, and was unjustly enriched when it sold a product that it
labelled as glucosamine sulfate when, in fact, it was glucosamine
hydrochloride, requiring restitution. Accordingly, Plaintiff
demands a combination of damages and injunctive relief.

Walmart, formerly Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is incorporated in
Delaware with its principal executive offices in Bentonville,
Arkansas. It is a multinational retail corporation, and routinely
markets and sells its products in Los Angeles County. Walmart sells
a portfolio of its own brands, including Spring Valley brand
dietary supplements. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
     Danielle L. Manning, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
     E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Bid for Class Certification taken under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit titled Jaime Torres, et al., the
Plaintiffs v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al., the Defendants, Case no.
2:17-cv-09305-DMG-RAO (C.D.Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee
entered an order on June 21, 2019, taking Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification under submission.

According to the Civil Minutes, the proceeding for Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification is called and counsel state their
appearance. The Court invites counsel to respond to the tentative
ruling. Following oral argument, the Court advises counsel that the
motion shall be taken under submission and a written order will
issue.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          John Glugoski, Esq.
          Righetti Law Firm
          456 Montgomery St No. 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 397-9005

Attorneys for the Defendant(s)

          Christian J. Rowley, Esq.
          Jill A. Porcaro, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission St 31FL
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com
                  jporcaro@seyfarth.com

WESLEY FINANCIAL: Burgess Seeks to Certify Class of Sales Reps
--------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE JEAN BURGESS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs WESLEY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC,
CHUCK MCDOWELL, CHARLES W. MCDOWELL IV, and JON BROWNING, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01655 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Rule 23 Class
      Certification, certify her cause of action for unjust
      enrichment as a class action on behalf of:

      "all putative Class Members which consists of all Sales
      Representatives who worked at Wesley Financial Group,
      LLC from January 1, 2011 to the present";

   2. appointing Plaintiff as class representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as Class counsel.

WFG is a timeshare cancellation company. WFG utilized Sales
Representatives to develop sales leads, primarily by contacting
prospective customers (who were thought to own timeshares or
points) to determine whether they may be interested in WFG's
services. These leads were then forwarded to WFG management who
negotiated the terms of its timeshare cancellation services,
including the amount that the customer was charged by WFG.

WFG agreed to pay Sales Representatives commissions on sales from
their leads. However, WFG either failed to pay its Sales
Representatives any monies whatsoever, or failed to pay its Sales
Representatives all monies to which they were entitled, from their
leads. In so doing, WFG was unjustly enriched by pocketing monies
legally owed to Sales Representatives during the Recovery Period,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Opt-in Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
are:

          Martin D. Holmes, Esq.
          Joshua L. Burgener, Esq
          DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
          Fifth Third Center, Suite 800
          424 Church Street
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-6538
          E-mail: mholmes@dickinsonwright.com
                  jburgener@dickinsonwright.com

WHITEPAGES INC: Lukis Sues over Unauthorized Use of Identities
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Whitepages
Incorporated for alleged violations of the Illinois Right of
Publicity Act (IRPA). The case is captioned Stephanie Lukis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Whitepages Incorporated, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH07399 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., June 19, 2019).

Plaintiff Stephanie Lukis alleges that Whitpages Incorporated has
violated IRPA by using her and the class members' identities in its
advertisements without written consent.

Whitepages Incorporated owns and operates the website
www.whitepages.com. It is a Washington-based, for-profit
corporation organized under the laws of the state of Washington.
Its website sells background reports on people to the general
public. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
     William H. Beaumont, Esq.
     BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
     107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
     Chicago, IL 60605
     Telephone: (773) 831-8000
     E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
             whb@beaumontcostales.com


WILD ATTIRE INC: Reid Sues over Civil Rights Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Wild Attire, Inc.
for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (ADA). The case is captioned Reid v. Wild Attire, Inc., Case
No. 1:19-cv-05568-AT (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2019). Filed by Valentin
Reid, this civil rights-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge
Analisa Torres.

