CAR_Public/190708.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 8, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 135

                            Headlines

12291 CBW: Rogers Seeks Minimum wage & Overtime for Dancers
A. O. SMITH: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 29 Plaintiff Deadline
AAF PLAYERS: Schmidt Suit Moved to Northern District of California
AEROPORT DE MONTREAL: Noise Pollution Class Action Can Proceed
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Faces Durgin Suit in W.D. Louisiana

AMAZON.COM: Ortiz Seeks to Certify Class of Shift Managers
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Verduzco Appeals Decision in Antitrust Suit
AMERICORE HEALTH: Jackson-Bolinger Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky
AMN SERVICES: Removes Woehrle Suit to Central Dist. of California
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Rigrodsky & Long Announces Class Suit

AO SMITH: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Wisconsin
ASCENA RETAIL: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline
AUDI: Faces Class Action Over Defective DSG Transmissions
AVA INC: Brammer Sues over Improper Biometric Data Storage
BAMBOO HR: Faces Aman et al. Suit in N.D. California

BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Perry Suit
BIG PICTURE LOANS: Williams et al. Case Moved to E.D. Virginia
BIG TOP: Pizano Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Employees
BIRD ELECTRIC: Certification of Electricians Class Sought
BLACK RIDGE: Rosenblatt Says Merger Documents Misleading

BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Action Over Severance Pay Can Proceed
BONNIER CORPORATION: Court Certifies Settlement Class
BP: Tampa Bay Buccaneers Won't Receive Oil Spill Settlement Money
BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Jury Awards $68MM to Inmates in Class Action
C&S MEDICAL: Shealy Seeks Overtime Wages for Sales Reps

CAL. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES: $1.2B Lawsuit Over LT Care Gets Go Ahead
CAPITAL ONE: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in McFarland Suit
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Roy Jacobs First to File Class Action Suit
CHASE RECEIVABLES: Secures Summary Dismissal of Class Action
CITIZENS DISABILITY: Despres Sues over Unsolicited Calls

CLOUDERA INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline
CLOUDERA, INC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline
COLORADO STATE: Agrees to Pay Overtime Wages to Employees
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 29 Plaintiff Deadline
COMMUNITY PROBATION: Appeals Ruling in McNeil Suit to 6th Cir.

CORRECT CARE: Removes Aguirre et al. Suit to W.D. Missouri
CREDIT CONTROL: Aronne Certifies Settlement Class
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Settlement Sought in Sexual Harassment Case
DIESEL ONE: Kern Seeks Meal and Rest Period Premiums, OT Pay
EL AL: Ultra-Orthodox Shabbat Passengers File Class Action

EQT CORP.: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit
EQUITY BANCSHARES: Bronstein Notes of July 12 Plaintiff Deadline
EROS INT'L: Bragar Eagel Notes of Aug. 20 Plaintiff Deadline
ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Removes Parsons Suit to E.D. California
FAF, INC: Campbell Suit Transferred to Eastern Dist. of Tennessee

FAIRLIFE, LLC: Maltreated Dairy Cow, Sabeehullah Claims
FCI LENDER: Court Denies Class Certification in Tabick Suit
FEDERAL AVIATION: Johnson Suit Transferred to District of Columbia
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Hurlburt Sues over Debt Collection Practices
FIRST AMERICAN: Gibbs Law Group Files Data Breach Class Action

FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Solitary Confinement Overuse
FORD MOTOR: Persad et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
FORD MOTOR: Sued over Inaccurate Testing of Fuel Economy Ratings
FORMOSA PLASTICS: Do et al. Sue over Toxic Waste Discharge
FRESNO BEVERAGE: Intrastate Drivers Exempt from FAA, Court Rules

GALILEE MEMORIAL: Fails to Implement Promises Under Class Action
GC SERVICES: Court Denies Class Certification in Jaber Suit
GEICO GENERAL: 11th Cir. Tosses PIP Policy Cass Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Reaves Suit over Defective 2.4L Engine
GENERAL REVENUE: Thompson Moves to Certify two FDCPA Classes

GHANA: Quarry Site Explosion Victims File Class Action
GLADSTONE PORTS: Faces Class Action Over Expansion Project
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Faces Collins' Labor Suit in Ohio
GOOGLE INC: Hit With Class Action Over Patient Data Sharing
HARTFORD LIFE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Gorin Class Suit

HEALTH NET: Ninth Cir. Appeal Initiated in Barkan Insurance Suit
HECLA MINING: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of July 23 Deadline
HERON THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Notes of Aug. 5 Plaintiff Deadline
HOME DEPOT: Robinson & Cole Attorneys Discusses Court Ruling
ICBC: Court of Appeal Okays Privacy Violation Class Action

IZEA INC: Sept. 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
J G MOUSSE INC: Valdez-Padilla, Zamora Seek to Recover Unpaid Wage
JANSSEN BIOTECH: Louisiana Health Transferred to D. New Jersey
JOB OPTIONS: Rhodan Suit Moved to Southern District of California
JOSHUA COLLINS: Schlesinger Sues over Unauthorized Calls

KOTTEMANN LAW: Faces Banks Suit over Debt Collection Practices
LAND HOME FINANCIAL: Faces Clayton Suit in Sacramento
LIVENT CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of July 22 Deadline
LOTO-QUEBEC: Appeal Court Refuses to Authorize Class Action
LOWBRAU BIER: Faces Valencia Labor Suit in Sacramento California

LYFT, INC: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of July 16 Plaintiff Deadline
MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Class
MASTERS PHARMACEUTICAL: Grand Family Seeks to Certify Class
MDL 2741: Jimenez et al. Sue over Dangers of Roundup Herbicide
MDL 2741: Rodriguez v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MINNESOTA: Settlement Jurisdiction in METO Suit Extended to 2020
MISSION ROAD: Collins Seeks OT Pay for Service Specialists
MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Stewart Sues over Autodialed Calls
MONSANTO COMPANY: Blands Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Cohen Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Daigle Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Garred Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Isom Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Kendrick Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Lee Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Loper Blames Roundup Products for Cancer
MONSANTO COMPANY: Pye Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Robbins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Roundup Products Cause Cancer, Colvin Alleges
MONSANTO COMPANY: Tory Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MOVING SOLUTIONS: Rider Seeks Initial Nod of $470K Settlement
MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Littler Mendelson Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Notes of July 8 Plaintiff Deadline
NATIONAL EDUCATION: Wilford Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
NEW ORLEANS, LA: S&WB Employees Sign Onto Federal Class Suit

O.C. COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement in Soto Suit Has Prelim Approval
PILOT CORPORATION: Shumard Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Bragar Eagel Notes of Aug. 19 Plaintiff Deadline
PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 19 Deadline
POSTURE WORKS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

PRICESMART, INC: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 22 Plaintiff Deadline
PYXUS INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline
RA MEDICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline
RAYTHEON: Cruz Sues over Non-Payment of Retiree Benefits
RED ROBIN: Geraci Suit Transferred to District of Colorado

REWALK ROBOTICS: Yan Appeals Mass. Dist. Ct. Ruling to 1st Cir.
SENTRY WEST: Colleton Seeks Overtime Pay for Salespersons
SOOK CORPORATION: Cruz Santiago Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
STATE FARM: MSP Recovery Seeks to Certify Class
STELLAR IP: Fischler Sues over Web Accessibility for Blind Persons

STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Settlement
SUTTER HEALTH: Shares Medical Data to 3rd Parties, Suit Says
TARGET: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Health Care Coverage Info
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bragar Notes of Aug. 23 Plaintiff Deadline
U.S. BANK: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought

UNITED STATES: Homeland Security Sued in Texas Southern District
UNIV. OF CHICAGO: Medical Center Hit With Class Suit Over Data
US ENRICHMENT: Sued Over Piketon School Radioactive Contamination
VERIZON WIRELESS: Langere Appeals C.D. Cal. Decision to 9th Cir.
VITALITE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Restigouche Negligence

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Quebec Court Authorizes Securities Class Action
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Woodall, et al. Seek to Certify 4 Classes
WEST SAINT JOHN: Class Action Over Water System Can Proceed
WESTAMERICA BANK: Cook Sues over Robocalls
WRIGHT OF PENNSYLVANIA: Shook Seeks OT Pay for Traffic Technicians

ZUMIEZ INC: Chu Says Website Not Accessible for Disabled People
[*] India Notifies Thresholds for Filing Class Action Suits
[*] Ontario Law Aims to Help Province in Opioid Class Action
[*] Plaintiffs Attorneys Diverge on Sexual Abuse Procedure Option
[*] SCOTUS Limits on Class Actions Favorable for Businesses


                            *********

12291 CBW: Rogers Seeks Minimum wage & Overtime for Dancers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Rogers, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. 12291 CBW, LLC d/b/a Temptations
Cabaret and Eric Langan, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00266-MJT
(E.D. Tex., June 18, 2019), seeks to redress Defendants'
long-standing abuse of the federal minimum wage and overtime
standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants
allegedly do not pay its employees anything.

The Plaintiff is a nonexempt former employee who worked at
Temptations Cabaret. During her tenure as a dancer at Defendants'
adult entertainment club, she did not receive the FLSA mandated
minimum wage for all hours worked nor did she receive time and a
half her regular rate for each hour worked over each week. In fact,
Defendants refused to compensate her whatsoever for any hours
worked. The Plaintiff's only compensation came in the form of tips
from club patrons. Moreover, Plaintiff was required to divide her
tips with Defendants and other employees who do not customarily
receive tips. Therefore, Defendants have failed to compensate
Plaintiff at the federal mandated minimum wage and overtime rate,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff & Putative Collective Action Members:

          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          BARON BUDD
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
          E-mail: marbuckl@baronbudd.com

A. O. SMITH: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 29 Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of
PriceSmart, Inc., Hecla Mining Company, A.O. Smith Corporation, and
Community Health Systems, Inc. Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.

PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSMT)

Class Period: October 26, 2017 - October 25, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 22, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
the company's omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach
key operating goals; (2) the company's South America distribution
strategy had failed to realize key cost saving goals; (3) the
company had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates
of deposits with financial institutions; (4) these investments had
been improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (5) the
relevant corrections would materially impact financial statements;
(6) there was a material weakness in the company's internal
controls over financial reporting; (7) increasing competition
negatively impacted the company's revenue and profitability; and
(8) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about the company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the PriceSmart class action go to:
http://bespc.com/pricesmart

Hecla Mining Company (NYSE: HL)

Class Period: March 19, 2018 - May 8, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 23, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
falsely and misleadingly represented that the Nevada operations
would be "accretive" and cash flow positive, or at the very least
"self-funding."  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants were aware from their extensive due diligence that the
Nevada operations had material problems in terms of excessive
water, equipment availability, achieving enough development to have
consistent production, and lack of characterization of ore types,
among other things.