Based in Garden Grove, California, Wild Attire, Inc. manufactures
brand-focused men's and women's fashion accessories such as
neckwear and scarves. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

WORLF RETAIL: Bradley Seeks Overtime Premium Pay
------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Wolf Retail
Solutions I, Inc., Wolf Retail Solutions, LLC, and Thomas Robinson
for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The case is captioned MICHELLE BRADLEY,
on behalf of herself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated,
known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. WOLF RETAIL SOLUTIONS I, INC., A
FLORIDA CORPORATION, WOLF RETAIL SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., A FLORIDA
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND THOMAS ROBINSON, INDIVIDUALLY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04301 (N.D. Ill., June 26, 2019).

Plaintiff Michelle Bradley, and the members of the Plaintiff Class,
on a regular basis worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek
without pay at a rate of time and one-half for all such hours
pursuant to the requirements of the federal and state statutes. On
a weekly basis during their employment with Defendants, Plaintiff
and members of the Plaintiff class worked before and after their
regularly scheduled shift hours, performing various duties as
required by Defendants. These duties are performed by Plaintiff and
members of the Plaintiff Class off the clock to the benefit of the
employer without pay. Accordingly, Bradley seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, its prejudgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and court cost incurred.

Wolf Retail Solutions I, Inc. provides retail store construction
and set-up services to new store locations being opened by
corporate customers across the nation. The company maintains its
corporate headquarters at 4012 Gunn Highway, Suite 200, Tampa,
Florida. WOLF RETAIL SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., is a related or affiliated
corporate entity of WOLF RETAIL SOLUTIONS I, INC. and, among
potentially other business interests, provides the same or similar
retail store construction and set-up services to new store
locations being opened by corporate customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WWRD US LLC: Reid Sues over ADA Violations
------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against WWRD US, LLC for
alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
The case is captioned Reid v. WWRD US, LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-05573-DAB (S.D.N.Y., June 14, 2019). This civil
rights-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Deborah A. Batts.

Based in New Jersey, WWRD US, LLC is a wholesale distributor of
table wares and collectibles under the Waterford, Wedgwood and
Royal Doulton brand names. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZAYO GROUP: Dixon Sues over Misleading Proxy Statement
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Zayo Group
Holdings, Inc. and the members of the company's Board of Directors
for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with a proposed transaction announced on May 8, 2019,
pursuant to which Zayo will be acquired by affiliates of Digital
Colony Partners and the EQT Infrastructure IV Fund. The case is
captioned JON E. DIXON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.ZAYO GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., DAN
CARUSO, RICK CONNOR, SCOTT DRAKE, DONALD GIPS, STEVEN KAPLAN, CATHY
MORRIS, LINDA ROTTENBERG, YANCEY SPRUILL, and EMILY WHITE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01123-UNA (D. Del., June 18, 2019).

On June 3, 2019, Defendants caused the filing of a proxy statement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the proposed transaction. However, in soliciting
shareholder approval for the proposed transaction, Defendants
caused the issuance of the proxy statement, which purports to
contain an overview of the proposed transaction, but omits certain
critical information, rendering portions of the Proxy materially
incomplete and/or misleading, in violation of the Securities Act
provisions.

Zayo is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Boulder,
Colorado, and provides bandwidth infrastructure to customers in the
United States, Canada, and Europe. Zayo common stock is listed on
the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "ZAYO." Dan Caruso is
the Co-Founder, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Zayo
Board. [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
     Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
            gms@rl-legal.com

            - and –

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


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 114 Suits v Sempra Energy Units Pending at May 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy's units have 114 asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits pending as of May 2, 2019, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on May
7, 2019, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Certain EFH subsidiaries that we acquired as
part of the Merger are defendants in personal injury lawsuits
brought in state courts throughout the U.S. As of May 2, 2019, 114
such lawsuits are pending and 1,685 such lawsuits have been filed
but not served.  These cases allege illness or death as a result of
exposure to asbestos in power plants designed and/or built by
companies whose assets were purchased by predecessor entities to
the EFH subsidiaries, and generally assert claims for product
defects, negligence, strict liability and wrongful death.  They
seek compensatory and punitive damages.  Additionally, in
connection with the EFH bankruptcy proceeding, approximately 28,000
proofs of claim were filed on behalf of persons who allege exposure
to asbestos under similar circumstances and assert the right to
file such lawsuits in the future.  We anticipate additional
lawsuits will be filed.  None of these claims or lawsuits were
discharged in the EFH bankruptcy proceeding."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/4BvDtn


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Accrues $314MM for PI Matters at March 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC ("BNSF") has accrued US$314
million at March 31, 2019, for asbestos-related personal injury
matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

In the three months ended March 31, 2019, the Company has also made
payments of US$16 million for asbestos-related personal injury
matters.

BNSF states, "The Company is also party to asbestos claims by
employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos.
Based on BNSF's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and
related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted
asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050.
The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing period
through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed
population.

"BNSF assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an
annual basis during the third quarter.  BNSF determines its
asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the number
of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely
require payment and the estimated cost per claim.  Estimated filing
and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are determined
utilizing recent claim data and trends.

"At March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, US$85 million and US$80
million was included in current liabilities, respectively.  Defense
and processing costs, which are recorded on an as-reported basis,
were not included in the recorded liability.  The Company is
primarily self-insured for personal injury claims.

"Because of the uncertainty surrounding the ultimate outcome of
personal injury claims, it is reasonably possible that future costs
to settle personal injury claims may range from approximately
US$275 million to US$380 million.  However, BNSF believes that the
US$314 million recorded at March 31, 2019 is the best estimate of
the Company's future obligation for the settlement of personal
injury claims.
   
"The amounts recorded by BNSF for personal injury liabilities were
based upon currently known facts.  Future events, such as the
number of new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of
disposing of claims, as well as the numerous uncertainties
surrounding personal injury litigation in the United States, could
cause the actual costs to be higher or lower than projected.

"Although the final outcome of personal injury matters cannot be
predicted with certainty, considering among other things the
meritorious legal defenses available and liabilities that have been
recorded, it is the opinion of BNSF that none of these items, when
finally resolved, will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position or liquidity.  However, the occurrence
of a number of these items in the same period could have a material
adverse effect on the results of operations in a particular quarter
or fiscal year."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/HXJkqJ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Defends Mesothelioma Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dixie Group, Inc. continues to face lawsuits related to
asbestos matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 30, 2019.

The Company states, "We are one of multiple parties to three
lawsuits filed in Madison County Illinois:

   * styled Brenda Bridgeman, Individually and as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Robert Bridgeman, Deceased, vs.
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co., et al No. 15-L-374;

   * styled Charles Anderson, Pltf., vs. 3M Company, et al, No.
17-L-525; and

   * styled Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump
Company, et al. No. 18-L-2.

"All three lawsuits entail a claim for damages to be determined in
excess of US$50,000 filed on behalf of either a former employee or
the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased
contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while
employed by us.  Discovery in each matter is ongoing, and a
tentative trial date has been set for one of the cases. We have
denied liability, are defending the matters vigorously and are
unable to estimate our potential exposure to loss, if any, at this
time.

"In August of 2017, the lawsuit styled Sandra D. Watts,
Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dianne
Averett, Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F. Shaw
Company, et al No. 12-L-2032 was placed in the category of "special
closed with settlements and bankruptcy claims pending" to all
remaining defendants.

"In March 2018, the lawsuit styled Charles Anderson, Individually
and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Charles Anderson,
Deceased vs. 3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 was dismissed without
prejudice.

In October 2018, the lawsuit styled Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins,
Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump Company, et al. No. 18-L-2 was dismissed
without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/3ZNVYh


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GTX Has $1.2MM for Honeywell Liability at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc. (NYSE: GTX) has recorded US$1,196 million in
Obligations payable to Honeywell related to asbestos matters as of
March 31, 2019, the Company disclosed in its press release dated
May 7, 2019.