To learn more about the Hecla class action go to:
http://bespc.com/hl/

A. O. Smith Corporation (NYSE: AOS)

Class Period: July 26, 2016 - May 16, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
failed to disclose that the company had used a distribution
partner, Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain, to artificially inflate the
company's sales and gross margins in the important Chinese market.

To learn more about the A. O. Smith class action go to:
http://bespc.com/aos/

Community Health Systems, Inc. (NYSE: CYH)

Class Period: February 20, 2017 - February 27, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
the company had understated its contractual allowances; (2) the
company had understated its provision for bad debts; (3) as a
result, the company had overstated its net operating revenue; (4)
as a result, the company had understated its net loss; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants positive statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Community Health class action go to:
http://bespc.com/cyh/

Contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Phone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com
[GN]



AAF PLAYERS: Schmidt Suit Moved to Northern District of California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Colton Schmidt and Reggie Northrup, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintifffs, vs. AAF
Players LLC doing business as: Alliance of American Football, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Thomas Dundon, an
individual; Charles Ebersol, an individual; Legendary Field
Exhibitions LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; AAF
Properties LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Ebersol
Sports Media Group Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the Defendants,
Case No. CGC-19-575169 (Filed June 24, 2019), was removed from the
San Francisco County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on June 24,
2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:19-cv-03666 to the proceeding.

The Alliance of American Football was a professional American
football league, founded by Charlie Ebersol and Bill Polian. The
AAF consisted of eight centrally owned and operated teams, all in
the southern and western United States.[BB]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for Thomas Dundon are:

          Jason I Bluver, Esq.
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 1040
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (847) 571-6093
          E-mail: jib@paynefears.com

AEROPORT DE MONTREAL: Noise Pollution Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Leclair, writing for Global News, reports that a Quebec
Superior Court judge gave the green light to a class action lawsuit
against Aeroport de Montreal, NAV Canada and Transport Canada in
April 2018, seeking financial settlement due to damages caused by
aircraft noise pollution, or for the noise to simply stop
altogether.

The lawsuit covers those living under the eastern part of the
flight path, but now, residents in the West Island of Montreal want
to join the legal fight.

"People from Dorval, Pointe-Claire and Lachine raised their hand
and said, 'Hey we want to be part of the group'," said Pierre
Lachapelle, plaintiff and president of Les Pollues de
Montreal-Trudeau, the group spearheading the legal fight.

The current lawsuit only covers residents living St-Laurent,
Ahunstic-Cartierville, Villeray-St-Michel-Parc Extension and the
Town of Mont-Royal, because those areas were equipped with
measuring stations to monitor noise pollution. Lawyers went back to
court with new evidence on May 14 in a effort to widen the scope of
compensation to include people living in Montreal's west island.

"We have been able to install two measuring stations, one in Dorval
one in Pointe-Claire," said Lachapelle.

The new data collected in the West Island reveals what many have
long suspected: noise pollution is worse in communities closest to
the airport.

"It goes up to 94 decibels," said Dorval resident Mario Carangi.
"When it's like this, it's difficult."

Carangi lives directly under Trudeau airport's flight path. He
moved into his Dorval home three years ago and despite installing
new soundproof windows, he insists he can't get a good night sleep.
He hopes the judge will agree to include those hit hardest.

"I really don't believe people here know about it, or they just
assumed that the lawsuit included Dorval," Carangi told Global
News.

According to Les Pollues de Montreal-Trudeau, up to 300,000
Montrealers living along the flight path are subjected to aircraft
noise pollution. With a $4.5 billion dollar investment underway to
expand Trudeau airport, many worry it will only get worse.

"They're building ten to fifteen more terminals there so it would
be really nice if they could get that curfew going," said Carangi.

While compensation would be nice, what most residents want is for
airport authorities to stop making exceptions to the rules and
strictly enforce the take off and landing curfew from midnight to 7
a.m.

"Other cities in the world have curfew for example Frankfurt
airport -- that's a major city" Lachapelle said. "Montreal should
do the same." [GN]


ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Faces Durgin Suit in W.D. Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Property &
Casualty Insurance Co. The case is captioned as GLENN DURGIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant,
Case No. 6:19-cv-00721-RRS-CBW (W.D. La., June 7, 2019). The case
is assigned to Judge Robert R Summerhays and referred to Magistrate
Judge Carol B Whitehurst.

Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance operates as an insurance
service provider. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth D St Pe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH D ST PE
          311 W University Ave Ste A
          Lafayette, LA 70506
          Telephone: (337) 534-4043
          Facsimile: (337) 534-8379
          E-mail: kds@stpelaw.com

               - and -

          Arthur Mahony Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras St Ste 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8100
          Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
          E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Benjamin H Dampf, Esq.
          John R Whaley, Esq.
          WHALEY LAW FIRM
          6700 Jefferson Hwy Bldg 12 Ste A
          Baton Rouge, LA 70806
          Telephone: (225) 302-8810
          Facsimile: (225) 302-8814
          E-mail: ben@whaleylaw.com
                  jrwhaley@whaleylaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth W DeJean, Esq.
          Law Offices of Kenneth W DeJean
          P O Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235-5294
          Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com

               - and -

          Stephen B Murray, Esq.
          Stephen B Murray , Jr.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras St Ste 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8100
          Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
          E-mail: smurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                  smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com


AMAZON.COM: Ortiz Seeks to Certify Class of Shift Managers
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit MICHAEL ORTIZ, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
AMAZON.COM LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and GOLDEN
STATE FC LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-03820-JSW (N.D. Cal.), Michael Ortiz  will move
the Court for an Order certifying the case as a class action under
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 23(b)(3):

   "all persons employed as Level 4 Shift Managers in any of
   Defendants’ Delivery Centers, in California at any time
between
   June 2, 2013 and the present."

According to the complaint, since Plaintiff and the Level 4 Shift
Managers he seeks to represent in this collective action have been
categorically treated as exempt, they have been uniformly denied
payment, including overtime, for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
a week -- a routine occurrence in light of the demands that
Defendants put upon its Level 4 Shift Managers.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class are:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Laura Grace Van Note, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          Web: www.scalaw.com
          555 12th Street, Suite 1725
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
                  lvannote@scalaw.com

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Verduzco Appeals Decision in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Cherokii Verduzco, and Interested Parties Theodore H.
Frank and M. Frank Bednarz filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the matter entitled In re: Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:15-mc-01404-CKK, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendants
American Airlines, Inc. (American), Delta Air Lines, Inc. (Delta),
Southwest Airlines Co. (Southwest), and United Airlines, Inc.
(United), are the 4 largest commercial air passenger carriers in
the United States.  In addition to the four named defendants,
plaintiffs allege that U.S. Airways prior to its merger with
American, Air Canada, and the International Air Transport
Association (IATA) willingly conspired with the Defendants to
unlawfully restrain trade.

The Plaintiffs are purchasers of air passenger transportation for
domestic travel directly from defendants or their predecessors
and/or through websites including Travelocity.com, Orbitz.com,
Priceline.com, Expedia.com, and Flyfar.ca.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants colluded to limit capacity on their respective
airlines in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize
prices for air passenger transportation services within the United
States, its territories, and the District of Columbia in violation
of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C.
Sections 1, 3), and that plaintiffs suffered pecuniary injury by
paying artificially inflated ticket prices as a result of this
purported antitrust violation. Plaintiffs allege that the
conspiracy commenced in the first quarter of 2009 and continues
until the present, and seek to recover treble damages for the
period of July 1, 2011, to the present.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Domestic Airline Travel
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 19-7058, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Cherokii Verduzco, and Plaintiffs-Appellees
Boston Amateur Basketball Club, III, Ltd., Katherine Rose Warnock,
Kumar Patel, Samantha White, Howard Sloan Koller Group, Breanna
Jackson, Stephanie Jung, Elizabeth A. Cumming and Steven Yeninas,
Class Representatives on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          E-mail: azapala@cpmlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee American Airlines, Inc., is represented by:

          Sloane Ackerman, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Times Square Tower
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2000
          E-mail: sackerman@omm.com

               - and -

          Katrina Robson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          1625 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-4001
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          E-mail: krobson@omm.com

               - and -

          Paul Thomas Denis, Esq.
          DECHERT, LLP
          1900 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1110
          Telephone: (202) 261-3300
          E-mail: paul.denis@dechert.com

               - and -

          Richard G. Parker, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-5306
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500
          E-mail: rparker@gibsondunn.com

Defendant-Appellee Southwest Airlines Co. is represented by:

          Alden Lewis Atkins, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 500W
          Washington, DC 20037-1701
          Telephone: (202) 639-6500
          E-mail: aatkins@velaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Goldberg, Esq.
          FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD P.A.
          PO Box 25326
          Albuquerque, NM 87125
          Telephone: (505) 842-9960
          E-mail: jg@fbdlaw.com

               - and -

          Roberta Liebenberg, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK R.P.C.
          1845 Walnut Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com

Interested Parties-Appellants Theodore H. Frank and M. Frank
Bednarz are represented by:

          Theodore H. Frank, Esq.
          HAMILTON LINCOLN LAW INSTITUTE
          1629 K Street, NW, Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (703) 203-3848
          E-mail: ted.frank@hlli.org


AMERICORE HEALTH: Jackson-Bolinger Suit Moved to E.D. Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned, 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
(Filed June 20, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky (London) on June 24, 2019. The
Eastern District of Kentucky Court Clerk assinged Case No.
6:19-cv-00152-REW to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Robert E. Wier.

The case is a class action brought pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23 by
participants in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act 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.