As previously reported, Garrett Motion Inc. became an independent
publicly-traded company on October 1, 2018 through a pro rata
distribution by Honeywell International Inc. of 100% of the
then-outstanding shares of Garrett to Honeywell's stockholders (the
"Spin-Off").

Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related personal injury
actions mainly related to its legacy Bendix Friction Materials
("Bendix") business.  The Bendix business, manufactured automotive
brake parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated
form.  Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure
to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the
vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.  In
conjunction with Garrett's separation from Honeywell, certain
operations that were part of the Bendix business, along with the
ownership of the Bendix trademark, was transferred to Garrett.  

The Company states, "In accordance with the terms of our
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement with Honeywell, our
Consolidated and Combined Balance Sheets reflect a liability of
US$1,196 million in Obligations payable to Honeywell as of March
31, 2019, (the "Indemnification Liability").  The amount of the
Indemnification Liability is based on information provided to us by
Honeywell with respect to Honeywell's assessment of its own
asbestos-related liability payments and accounts payable as of such
date and is calculated in accordance with the terms of the
Indemnification and Reimbursement Agreement.  Honeywell estimates
its future liability for asbestos-related claims based on a number
of factors."

A full-text copy of the Press Release of Garrett Motion Inc., dated
May 7, 2019, is available at https://is.gd/qvzE8h


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 24,000 Claims Pending at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Inc.'s subsidiaries had 24,000 pending asbestos-related claims
at March 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and
Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies
in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to
asbestos exposure.  These claims generally allege that certain
products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part
manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained
asbestos.  To the extent these third-party parts may have contained
asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and
was non-friable.  As of March 31, 2019, there were approximately 24
thousand pending claims against ITT subsidiaries, including Goulds
Pumps LLC, filed in various state and federal courts alleging
injury as a result of exposure to asbestos.

"Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or
Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure.  Our
experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are
dismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries.  Management
believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or
no value.  In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in
large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate
significantly from period to period.  ITT expects more
asbestos-related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will
continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as
appropriate.

"Asbestos litigation is a unique form of litigation.  Frequently,
the plaintiff sues a large number of defendants and does not state
a specific claim amount.  After filing a complaint, the plaintiff
engages defendants in settlement negotiations to establish a
settlement value based on certain criteria, including the number of
defendants in the case.  Rarely do the plaintiffs seek to collect
all damages from one defendant.  Rather, they seek to spread the
liability, and thus the payments, among many defendants.  As a
result of this and other factors, the Company is unable to estimate
the maximum potential exposure to pending claims and claims
estimated to be filed over the next 10 years."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/ZKEdJL


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,700 PI Cases at March 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt plc is still defending itself against approximately
11,700 pending asbestos-related cases as of March 29, 2019,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 29, 2019.

The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976,
the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits
based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials.  A
majority of the cases involve product liability claims based
principally on allegations of past distribution of products
containing asbestos.  A limited number of the cases allege premises
liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos
while on the Company's property.  Each case typically names dozens
of corporate defendants in addition to the Company.  The complaints
generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily
injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing
asbestos.  The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been
limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos.  Furthermore,
in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims
have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the
courts.  The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial
court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue
to defend these lawsuits.  When appropriate, the Company settles
claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos
claims have been immaterial.  As of March 29, 2019, there were
approximately 11,700 asbestos-related cases pending against the
Company.

"The Company estimates pending asbestos claims, claims that were
incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which
are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheets.  The Company's estimate of its
liability for pending and future claims is based on claims
experience over the past five years and covers claims either
currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years.
The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related
to these matters.  While it is not possible at this time to
determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these
asbestos-related proceedings, the Company believes, given the
information currently available, that the ultimate resolution of
all known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account
amounts already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will
not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Fetr9m


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l. Still Faces PL Suits at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manitex International, Inc. is still a defendant in several
multi-defendant asbestos-related product liability lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "In certain instances, the Company is
indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question.  In
the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to
establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products.
The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes
that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these
claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/UNsXiN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 87 Cases at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. remains a co-defendant in approximately 87
cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 190 plaintiffs
alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2019.

The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to
production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some
cases, punitive damages.

"In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the
complaints are filed against multiple named defendants.  In
substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either
claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum
amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which
the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from
US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages
sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of damages is
sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants.

"There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that
plead specified damages against named defendants.  In each of the
three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive
damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of
action.  In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at
US$3.0 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at
US$3.0 million compensatory and US$1.0 million punitive damages;
one count at US$1.0 million.  In the third case, the plaintiff has
alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of
US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0
million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action.

"Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the
basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries
or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing
product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries.  We intend
to vigorously defend these asbestos cases, and believe we will
continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases.
However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation.  Despite this
uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period could be adversely affected by
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition,
liquidity or results of operations.  Among the factors management
considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical
success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the
bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against
one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been
unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products
or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or
compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have
incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and
(e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and,
in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual
defendants.  Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts
claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of
our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear
no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any.

"Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date
and, based upon available information, our management does not
expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or
financial position."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/qzNBNw


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Firefighter Sues 3M Over Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Battalion Chief (Ret.) ROBERT CUNNINGHAM, and
his wife, BERNADETTE CUNNINGHAM, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY; GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; MINE SAFETY
APPLIANCES COMPANY; SCOTT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
N19C-06-110 ASB, filed with the Superior Court of the State of
Delaware, Robert Cunningham alleges that he suffers from an
asbestos-related diseases, including but not limited to, malignant
pleural mesothelioma, as a result of his exposure to
asbestos-containing materials found in defendants' products.  Mr.
Cunningham was a firefighter for the City of Wilmington in Delaware
from 1965 to approximately 1990.  He first became aware that he
suffered from the diseases in approximately November 2018.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Thomas C. Crumplar, Esq.
     JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A.
     750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 200
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 656-5445

        - and -

     Donald P. Blydenburgh, Esq.
     Patrick I. Andrews, Esq.
     LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
     800 Third Avenue, 11th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 605-6200
     Fax: (212) 605-6290


ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had $574MM Asbestos Liability at March 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation recorded US$574.0 million for asbestos product
liability matters at March 30, 2019, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Numerous claims, complaints and proceedings
arising in the ordinary course of business have been asserted or
are pending against us or certain of our subsidiaries
(collectively, "claims").  These claims relate to litigation
matters (e.g., class actions and contracts, intellectual property,
and competitive claims), environmental matters, product liability
matters (predominately associated with alleged exposure to
asbestos-containing materials), and other risk management matters
(e.g., general liability, automobile, and workers' compensation
claims).  Additionally, we may become subject to other claims of
which we are currently unaware, which may be significant, or the
claims of which we are aware may result in our incurring
significantly greater loss than we anticipate.  While we (and our
subsidiaries) maintain property, cargo, auto, product, general
liability, environmental, and directors' and officers' liability
insurance and have acquired rights under similar policies in
connection with acquisitions that we believe cover a significant
portion of these claims, this insurance may be insufficient or
unavailable (e.g., in the case of insurer insolvency) to protect us
against potential loss exposures.  Also, while we believe we are
entitled to indemnification from third parties for some of these
claims, these rights may be insufficient or unavailable to protect
us against potential loss exposures.