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.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Ronald E. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah Nicole Emery, Esq.
          SCHACHTER, HENDY & JOHNSON PSC
          909 Wright's Summit Parkway, Suite 210
          Ft. Wright, KY 41011
          Telephone: (859) 587-4444
          Facsimile: (859) 578-4440
          E-mail: rjohnson@justicestartshere.com
                  semery@justicestartshere.com

AMN SERVICES: Removes Woehrle Suit to Central Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMN Services, LLC removes the case, SARA WOEHRLE, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMN
SERVICES, LLC a California Limited Liability Company; PROVIDENCE
HEALTH SYSTEM-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; an
individual, and DOES 1-20 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
19STCV15213 (Filed May 2, 2019), from the Los Angeles Superior
Court, to the U.S. District court for the Central District of
California on June 17, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-05282 to the proceeding.

On May 2, 2019, Plaintiff Sara Woehrle commenced an action against
Providence  in Los Angeles Superior Court asserting, on behalf of
herself and various putative classes consisting of non-exempt
employees of AMN who have worked in California since May 2, 2015,
eight causes of action for failure to provide reporting time pay;
failure to pay for all hours worked; failure to pay overtime;
failure to pay minimum wages; failure to authorize or permit meal
breaks; failure to furnish accurate wage statements; waiting time
penalties; and unfair business practices.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq.
          Matthew Scholl, Esq.
          Nancy Sotomayor, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 909-7775
          Facsimile: (424) 465-6630
          E-mail: skroll-rosenbaum@constangy.com
                  mscholl@constangy.com
                 nsotomayor@constangy.com

ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Rigrodsky & Long Announces Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that a complaint has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the
American Depository Shares ("ADS") of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV
("Anheuser-Busch" or the "Company") (NYSE: BUD) between March 1,
2018 and October 24, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint").

If you purchased ADS of Anheuser-Busch during the Class Period and
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact Seth D.
Rigrodsky or Timothy J. MacFall at Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 300
Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by telephone at
(888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com, or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.       

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed from the investing public: (1) that
Defendants' cost cutting measures had largely run their course; (2)
that the devaluation of key emerging market currencies and input
cost inflation was having a material adverse effect on the
Company's margins, EBITDA and profitability; (3) that
Anheuser-Busch had been experiencing less than expected growth and
profits in certain key markets; (4) that Anheuser-Busch was not
going to be able to maintain its then current dividend and still
meet its deleveraging targets; (5) that Anheuser-Busch was at risk
of having its credit ratings downgraded; (6) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company's dividend growth, its cost
synergies, its liquidity, and Defendants' then current efforts to
deleverage Anheuser-Busch's balance sheet; (7) that the liquidity
and working capital disclosures in filings Anheuser-Busch made with
the SEC were materially false and misleading; (8) that the risk
factor disclosures in filings Anheuser-Busch made with the SEC were
materially false and misleading; (9) that the representations about
Anheuser-Busch's disclosure controls in filings the Company made
with the SEC were materially false and misleading; (10) that the
certifications issued by its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial and Solutions Officer on Anheuser-Busch's disclosure
controls and internal controls over financial reporting were
materially false and misleading; and (11) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.  As a result of defendants'
alleged false and misleading statements, the Company's ADS traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on October 25, 2018, the Company cut
its dividend by 50% to "accelerate deleveraging toward [its]
optimal capital structure of around 2x net debt to EBITDA ratio."
During a conference call on this same day with investors and
analysts, the Company's Chief Financial and Solutions Officer
reaffirmed the need to cut the dividend due to "currency
volatility."

On this news, ADS of Anheuser-Busch declined over 9%, closing at
$74.54 per ADS on October 25, 2018, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 20, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Contact:

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
         Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
         300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Phone: (888) 969-4242
                (516) 683-3516
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         Website: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/.
         Email: info@rl-legal.com
[GN]



AO SMITH: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 29 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of A.O. Smith
Corporation (AOS) common stock during the period between July 26,
2016 and May 16, 2019 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed
in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and is captioned Bleier v.
A.O. Smith Corporation, et al., No. 19-cv-00786.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased A.O. Smith common stock during the Class
Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
May 29, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or Brian E.
Cochran of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as
filed at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/aosmith/

The complaint charges A.O. Smith and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
A.O. Smith is a leading manufacturer and marketer of water heaters
and boilers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the defendants
failed to disclose that the Company had used a distribution
partner, Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain ("UTP"), to artificially inflate
the Company's sales and gross margins in the important Chinese
market. As a result of this adverse information being withheld from
the market, the price of the Company's stock was artificially
inflated during the Class Period.

On May 16, 2019, analyst firm J Capital Research USA LLC ("J
Capital") published a report alleging that A.O. Smith used several
manipulative practices to show higher sales and earnings in its
China operations. The report stated that A.O. Smith had undisclosed
business relationships and entanglements with UTP, accounting for
up to 75% of the Company's product sales in China. The report also
questioned whether A.O. Smith had unencumbered access to more than
$530 million in cash on hand it claimed to hold in China. On this
report, the price of A.O. Smith shares declined 6%.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
A.O. Smith common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller is a national law firm representing investors in
securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins
Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history. For five consecutive years, ISS Securities
Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50
Report as one of the top law firms in both the amount recovered for
shareholders and the total number of class action settlements.
Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and
recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved
victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded
investors, Robbins Geller also advocates for corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information. [GN]


ASCENA RETAIL: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided.

Intersect ENT, Inc. (XENT)

Class Period: August 1, 2018 - May 6, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : July 15, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/intersect-ent-inc-loss-form?prid=2141&wire=1

About the lawsuit: During the class period, Intersect ENT, Inc.
allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Intersect lacked adequate
reimbursement representatives to ensure physicians had access to
SINUVA, Intersect's sinus implant; (2) Intersect's sales force
would focus on ensuring reimbursement; (3) Intersect's sales
representatives were less focused on driving sales; (4) physicians
were less likely to adopt Intersect's SINUVA due to transaction
costs associated with seeking reimbursement; (5) Intersect would
increase staffing to address these issues; and (6) as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Intersect's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Intersect ENT, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (ASNA)

Class Period: September 16, 2015 - June 8, 2017
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 6, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ascena-retail-group-inc-loss-form?prid=2141&wire=1

About the lawsuit: Throughout the class period, Ascena Retail
Group, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the ANN Acquisition
was a complete disaster for the Company as Ann's operations were in
far worse condition than had been represented to the public; (b) in
order to mask the true condition of Ann, Defendants improperly
delayed recognizing an impairment charge to the value of Ann's
goodwill and, as a result, Ascena's reported income and assets were
materially overstated and the Company's financial results were not
prepared in conformity with GAAP; (c) many of the brands acquired
in the ANN Acquisition were in steep decline and were also
materially overvalued on Ascena's Class Period financial
statements; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked
a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company,
its operations and prospects.

To learn more about the Ascena Retail Group, Inc. class action
contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Ra Medical Systems, Inc. (RMED)

Class Period: stockholders that purchased Ra Medical securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's September 2018 initial
public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 6, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ra-medical-systems-inc-loss-form?prid=2141&wire=1

About the lawsuit: Ra Medical Systems, Inc. allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements during the class
period and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's evaluation
of sales personnel candidates was inadequate; (2) the Company's
training program for sales personnel was inadequate; (3) as a
result, the Company could not reasonably assure that its newly
hired sales personnel were adequately experienced; (4) as a result,
the Company would suffer a shortage of qualified sales personnel;
(5) the Company's manufacturing process could not reasonably
support increased catheter production; (6) as a result, the Company
would suffer production delays; and (7) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Ra Medical Systems, Inc. class action
contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]



AUDI: Faces Class Action Over Defective DSG Transmissions
---------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Audi DSG
(direct-shift gearbox) transmission problems have caused a lawsuit
that alleges 2010-2014 Audi S4, S5, S6, S7 and RS5 vehicles are
defective.

The class action says the DSG transmissions cause sudden rough
shaking and violent jerking when drivers accelerate and shift into
2nd, 3rd or 4th gear. The lawsuit also alleges the vehicles shudder
and judder when a driver slows down.

The plaintiffs futher claim the direct-shift gearbox transmissions
hesitate during acceleration, surge while driving and experience
rough downshifts when drivers decelerate and accelerate.

According to the lawsuit, the vehicles are too dangerous to drive,
especially due to the allegedly sudden acceleration and
deceleration problems.

In addition, the plaintiffs claim Audi knew about the transmission
problems but continued to sell and lease the vehicles without
informing customers about the issues.

The DSG class action references technical service bulletins (TSBs)
related to the transmissions, with one bulletin that admitted
customers were complaining about "[c]lacking or knocking noises."
However, the TSB said that "[s]uch noises cannot be avoided and are
normal."

Another TSB was issued to dealers in July 2013 that talked about
"[r]ough gear changes, both when accelerating and when slowing
down" and "rough driving power disruption[s]." The bulletin went on
to tell dealers that "sporadic driving power disruptions" were
"normal, and these issues will decrease over time."

Another transmission TSB recommended that Audi dealers use an
"improved circuit board for the mechatronics unit."

All four named plaintiffs claim their DSG transmissions suffered
from problems, with three of the Audi owners alleging they took the
vehicles to dealerships but had no transmission repairs or
replacements that fixed the issues.

The Audi DSG transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California - Mandani, et al., v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by Simmons Hanly Conroy, Whitfield
Bryson Mason, and Greg Coleman Law. [GN]


AVA INC: Brammer Sues over Improper Biometric Data Storage
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against AVA Inc. and Bajaj
Medical, LLC for alleged violations of the Biometric Information
Privacy Act (BIPA) in connection with their unlawful collection,
use, storage, and disclosure of their employees' sensitive
biometric data. The case is captioned CHRISTIAN BRAMMER,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, AVA
INC. and BAJAJ MEDICAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH07379 (Ill.
Cir., Cook Cty., June 19, 2019). Plaintiff Christian Brammer
alleges that the Ava Inc and Bajaj Medical, LLC have violated BIPA
by failing to provide their employees with a written, publicly
available policy identifying their retention schedule and
guidelines for permanently destroying employees' fingerprints when
the initial purpose for collecting or obtaining their fingerprints
is no longer relevant.

Bajaj is a registered limited liability company existing under the
laws of Illinois. Bajaj produces and packages antiseptic products.
Ava is a registered corporation existing under the laws of the
state of Illinois. Ava is a subsidiary of Bajaj and also produces
and packages antiseptic products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 233-1550
     Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
     E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
             jzouras@stephanzouras.com
             hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


BAMBOO HR: Faces Aman et al. Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bamboo HR, LLC. The
case is captioned as ROBIN AMAN; ZIGMUND CAPULONG; BELL HAKALA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BAMBOO HR, LLC; and BAMBOO HR PAYROLL, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03252-LB. (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2019).
The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler.