"Our recorded liabilities related to these matters totaled US$619.9
million (including US$574.0 million for asbestos product liability
matters) and US$631.7 million (including US$587.5 million for
asbestos product liability matters) at March 30, 2019 and December
31, 2018, respectively.  Of these amounts, US$591.4 million and
US$600.3 million are included in "Other long-term liabilities"
within our condensed consolidated balance sheets at March 30, 2019
and December 31, 2018, respectively, with the remainder included in
"Accrued expenses." The liabilities we record for these claims are
based on a number of assumptions, including historical claims and
payment experience and, with respect to asbestos claims, actuarial
estimates of the future period during which additional claims are
reasonably foreseeable.  While we base our assumptions on facts
currently known to us, they entail inherently subjective judgments
and uncertainties.  As a result, our current assumptions for
estimating these liabilities may not prove accurate, and we may be
required to adjust these liabilities in the future, which could
result in charges to earnings.  These variances relative to current
expectations could have a material impact on our financial position
and results of operations.

"We have recorded insurance recovery assets associated with the
asbestos product liability matters, with such amounts totaling
US$530.7 million and US$541.9 million at March 30, 2019 and
December 31, 2018, respectively, and included in "Other assets"
within our condensed consolidated balance sheets.  These assets
represent amounts that we believe we are or will be entitled to
recover under agreements we have with insurance companies.  The
assets we record for these insurance recoveries are based on a
number of assumptions, including the continued solvency of the
insurers, and are subject to a variety of uncertainties.  Our
current assumptions for estimating these assets may not prove
accurate, and we may be required to adjust these assets in the
future, which could result in additional charges to earnings.
These variances relative to current expectations could have a
material impact on our financial position and results of
operations."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/d9QvxH


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widower Sues J&J Over Wife's Ovarian Cancer Death
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROBERT A. SUGARMAN, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of MARILYN WENDY SESKIN
Plaintiffs, V. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER
INC., f/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., and PUBLIX
SUPERMARKETS, INC. Defendants, filed in the Circuit Court of the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida,
Plaintiff Robert A. "Bob" Sugarman, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Dr. Marilyn Wendy Seksin, filed the
Complaint under the Florida Wrongful Death Act, FLA. STAT. A NN.
Sections 768.21 et seq., against Johnson & Johnson, Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Inc., f/k/a Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies,
Inc., and Publix Supermarkets, Inc., alleges that his spouse,
decedent Dr. Marilyn Wendy Seskin was diagnosed with, suffered, and
died from ovarian cancer caused as a result of her usage of
Johnson's Baby Powder, which contains talcum powder.  According to
the complaint, from infancy until her diagnosis in May 2016, Dr.
Marilyn Seskin used Baby Powder.

Plaintiff's attorneys:

     Lance V. Oliver, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     28 Bridgeside Boulevard
     Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
     Tel: (843) 216-9000
     Email: loliver@motleyrice.com

        - and -

     Alex Alvarez, Esq.
     Phillip E. Holden, Esq.
     THE ALVAREZ LAW FIRM
     355 Palermo Avenue
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Telephone: (305) 444-7675
     Facsimile: (305) 444-0075
     Email: Alex@talf.law
            Phillip@talf.law


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yedor Couple Sues Companies Over Lung Cancer
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Yedor and his wife, Nicky Yedor, filed a lawsuit with the
Superior Court of the State of Delaware alleging that, as a result
of the wrongful conduct of American Biltrite Co. and several other
companies, Plaintiff David Yedor developed lung cancer and other
asbestos-related injuries and diseases.

The case is DAVID C. YEDOR, AND NICKY L. YEDOR, PLAINTIFFS, v.
AMERICAN BILTRITE CO.; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; CRANE CO.,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO WEINMAN PUMP
MANUFACTURING COMPANY; DAP, INC.; FMC CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF ITS
FORMER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT GROUP; GOULDS PUMPS, INC.; GRINNELL
CORPORATION, SUED INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO
GRINNELL FIRE PROTECTION; INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY; ITT, LLC; KARNAK
CORPORATION; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; SOCO-WEST, INC.;
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION;
DEFENDANTS, Case No. N19C-06-103 ASB.

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

     R. Joseph Hrubiec, Esq.
     NAPOLI SHKOLNIK LLC
     919 North Market Street, Suite 1801
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 330-8025
     Email: RHrubiec@NapoliLaw.com



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***