BambooHR LLC is a SaaS provider of human resources technology
products for small to medium companies. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Perry Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Deana Perry filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Deana Perry v. BergHOFF International, Inc., Case
No. 4:18-CV-4552, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendant pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The complaint says BergHOFF violated the FLSA by employing
Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees for a
workweek longer than forty hours but refusing to compensate them
for their employment in excess of forty hours at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or
were employed. BergHOFF further violated the FLSA by failing to
maintain accurate time and pay records for Plaintiff and other
similarly situated nonexempt employees, adds the complaint.

The appellate case is captioned as Deana Perry v. BergHOFF
International, Inc., Case No. 19-20423, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DEANA PERRY, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
          Melissa Ann Moore, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          440 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002-1646
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net
                  melissa@mooreandassociates.net

Defendant-Appellee BERGHOFF INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, is
represented by:

          Andrea M. Johnson, Esq.
          KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN & LOGAN, P.C.
          5051 Westheimer Road
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 425-7433
          E-mail: ajohnson@krcl.com


BIG PICTURE LOANS: Williams et al. Case Moved to E.D. Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit titled, LULA WILLIAMS;
GLORIA TURNAGE; GEORGE HENGLE; DOWIN COFFY; and FELIX GILLISON;
JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-461, and the class action lawsuit titled RENEE GALLOWAY;
DIANNE TURNER; EARL BROWNE; ROSE MARIE BUCHERT; REGINA NOLTE;
TERESA TITUS; and KEVIN MINOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BIG PICTURE LOANS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-406, request that the U.S. Judicial Panel
on Multi-District Litigation centralize the eight related actions,
as well as all subsequently filed related actions, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Big Picture Loans, LLC provides financial services. The Company
lends loans, and provides financial planning and investment
advisory services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5999
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          Craig C. Marchiando, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com
                  craig@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
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                  aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  casey@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                  eadams@terrellmarshall.com

          - and -

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


BIG TOP: Pizano Seeks to Certify Class of Non-Exempt Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PIZANO, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, vs. BIG TOP & PARTY RENTALS,
LLC d/b/a BIG TOP TENT & PARTY RENTALS, LLC, and MARLENE LEONARD,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-11190 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff move the Court for order:

   1. certifying a class for claims arising under the Illinois
      Minimum Wage Law:

      "all individuals employed by Big Top & Party Rentals, LLC
      and Marlene Leonard as hourly employees and who worked in
      excess of 40 hours in any individual work weeks for the
      period of December 11, 2012 through the date of judgment."

   2. appoiting Jose Pizano as class representatives;

   3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel to serve as counsel for the
      class; and

   4. authorizing notice to the class of the action and their right

      to opt out.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have had a policy or practice
of paying Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt employees
their regular rate of pay for the first 50 hours of work in
individual work weeks, categorizing 10 hours as "Ride Time" on the
employees' paycheck stub paid at the regular rate of pay.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
          53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 1224
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 795-9121

BIRD ELECTRIC: Certification of Electricians Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIRD
ELECTRIC ENTERPRISES, LLC, the Defendant, Case 7:18-cv-00231-DC-RCG
(W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order certifying
an agreed class consisting of:

   "all hourly-paid current and former electricians, including
   foremen and general foremen, who worked in Department 16 or
   Department 22 at any time between June 24, 2016 and the
   date when the Agreed Order is entered."

On June 4, 2019, the Plaintiff filed his Motion for Corrective
Notice, in which he asked the Court to invalidate arbitration
agreements with potential class members, to modify the language of
proposed notice and consent forms, and to prohibit Defendant from
offering arbitration agreements to putative class members until
after the notice period closes. The Defendant filed its response in
opposition to the Motion for Correction Notice, and Plaintiff filed
his reply.

The Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation on June
10, 2019, recommending that the Conditional Certification Motion be
granted. The Parties were guveb until June 24 in which to file
objections to the R&R. In light of these proceedings, the Parties
stipulate and agree to conditional certification of the
electricians class.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Daniel Anthony Verrett, Esq.
          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr.
          MORELAND VERRETT, P.C.
          2901 Bee Cave Road, Box L
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 782-0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
          E-mail: daniel@morelandlaw.com
                  edmond@morelandlaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Brett L. Myers, Esq.
          Molly M. Jones, Esq.
          WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN, LLP
          3131 McKinney Avenue, Suite 100
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 692-6200
          Facsimile: (214) 692-6255
          E-mail: brett.myers@wickphillips.com
                  molly.jones@wickphillips.com

BLACK RIDGE: Rosenblatt Says Merger Documents Misleading
--------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BLACK RIDGE ACQUISITION
CORP., KEN DECUBELLIS, BRADLEY BERMAN, BENJAMIN OEHLER, JOSEPH
LAHTI, and LYLE BERMAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01117-UNA
(D. Del., June 17, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with the proxy statement for a merger transaction.

On December 19, 2018, the Board of Directors of Black Ridge
Acquisition Corp. caused the Company to enter into an agreement and
plan of merger with Black Ridge Merger Sub Corp., Allied Esports
Entertainment, Inc., Noble Link Global Limited, Ourgame
International Holdings Ltd., and Primo Vital Ltd.

On June 12, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission, which seeks Black
Ridge stockholder approval of the Proposed Transaction at a special
meeting scheduled for June 28, 2019. The Proxy Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit
says.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Black Ridge will
acquire Allied Esports and WPT, which are two of Ourgame’s global
esports and entertainment assets. In exchange for 100% of the
equity in the entities comprising the Allied Esports business and
WPT business, Black Ridge will issue approximately 11.6 million
shares, with a value of $118 million, to Ourgame, management team
members of Allied Esports, and Ourgame-related investors. Black
Ridge will also issue the Ourgame investor group warrants to
purchase a total of 3.8 million shares of Black Ridge common stock
at a price per share of $11.50. An additional $50 million of
contingent stock consideration will be available to Ourgame subject
to certain milestones.

Assuming that no Black Ridge stockholders elect to convert their
shares into cash as permitted by the Company's certificate of
incorporation, current Black Ridge stockholders will own only
approximately 62.23% of the Company's common stock following the
consummation of the Proposed Transaction. However, if the maximum
number of Black Ridge shares are converted into cash, current Black
Ridge stockholders will own even less -- approximately 53.22% -- of
the Company's common stock following the close of the Proposed
Transaction.

Black Ridge is a special purpose acquisition company sponsored by
Black Ridge Oil & Gas, Inc. for the purpose of effecting a merger,
capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase,
reorganization, or similar business combination with one or more
businesses or assets.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          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: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  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

BLACKBERRY LTD: Class Action Over Severance Pay Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that an Ontario judge has cleared the
way for a class action on behalf of about 300 former employees of
BlackBerry Ltd. who are seeking severance or termination pay from
the technology company.

The suit alleges, among other things, that BlackBerry had attempted
to avoid paying the employees what they were owed by arranging to
transfer the work they did to another employer, Ford Motor Company
of Canada.

Most of the former employees were based in Waterloo, Ont., which is
BlackBerry's global head office, and Ottawa, where its QNX
automotive software research facility is based.

The remaining employees were elsewhere in Ontario and in Nova
Scotia.

BlackBerry's spokeswoman said on May 28 that the company doesn't
comment on pending litigation.

The company had argued during a three-day hearing in Ottawa that
the case didn't qualify as a class action.

However, Justice Michel Charbonneau says in a six-page ruling dated
May 27 that the suit had satisfied the criteria outlined by the
Class Proceedings Act.

Class action laws are designed to give people with a common
grievance the ability to pursue one lawsuit rather than several
individual actions that would be prohibitively expensive for the
plaintiffs.

In this case, David Parker is named as the representative plaintiff
on behalf of most former BlackBerry employees who accepted work at
Ford after Jan. 1, 2017, following town hall meetings on Dec. 8 and
9, 2016.

"The class members were told by BlackBerry that if they refused
Ford's offer, BlackBerry would make serious efforts to redeployment
in other tasks at BlackBerry but there was no guarantee that they
would be employed," the judge writes.

"Ford told the class employees that if they accepted Ford's offer
they would not be entitled to retain their seniority, or any
benefits and entitlements they had acquired during their years of
service with BlackBerry."

Charbonneau writes that it will be up to a trial judge to determine
whether the process was designed to terminate the plaintiffs'
employment without having to pay them severance.

"Although difficult to prove, the theory of the plaintiff is not
without merit," the judgment says. "It must be remembered that the
merits of the action are not an issue as long as there is a viable
cause of action." [GN]


BONNIER CORPORATION: Court Certifies Settlement Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, REBECCA FRISKE, the Plaintiff, vs.
BONNIER CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-12799-DML-EAS
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David M. Lawson entered an order:

  1. granting Plaintiff's unopposed motions to certify a
     settlement class and for preliminary approval of the proposed

     settlement agreement and procedure for providing class
     notice;

  2. preliminarily approving proposed settlement agreement,
     subject to objections by absent class members and except for
     the determination of the attorney's fees and costs;

  3. conditionally certifying settlement class of:

     "all Michigan residents who subscribed to or received one or
     more subscriptions to a magazine published by Bonnier between

     July 28, 2010 and the date of Preliminary Approval of the
     Agreement, and who did not purchase such subscriptions
     through a Third-Party Subscription Agent";

  4. appointing Attorneys Gary Lynch, Jamisen Etzel, and Daniel
     Myers, as counsel for the designated settlement class;

  5. appointing Rebecca Friske as the class representative;

  6. appointing Angeion Group as the claims administrator for the
     settlement;

  7. approving the deposit within 30 days of the settlement funds
     into an escrow account to be held pending final disposition
     of all settlement claims, or until further order of the
     Court, and the Court orders the defendant's compliance with
     this term;

  8. directing Defendant to provide notice of this proposed class
     settlement on or before July 10, 2019, to the appropriate
     state and federal authorities. The defendant must file proof
     that it has provided the required notice with the Court, in
     compliance with the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
     section 1715(b);

  9. directing Plaintiff's counsel or their designated
     representative to cause notice of the proposed settlement to
     be given to class members in the following manner:

     (a) On or before July 10, 2019, a copy of the Notice of Class

     Action Settlement Agreement, substantially in the form
     attached as ECF No. 62-1, Page.ID 751-763 to the plaintiff's
     unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement

     and notice, and modified as directed herein, must be mailed
     by first-class mail, with postage prepaid, to each class
     member. The class administrator shall ensure that the
     creation of a claims website is accomplished by that same
     date.

     (b) The notice to class members must explain that objections
     to, and requests to be excluded from, the class settlement
     must be filed with the Court and the parties' counsel on or
     before August 26, 2019.

     (c) In lieu of the notice, an abbreviated notice may be
     mailed by first-class mail, with postage prepaid, to each
     class member for whom plaintiff's counsel or his designated
     representative can confirm has an active email account with
     access to the Internet.

10. directing Plaintiff's counsel to file proof of mailing of
     the class notice in conformity with this order on or before
     July 17, 2019;

11. scheduling that the expenses of printing and mailing and
     publishing all notices required shall be paid as described in

     the settlement agreement;

12. scheduling that the notice of class settlement must inform
     the absent class members that Proofs of Claim and supporting
     documentation must be submitted on or before August 23, 2019.

     Proofs of Claim sent by mail shall be deemed submitted when
     postmarked if mailed by first class, registered or certified
     mail, postage prepaid, addressed in accordance with the
     instructions in the Proof of Claim. All other Proofs of Claim

     shall be deemed submitted at the time of actual receipt.;

13. directing Plaintiff's counsel to file on or before September
     3, 2019, a motion for final approval of the settlement
     identifying absent class members who opt out or object. The
     Defendant's response, if the motion is opposed, must be filed

     on or before September 10, 2019, and the plaintiff's reply,
     if any, must be filed on or before September 17, 2019.;

14. scheduling a hearing to be held at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday,
     September 23, 2019 in Room 767 of the Theodore Levin United
     States Courthouse, 231 West Lafayette Blvd., Detroit,
     Michigan 48226, to consider any objections to the settlement
     agreement and to determine whether the settlement agreement
     should be finally approved as having been negotiated in good
     faith and as being fair, reasonable, and in the best interest

     of the class members; and

15. directing any class member may appear at the settlement
     hearing and be heard to the extent allowed by this Court,
     either in support of or in opposition to the good faith,
     fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed
     settlement or the Plaintiff's counsel's application for an
     award of attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses, and an
     incentive award to the representative plaintiff. However, no
     class member shall be entitled to be heard or entitled to
     contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the
     proposed settlement or the judgment to be entered pursuant
     thereto approving the same, or the plaintiff's counsel's fee,

     expense and incentive award application, unless, on or before

     August 23, 2019, such person:

     (a) has filed with the Clerk of Court a notice of such
     person's intention to appear, together with a statement that
     indicates the basis for such opposition along with any
     supporting documentation, and

     (b) has served copies of such notice, statement, and
     documentation, together with copies of any other pleadings
     that such person has filed with the Clerk of the Court and
     each parties' counsel at the following addresses:

            Clerk of the Court
            United States District Court
            231 Lafayette Boulevard
            Detroit, MI 48226
            Re: Rebecca Friske v. Bonnier Corporation
            Case Number 16-12799

     Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

            Gary Lynch, Esq.
            Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
            CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
            36 N. Jefferson St.
            P.O. Box 7635
            New Castle, PA 16107
            Telephone: 724-656-1555
            Facsimile: 724-656-1556

                 - and -

            Daniel Myers, Esq.
            THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL O. MYERS
            4020 Copper View Ste. 225, Suite 225
            Traverse City, MI 49684
            Telephone: 231-943-1135

     Counsel for the Defendant are:

            Daniel T. Stabile, Esq.
            Francis A. Zacherl, Esq.
            SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
            200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100
            Miami, FL 33131
            Telephone: 305-415-9063
            Facsimile: 305-347-7714

                 - and -

            John J. Gillooly, Esq.
            GARAN LUCOW
            1155 Brewery Park Blvd., Suite 200
            Detroit, MI 48207-2641
            Telephone: 313 446 5501

     Any class member who does not serve and file an objection to
     the proposed settlement of the litigation or the fee, expense

     and incentive award application, in the manner provided for,  
  
     shall be deemed to have waived the right to object,
     including the right to appeal, and shall be forever
     foreclosed from making any objection to the settlement, the
     fee, expense and incentive award application, or to any order

     or judgment filed or entered thereon, as applicable. Counsel
     for the plaintiff must notify all absent class members of
     this requirement.

16. scheduling that applications for incentive awards,
     attorney's fees, or reimbursable expenses under Rule 23(h)
     must be filed on or before September 3, 2019. Counsel must
     provide notice to class members in accordance with Fed. R.
     Civ. P. 23(h)(1);

17. directing class counsel to be responsible for maintaining a
     file of all responses to the notice of settlement and any and

     all other written communications received from the class
     members. Class counsel immediately shall provide copies of
     such responses and communications to defendant's counsel; and

18. reserving Court the right to adjourn the settlement hearing
     from time to time without further notice and to approve the
     settlement agreement at or after the settlement hearing.[CC]

BP: Tampa Bay Buccaneers Won't Receive Oil Spill Settlement Money
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FNR TIGG reports that a federal court of appeals has ruled BP is
not entitled to pay the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for any damages
related to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The Bucs believed they suffered a significant drop in revenue
following the incident, according to their accountant. The
organization sought out $19.5 million in damages from the
multinational oil and gas company, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals decided to uphold a decision that ruled in BP's favor.

The 2010 rig explosion was the worst offshore oil spill in United
States history. It killed 11 workers and leaked millions of oil
barrels into the ocean, devastating the shoreline of several
states. Because the team's stadium is located 360 miles southeast
of the spill site, Tampa Bay thinks the accident scared fans from
coming to their games. The team had to prove that their revenue
from May-June 2010 was at least 10 percent lower than it was in
other years, but the profits didn't show a significant difference
during this time frame.

This is the latest decision in a string of legal issues stemming
from the incident. While in 2015, the BP was forced to pay $18.7
billion in penalties to the states federal government and five
states affected by the spill. The year after, the company agreed to
pay $175 million to shareholders who filed a class action lawsuit
against the company. [GN]


BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Jury Awards $68MM to Inmates in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Ciavaglia, writing for Bucks County Courier Times, reports that
the attorney representing the lead plaintiff in the federal lawsuit
said he hopes the verdict sends a message to public officials about
the "reckless handling" of personal information.

Bucks County and its jail violated the privacy rights of tens of
thousands of former inmates, which will cost it an estimated $68
million in punitive damages in what could be a precedent-setting
federal class action suit, a jury decided on May 28.

Following two hours of deliberations, a federal jury at the U.S.
District Court in Philadelphia awarded what will amount to $1,000
for each violation of the Criminal History Records Information Act,
known as CHRIA, which would be divided among the roughly 67,000
class members and its attorneys.

The damage award is mandatory because the jury found the county
"willfully" violated federal law when it posted criminal
information online of individuals held or incarcerated at the Bucks
County prison from approximately 2011 until 2013. The case is
considered significant because it's the first time the court has
set a standard for what actions rise to the level of a willful
violation of CHRIA.

"We are gratified by the jury's verdict. We believe that the jury
sent a message to Bucks County and all other government entities
that reckless handling of private, personal information this time
in the form of criminal records will not be tolerated," said
attorney Jonathan Shub, who represents the original plaintiff in
the case Daryoush Taha, of Sicklerville, New Jersey.

Bucks County spokesman Larry King said on May 28 that the county
commissioners had just learned of the decision and would have no
immediate comment.

"The county may have more to say on this matter" King added.

Taha originally filed his lawsuit in 2012 alleging it violated his
civil rights when it included his arrest information and mugshot on
a publicly accessible website of Bucks County Corrections inmates.

Bensalem police arrested Taha in 1998 on charges of harassment,
disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. He was later accepted into
a one-year trial diversion probation program for first-time
nonviolent offenders, which he completed, and his arrest
information was ordered expunged in January 2000.

Eleven years later, Taha alleges that he learned that his arrest
information and mugshot appeared on a searchable electronic
database that Bucks County created that listed individuals held or
incarcerated at its county jail. After Taha filed his federal civil
suit, the county removed all inmate mugshots and most arrest
information from the lookup tool in 2013.

The suit originally included multiple defendants including Bensalem
Police and Mugshots.com LLC, but they were dropped, leaving only
the county and its correctional center as defendants.

The civil case had already secured several critical judgments
favoring Taha and class members including that the county violated
the CHRIA, when it posted arrest information and mugshots. The
statute prohibits counties and county jails from releasing criminal
information except to other agencies.

While the judge did not award Taha actual damages because he did
not contend that he suffered any economic losses as a result of his
arrest information being posted online, because the county was
found to have willfully violated CHRIA it entitles Taha and class
members to mandatory punitive damages of $1,000 to $10,000 for each
violation. [GN]


C&S MEDICAL: Shealy Seeks Overtime Wages for Sales Reps
-------------------------------------------------------
LARRY SHEALY, MATTHEW AMODEO and BRITTANI PAYTON individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated employees who consent to
their inclusion in a collective action, the Plaintiff, v. C&S
MEDICAL SUPPLY INC., d/b/a C&S INSTRUMENTS LLC., SKLAR CORPORATION
d/b/a SKLAR INSTRUMENTS and DONALD TAYLOR individually, the
Defendants., Case No. 3:19-cv-00718-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla., June 17,
2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and
Putative Class Members overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs all worked for
Defendants as inside sales representatives (ISRs). The Plaintiffs
and all ISRs were all paid an hourly wage in addition to
commissions based upon sales. ISRs made sales for Defendants by
cold calling new and existing customers to sell SKLAR and other
medical equipment and supplies from the C&S offices.

In the performance of their job duties, ISRs were regularly
required and encouraged to work in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Defendants maintained a time clock system to keep track of
ISRs' hours. Despite Defendants' time keeping efforts, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiffs and the putative class of ISRs overtime
compensation as required by the FLSA.

The Defendants did not pay overtime for all of the overtime hours
that ISRs worked. The Defendants willfully failed to pay any
overtime hours in excess of 45 hours per week. When Defendants did
pay overtime, Defendants failed to include the value of the ISRs'
commissions in the calculation of ISRs' overtime rate. The
Defendants failed to properly pay ISRs' commissions earned and
failed to provide ISRs' monthly commissions statements detailing
the commissions earned and paid. As a result, ISRs' were denied the
total commissions owed, and ISRs overtime compensation was reduced,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Representative Plaintiffs and the Putative
Class:

          Benjamin Lee Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LAW PA
          10752 Deerwood Park Blvd., Suite 100
          Jacksonville, FL 32256
          Telephone: 904-580-6060
          E-mail: bwilliams@williamslawjax.com

CAL. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES: $1.2B Lawsuit Over LT Care Gets Go Ahead
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Venteicher, writing for Sacramento Bee, reports that public
workers and retirees who sued CalPERS over an 85 percent rate
increase to long-term care insurance plans could find out next week
whether their lawsuit will move forward.

The lawsuit cleared a potential hurdle when a judge tentatively
ruled that it shouldn't be thrown out based on how much time passed
before it was filed, and a decision on a second piece of the trial
is expected July 1 or July 2.

A few people who bought the plans filed a class-action lawsuit
after the California Public Employees' Retirement System notified
them it planned to hike premiums in 2015 and 2016.  The suit's
class includes up to about 100,000 people who faced the rate hikes.
Plaintiffs claim the increases and associated costs amount to
about $1.2 billion.

The people who filed the lawsuit said the rate hike violated
contracts and promises in marketing materials for the plans.
CalPERS said it had the authority to raise the rates and needed to
do so to sustain the insurance plans.

The people who filed the lawsuit said the rate hike violated
contracts and promises in marketing materials for the plans.
CalPERS said it had the authority to raise the rates and needed to
do so to sustain the insurance plans.
[GN]



CAPITAL ONE: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in McFarland Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Capital One, N.A., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Anthony McFarland v. Capital One, N.A., Case
No. 8:18-cv-02148-TDC, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland at Greenbelt.

The nature of suit is stated as other contract actions.

The appellate case is captioned as Anthony McFarland v. Capital
One, N.A., Case No. 19-1691, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on August 6, 2019; and

   -- Response Brief is due on September 5, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee ANTHONY MCFARLAND, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Cory Lev Zajdel, Esq.
          Z LAW, LLC
          2345 York Road
          Timonium, MD 21093
          Telephone: (443) 213-1977
          E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com

Defendant-Appellant CAPITAL ONE N.A., d/b/a Capital One Auto
Finance, is represented by:

          Sarah Warren Howlett, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Hubbard, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          1001 Haxall Point
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-1208
          E-mail: sarahwarren.howlett@troutman.com
                  jon.hubbard@troutman.com

               - and -

          Syed Mohsin Reza, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          401 9th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2134
          Telephone: (202) 274-1932
          E-mail: mohsin.reza@troutmansanders.com


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Roy Jacobs First to File Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates reports that it was the first to file a
class action lawsuit against CBL & Associates Properties, Inc.
(NYSE: CBL) in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
the securities of CBL.  A class period has been proposed that would
cover purchases of CBL securities between April 29, 2016 and March
26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose in its SEC filings that the
Company was the target of a class action suit that could result in
tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars in
liability.  The Complaint alleges that CBL was the subject of a
class action lawsuit that could potentially result in tens or
hundreds of millions in liability for the Company.  The Company
completely ignored its disclosure obligations pertaining to the
lawsuit to minimize the bad publicity from its dishonest actions.
Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false
and materially misleading throughout the Class Period.  When the
market learned the truth about CBL, investors suffered significant
damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of CBL
during the Class Period should contact Roy Jacobs & Associates
prior to the July 16, 2019 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  If you wish to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact:

         Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
         ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES
         Toll Free: 1-888-609-0503
         Email: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com
[GN]



CHASE RECEIVABLES: Secures Summary Dismissal of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Receivables ("CR") secured summary dismissal of a federal
class-action lawsuit which challenged an initial debt collection
notice under section 1692g of the FDCPA. See Poplin v. Chase
Receivables, Inc., Civil No. 18-404 (D.N.J.). Although the notice's
validation language tracked the FDCPA, the Court denied CR's
initial motion to dismiss by concluding that the language was
potentially confusing to the least sophisticated consumer. Rather
than attempt to settle the case, CR moved both to certify that
denial for immediate appeal and for summary judgment, while
opposing the plaintiff's motions to certify the proposed class and
to file an amended complaint. CR's persistence paid off when the
Court granted its summary judgment motion by reconsidering its
prior decision and concluding that the notice's validation language
is "clear and effective," and therefore did not violate section
1692g as a matter of law.

CR's victory should significantly benefit the debt collection
industry, which has been inundated with similar lawsuits brought by
plaintiffs' attorneys contending that such notices are actionable
because they allegedly fail to clearly convey to consumers that
disputes must be submitted in writing. Federal court decisions in
such lawsuits have yielded mixed results, thereby frustrating debt
collectors by exposing them to litigation expense and potential
liability for notices which comply with section 1692g. Notably, the
favorable ruling obtained by CR was issued a week after the CFPB
proposed a model notice which would provide a safe harbor against
litigation.

CR wishes to thank its outside counsel, Sessions Fishman Nathan &
Israel, and the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals
(ACA International) for their expertise and support in achieving
this successful result and important precedent.

Media Contact Information
Erin Walker
ewalker@brandyourself.com
1-(646) 578-8484 (Ext: 925)

Chase Receivables is not affiliated, associated, endorsed by, or in
any way officially connected with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. or any
of its affiliates including, without limitation, Chase Bank. [GN]


CITIZENS DISABILITY: Despres Sues over Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Citizens Disability
LLC for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). The case is captioned RICK DESPRES, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS
DISABILITY LLC, a Massachusetts company, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-11367 (D. Mass., June 20, 2019).

Despres alleges that Citizens Disability LLC has violated the TCPA
by making unsolicited, prerecorded and autodialed calls to
consumers without their consent, including calls to consumers
registered on the National Do Not Call registry. Accordingly,
Despres seeks to obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all
persons injured by the conduct of Defendant.

Headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, Citizens Disability is a
for-profit company that assists consumers to receive disability
benefits that they me be entitled to receive through Social
Security. The company allegedly outsources a significant part of
its outbound telemarketing in order to distance itself from the
illegal telemarketing practices conducted on its behalf. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason Campbell Esq.
     250 First Avenue, Unit 602
     Charlestown, MA 02129
     Telephone: (617) 872-8652
     E-mail: jasonrcampbell@ymail.com
             
             - and -

     Stefan Coleman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
     201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
     Miami, FL 33131
     Telephone: (877) 333-9427
     Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
     E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com
                
             - and -

     Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
     KAUFMAN P.A.
     400 NW 26th Street
     Miami, FL 33127
     Telephone: (305) 469-5881
     E-mail: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com


CLOUDERA INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that approximately five weeks remain to make a
motion to serve as lead plaintiff in a class action pending against
Cloudera Inc. ("Cloudera" or the "Company") (NYSE: CLDR) between
April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey to recover damages for
Cloudera investors under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action, you must
move the court no later than August 6, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Cloudera securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Cloudera CLDR Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) Cloudera was finding it increasingly
difficult to identify large enterprises interested in adopting the
Company's Hadoop-based platform; (ii) Cloudera needed to expend an
increasing amount of capital on sales and marketing activities to
generate new revenues; (iii) Cloudera had materially diminished
sales opportunities and prospects and could not generate annual
positive cash flows for the foreseeable future; (iv) the primary
motivation for the Company's merger with Hortonworks was to
generate growth through the acquisition of Hortonworks' existing
customers (as opposed to obtaining them organically); and (v) that
the purported synergies and other benefits of the merger with
Hortonworks were materially overstated.

The truth began to be revealed to the market on April 3, 2018,
when, in connection with its Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year 2018
financial results, the Company provided a disappointing outlook for
fiscal 2019.  This news contradicted Defendants' prior positive
statements and shocked the market as it had come less than a year
after Cloudera went public.  In response, the price of Cloudera
common stock fell 40% to $13.29 per share.

Then on June 5, 2019, Cloudera reported that its first quarter
revenues were $187.5 million, but that several customers had
elected to "postpone renewal and expansion" of their subscription
agreements. At this time, the Company also announced that its
losses from operations had ballooned to $103.8 million, roughly
double the year-over-year period, and that its CEO, Tom Reilly,
would be abruptly retiring from the Company. On this news, the
price of Cloudera common stock fell another 40% to just $5.21 per
share.

Contact:

         Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
         Matthew Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street, New York,
         New York 1001
         Phone: (877) 779-1414
                (212) 779-1414
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
                Bigin@bernlieb.com
[GN]


CLOUDERA, INC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided.

Pivotal Software, Inc. (PVTL)

Class Period: investors who purchased common stock pursuant or
traceable to the April 2018 initial public offering and/or Pivotal
securities between April 24, 2018 and June 4, 2019.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 19, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pivotal-software-inc-loss-form?prid=2135&wire=1

The lawsuit alleges: Pivotal Software, Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements throughout the class period and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Pivotal was facing major problems with
its sales execution and a complex technology landscape; (ii) the
foregoing headwinds resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales
cycles, and diminished growth as its customers and the industry's
sentiment shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because
the Company's products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible
with the industry-standard platform; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

To learn more about the Pivotal Software, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Cloudera, Inc. (CLDR)

Class Period: April 28, 2017 - June 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 6, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cloudera-inc-loss-form?prid=2135&wire=1

The lawsuit alleges: Cloudera, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cloudera
was finding it increasingly difficult to identify large enterprises
interested in adopting the Company's Hadoop-based platform; (ii)
Cloudera needed to expend an increasing amount of capital on sales
and marketing activities to generate new revenues, even as new
revenue opportunities were diminishing; and (iii) Cloudera had
materially diminished sales opportunities and prospects and could
not generate annual positive cash flows.

To learn more about the Cloudera, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

FedEx Corporation (FDX)

Class Period: September 19, 2017 - December 18, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 26, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fedex-corporation-loss-form?prid=2135&wire=1

The lawsuit alleges that, during the class period, FedEx
Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) TNT's overall package volume
growth was slowing as TNT's large customers permanently took their
business to competitors after the Cyberattack; (2) as a result of
the customer attrition, TNT was experiencing an increased shift in
product mix from higher-margin parcel services to lower-margin
freight services; (3) the anticipated costs and timeframe to
integrate and restore the TNT network were significantly larger and
longer than disclosed; (4) FedEx was not on track to achieve TNT
synergy targets; and (5) as a result of these undisclosed negative
trends and cost issues, FedEx's positive statements about TNT's
recovery from the Cyberattack, integration into FedEx's legacy
operations, customer mix, customer service levels, profitability,
and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the FedEx Corporation class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]



COLORADO STATE: Agrees to Pay Overtime Wages to Employees
---------------------------------------------------------
Alex Burness, writing for The Colorado Independent, reports that
Colorado State University has agreed to pay potentially hundreds of
thousands of dollars in unpaid overtime wages to more than 1,500
current and former school employees, many of them low-wage
workers.

The settlement agreement stems from a class-action suit filed in
early 2018 by Devin Banton, who was a translator in CSU's Resources
for Disabled Students office. He alleged improper pay for overtime
work, and his suit was filed on behalf of more than 1,500 other
former and current university staffers.

Banton, as lead plaintiff, made several claims, including:

CSU was miscalculating overtime: For example, he argued, someone
could put in 45 hours of work one week -- that's 5 hours of
overtime, which is to be paid out at 1.5 times the worker's regular
wage -- and then work 35 hours the following week. In total, that's
80 hours -- a standard, full-time slate for a two-week pay period.
The problem, Banton said, is that he wasn't being compensated for
the overtime he'd put in during such pay periods, and was instead
being paid as though he'd worked 80 hours of non-overtime. Banton
alleged that this miscalculation was a violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

CSU wasn't giving sufficient comp time for people who'd worked
overtime: Workers who put in extra hours could also be eligible for
"comp time" the following week to make up for the extra hours. But,
the lawsuit alleged, workers putting in 45-hour weeks were given
five hours off the following week, which does not sufficiently
reflect the fact that the 5 overtime hours they worked should be
equivalent to 7.5 hours of comp time at the overtime rate.

Timecard issues: In some cases, Banton and others said, workers
would be required to keep their official recorded hours below
overtime limits. This, the suit contended, led to underpayment for
some workers.

The more than 1,500 individuals involved in this class action came
from about 40 different CSU departments.

The university, which did not immediately respond to a request for
comment on May 28, agreed in front of a federal judge magistrate to
settle Banton's suit, and now all others involved in the suit will
be notified that they are eligible to receive payments from CSU to
make up for any lost pay. Submitted claims will be evaluated by the
judge.

"I think we're gonna see claims that run from a hundred bucks to a
couple thousand, or more," said David Miller, the Denver-based
attorney for the plaintiffs. "The point of this all is to get
people paid what they're owed."

In the settlement agreement, the university maintained denial of
"any and all allegations of wrongdoing" -- with "minor
exceptions."

CSU spokesman Mike Hooker also issued a statement, chalking up the
unpaid wages to miscalculation.

"CSU aims to be the workplace of choice in our region," the
statement read. "When CSU learns that errors may have occurred in
the calculation of compensation for an employee, it strives to
determine the facts and correct any errors.  As part of that
effort, we are actively involved in discussions with counsel to
ensure that our employees receive full compensation for work
performed. [GN]


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 29 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of
PriceSmart, Inc., Hecla Mining Company, A.O. Smith Corporation, and
Community Health Systems, Inc. Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.

PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSMT)

Class Period: October 26, 2017 - October 25, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 22, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
the company's omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach
key operating goals; (2) the company's South America distribution
strategy had failed to realize key cost saving goals; (3) the
company had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates
of deposits with financial institutions; (4) these investments had
been improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (5) the
relevant corrections would materially impact financial statements;
(6) there was a material weakness in the company's internal
controls over financial reporting; (7) increasing competition
negatively impacted the company's revenue and profitability; and
(8) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about the company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the PriceSmart class action go to:
http://bespc.com/pricesmart

Hecla Mining Company (NYSE: HL)

Class Period: March 19, 2018 - May 8, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 23, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
falsely and misleadingly represented that the Nevada operations
would be "accretive" and cash flow positive, or at the very least
"self-funding."  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants were aware from their extensive due diligence that the
Nevada operations had material problems in terms of excessive
water, equipment availability, achieving enough development to have
consistent production, and lack of characterization of ore types,
among other things.

To learn more about the Hecla class action go to:
http://bespc.com/hl/

A. O. Smith Corporation (NYSE: AOS)

Class Period: July 26, 2016 - May 16, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
failed to disclose that the company had used a distribution
partner, Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain, to artificially inflate the
company's sales and gross margins in the important Chinese market.

To learn more about the A. O. Smith class action go to:
http://bespc.com/aos/

Community Health Systems, Inc. (NYSE: CYH)

Class Period: February 20, 2017 - February 27, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
the company had understated its contractual allowances; (2) the
company had understated its provision for bad debts; (3) as a
result, the company had overstated its net operating revenue; (4)
as a result, the company had understated its net loss; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants positive statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Community Health class action go to:
http://bespc.com/cyh/

Contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Phone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com
[GN]



COMMUNITY PROBATION: Appeals Ruling in McNeil Suit to 6th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Community Probation Services, Community Probation
Services L.L.C., Community Probation Services, LLC and Patricia
McNair filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled
Karen McNeil, et al. v. Community Probation Services, et al., Case
No. 1:18-cv-00033, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee at Columbia.

The appellate case is captioned as Karen McNeil, et al. v.
Community Probation Services, et al., Case No. 19-5660, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporte, Defendants
Giles County, Tennessee, and Kyle Helton filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is titled as
Karen McNeil, et al. v. Community Probation Services, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 19-5262.

On March 29, 2019, the Hon. William L. Campbell, Jr., denied
without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

In his Order of February 21, 2019, Magistrate Judge Chip Frensley
granted the Plaintiffs' request to extend the deadline for moving
to amend or add parties to April 1, 2019, in order to allow them to
substitute a class representative for Sandra Beard, who they
represent is now unavailable for medical reasons.

Given the possibility that the individuals, who seek to proceed as
class representatives may change if the Plaintiffs are permitted to
replace Ms. Beard, the Court concludes the pending Motion for Class
Certification should be denied, without prejudice to refiling after
the identity of class representatives has been finalized.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees KAREN MCNEIL, LESLEY JOHNSON, TANYA MITCHELL,
INDYA HILFORT and LUCINDA BRANDON, On behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Scott P. Tift, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: stift@barrettjohnston.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees INDYA HILFORT and LUCINDA BRANDON, On behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Chirag Gopal Badlani, Esq.
          Kate Ellen Schwartz, Esq.
          Matthew J. Piers, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM, LTD.
          70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580-0100
          Facsimile: (312) 580-1994
          E-mail: cbadlani@hsplegal.com
                  kschwartz@hsplegal.com
                  mpiers@hsplegal.com

               - and -

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Eric Ian Halperin, Esq.
          Jonas Wang, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street, N.W., Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 599-0953
          Facsimile: (202) 609-8030
          E-mail: eric@civilrightscorps.org
                  jonas@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Elizabeth Rossi, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          916 G. Street, N.W., Suite 701
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 793-9105
          E-mail: elizabeth@civilrightscorps.org

Defendants-Appellants COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES, LLC, PATRICIA
MCNAIR, COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES L.L.C. and COMMUNITY PROBATION
SERVICES are represented by:

          Andre Sean Greppin, Esq.
          Daniel Rader, IV, Esq.
          Randall A. York, Esq.
          MOORE, RADER & FITZPATRICK PC
          P.O. Box 3347
          Cookeville, TN 38502
          Telephone: (931) 526-3311


CORRECT CARE: Removes Aguirre et al. Suit to W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of NICHOLE RENEE AGUIRRE; DOMINIC
MICHAEL BONAVIA; and MIKA RAE THURMAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORRECT CARE
SOLUTIONS, L.L.C.; JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI; SHONIREE YVONNE
DeBUSK; MIRANDA VAN STRATTEN; BRYAN E. VAN STRATTEN; SGT. CHIMEZIE
AKANULIGO; JESSICA E. LePAGE; and JOSEPH PICCININI, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the
State of Missouri, County of Jackson (Case No. 1916-CV12993) to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on June 7,
2019. The clerk of court for the Western District of Missouri
assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00446. The case is assigned to Gary A
Fenner.

Correct Care Solutions, LLC provides healthcare services. The
Company offers medical, dental, mental, and behavioral health
services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cynthia M. Dodge, Esq.
          CYNTHIA M. DODGE, LLC
          312 SW Greenwich Drive, Suite 10
          Lee's Summit, MO 64082
          Telephone: (816) 246-9200
          Facsimile: (819) 246-9201
          E-mail: cindy@cdodgelaw.com

               - and –

          John Kurtz, Esq.
          HUBBARD & KURTZ, L.L.P.
          1718 Walnut
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 467-1776
          Facsimile: (816) 472-5464
          E-mail: jkurtz@mokanlaw.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Aronne Certifies Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, LANA ARONNE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CREDIT
CONTROL, LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Company; and JOHN AND
JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 10, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-03744-ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arthur D. Spatt
entered an order:

   1. certifying a Settlement Class consisting of:

      "all persons with addresses in the State of New York to whom
      Credit Control, LLC mailed a collection letter between
      October 6, 2017, and July 19, 2018, to collect a debt on
      behalf of Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. which debt was
      charged-off by the creditor prior to the date the letter was

      sent to the consumer and the letter stated:

      "because of interest, late charges and other charges that
      may be assessed by your creditor that vary from day to day,
      the amount due on the day you pay, may be greater. Thus, it
      you pay the total amount shown within this notice, an
      adjustment may be necessary after we receive your check, in
      which event we will inform you."" and

   2. approving form of notice for mailing to the Settlement
Class.

Credit Control shall create a class settlement fund of $23,500.00
("Class Recovery"), which Class Counsel through the Administrator
will distribute pro rata among those Class Members who did not
exclude themselves and who timely returned a claim form
("Claimants"). Claimants will receive their pro rata share of the
Class Recovery by check. Checks issued to Claimants will be void
sixty (60) days from the date of issuance. Credit Control shall pay
Plaintiff $1,500.00. Credit Control shall pay Class Counsel
$30,000.00 for their attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses incurred
in the action based upon their requested hourly rates. Class
Counsel shall not request additional fees or costs from Credit
Control or Class Members.[BN]

DARTMOUTH COLLEGE: Settlement Sought in Sexual Harassment Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Feely, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports that
attorneys representing Dartmouth College and nine women who have
sued the school seeking $70 million in damages for allowing a "21st
century Animal House" culture of drinking, rape and sexual
harassment for years say both sides have agreed to try to settle
the lawsuit out of court.

Copies of a joint motion filed on May 24 in U.S. District Court in
Concord show attorneys for Dartmouth College and the women have
asked a judge for a stay of all deadlines and rulings until three
days after agreed-to mediation or July 31, whichever comes first.

As of May 27, a judge had yet to respond to the request.

The motion filed on May 24 reports that both sides in the dispute
have chosen retired state Superior Court judge Robert Morrill, now
working as a professional mediator, and are attempting to finalize
a date to meet.

The lawsuit, filed by seven women last November, accuses Dartmouth
College of failing to protect them from three professors in the
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences -- Todd Heatherton,
William Kelley and Paul Whalen. The lawsuit alleges that the women
were subjected to sexual harassment that included groping, sexting,
alcohol-fueled hot tub parties and even rape.

All three professors have since left Dartmouth.

Two more women joined the lawsuit in May, prompting two student and
alumni organizations to publicly call for drastic changes on
campus.

"We are writing to reiterate our demand of January 25th that the
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences (PBS) be put into
academic receivership," wrote members of the Dartmouth Community
against Gender Harassment and Sexual Violence on May 27.

"In light of the appalling allegations brought forward by two new
plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, Dartmouth leadership must
take this crucial step toward accountability, transparency, and
institutional reparation," the student and alumni organization's
leadership wrote.

One of the new plaintiffs, Jane Doe 2, states in her complaint that
she attended the college from 2008-12, and that Whalen got her
drunk and raped her in a November 2012 incident, according to the
amended lawsuit. She also alleges he choked her during a sexual
encounter to the point she was scared for her safety, according to
the lawsuit.

The other new plaintiff, Jane Doe 3, attended Dartmouth from
2003-09, working in labs Heatherton and Kelley ran, according to
court paperwork. The lawsuit claims that Kelley coerced her into an
ongoing sexual relationship and regarded her as a sexual object
rather than a scientist.

"Kelley told her that she was 'too pretty to be smart' and was only
at Dartmouth because of her good looks. He confided that he found
it gratifying that he was the one who 'got to have' her when other
faculty members in the department sexually desired her," the
lawsuit states.

A U.S. District Court judge in Concord has previously approved a
schedule for this lawsuit that would result in a two-week trial
starting in mid-March 2021.

Dartmouth has responded in court filings by stating that while
there was an "unacceptable environment involving excess alcohol
consumption, an inappropriate level of fraternization, and
inappropriate personal comments and contact" between the three
professors and several students, it has yet to see evidence
supporting the more serious assault allegations. [GN]


DIESEL ONE: Kern Seeks Meal and Rest Period Premiums, OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Diesel One and John
Gold for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business & Professions Code. The case is captioned
ROBERT KERN, individually, and as a representative of other
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, vs. DIESEL ONE, an unknown business
entity, JOHN GOLD, an individual; and DOES 1 through 250,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV21218 (Cal. Super., June 17,
2019).

Among other things, Kern alleges that the Defendants have violated
the California Labor Code by failing to pay meal and rest period
premiums; failing to pay proper overtime compensation; failing to
pay minimum wage; failing to provide itemized wage statements; and
for untimely payment of wages owed at termination. Accordingly,
Kern seeks monetary relief on the basis that Defendants violated
such statutes, decisional law and regulations.

In or about November 2018, Plaintiff became a full-time Sales
Associate for Defendants and continued in this position until in or
about June 2018. Plaintiff was provided a smart phone, and later a
laptop and tablet, to perform the sales work for Defendants, which
included calling companies with trucks in order to sell them
Defendants' services. John Gold would also regularly provide names
and other information on companies for Plaintiff to call as part of
his job. Plaintiff worked long hours and was to be compensated with
a certain percentage of the bill for initial services, and then a
certain percentage going forward. However, Plaintiff was never paid
this compensation. Essentially, Plaintiff was misclassified as an
independent contractor in violation of California Labor Code.

Diesel One is a business entity with a principal place of business
in the state of California. The company provides repair services
for commercial trucks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
     Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
     Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
     Heather K. Cox, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
     301 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1550
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Telephone: (562) 432-8933
     Facsimile: (562) 435-1656
     E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com    
             laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             heather@carlinbuchsbaum.com


EL AL: Ultra-Orthodox Shabbat Passengers File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Times of Israel reports that Ultra-Orthodox passengers on an El Al
flight who were diverted to Athens during a New York-Tel Aviv
flight for fear that they would not reach Israel before Shabbat,
have filed a class action lawsuit against the airline.

According to Channel 12 news, 52 passengers have filed the suit,
demanding hundreds of thousands of shekels in compensation from El
Al.

Attorney Asher Rotenbaum said the company had behaved irresponsibly
and said the claimants wanted compensation for the "great anguish
and distress caused," with passengers forced to spend three days in
Athens without a change of clothes and in sub-par conditions.

The November 2018 flight made headlines due to allegations that
religious passengers were abusive to cabin crew.

El Al initially accused religious passengers of physically and
verbally assaulting the crew, but then appeared to walk back the
claims following vehement denials and threats of a boycott from the
ultra-Orthodox community.

El Al's flight 002 to Tel Aviv on November 15 was delayed by more
than five hours due to bad weather and was racing against the clock
to leave with enough time to get to Israel before the start of
Shabbat. Dozens of passengers had demanded that the plane return to
the gate at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport so
that they could disembark, but instead the plane took off.

The plane was eventually diverted to Athens, where it landed before
the start of Shabbat on Friday night. Passengers spent the weekend
in Greece before another flight brought them to Israel on Sunday.

Religious passengers pushed back against the reports of physical
violence on board, accusing El Al staff of causing one of the
delays, and saying that the cabin crew had falsely told them they
would be allowed to disembark and that the plane would make it to
Israel on time.

Several accounts on social media and in blog posts offered
differing reports of what occurred on the flight.

El Al later offered compensation to all 400 passengers on the
flight in the form of a free round-trip ticket to any destination
in Europe. [GN]


EQT CORP.: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
or otherwise acquired EQT Corporation (NYSE: EQT) securities
between June 19, 2017 and October 24, 2018 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until Aug. 26, 2019 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The Complaint filed on June 26, 2019 alleges that during the Class
Period, Defendants falsely stated that EQT's acquisition of Rice, a
rival gas producer, would yield billions of dollars in synergies
based on purported operational benefits.  Specifically, on June 19,
2017, Defendants announced that EQT had entered into an agreement
to acquire Rice for $6.7 billion.  Defendants represented that
because Rice had an acreage footprint largely contiguous to EQT's
existing acreage, the acquisition would allow EQT to achieve "a 50%
increase in average lateral [drilling] lengths" (as opposed to more
traditional vertical well drilling). EQT claimed that as a result,
the merger would result in $2.5 billion in synergies, including
$100 million in cost savings in 2018 alone. After the closing in
November 2017, the Company continued to tout the "significant
operational synergies" of the merger. As a result of Defendants'
misrepresentations, EQT shares traded at artificially inflated
prices throughout the Class Period. On March 15, 2018, just five
months after the acquisition closed, EQT announced the sudden and
unexpected resignation of its CEO. Then, on October 25, 2018, the
Company reported poor third-quarter financial results caused by an
increase in total costs, and disclosed that its estimated capital
expenditures for well development in 2018 would increase by $300
million. As a result, the Company reduced its full-year forecast
for 2018. These disclosures caused EQT shares to decline by 13%,
dropping from a close of $40.46 per share on October 24, 2018 to
$35.34 on October 25, 2018.

If you purchased EQT securities during the Class Period or continue
to hold shares purchased before the Class Period, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa
Fortunato by email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.  There is no
cost or obligation to you.

Contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Phone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         E-mail: investigations@bespc.com
                 fortunato@bespc.com
                 walker@bespc.com
[GN]



EQUITY BANCSHARES: Bronstein Notes of July 12 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Nabriva Therapeutics PLC (NBRV)
Class Period: November 1, 2018 - April 30, 2019
Deadline: July 8, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/nbrv

On April 30, 2019, Nabriva disclosed receipt of a Complete Response
Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
for the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") seeking marketing
approval of CONTEPO™ (fosfomycin) for injection for the treatment
of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI), including acute
pyelonephritis. Nabriva advised investors that "[t]he CRL requests
that Nabriva address issues related to facility inspections and
manufacturing deficiencies at one of Nabriva's contract
manufacturers prior to the FDA approving the NDA." On this news,
Nabriva's stock price fell $0.82 per share, or 27.42%, to close at
$2.17 per share on May 1, 2019.

Equity Bancshares, Inc. (EQBK)
Class Period: May 11, 2018 and April 22, 2019
Deadline: July 12, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/eqbk

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls to assess credit risk; (2) that, as a result,
certain of the Company's loans posed an increased risk of loss; (3)
that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur
significant losses for certain substandard loans; and (4) that, as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Contact:

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz
         Investor Relations Analyst
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Phone: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com
               peretz@bgandg.com
[GN]



EROS INT'L: Bragar Eagel Notes of Aug. 20 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel and Squire reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of stockholders of Pivotal
Software, Inc., Eros International Plc, and Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Pivotal Software, Inc. (NYSE: PVTL)

Class Period: Securities pursuant or traceable to Pivotal's April
2018 initial public offering ("IPO") and/or securities purchased or
acquired between April 24, 2019 and June 4, 2019 (the "Class
Period").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 19, 2019

The complaint filed on June 21, 2019 alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Pivotal was facing major problems with its sales
execution and a complex technology landscape; (ii) the foregoing
headwinds resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and
diminished growth as its customers and the industry's sentiment
shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because the
Company's products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with
the industry-standard platform; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. On June 4, 2019, post-market, Pivotal reported
its financial and operating results for the first quarter of fiscal
year 2020, advising investors that "sales execution and a complex
technology landscape impacted the quarter." Wedbush Securities
analyst Daniel Ives called the quarter a "train wreck" and
characterized the Company's operating results as "disastrous,"
asserting that Pivotal's "management team does not have a handle on
the underlying issues negatively impacting its sales cycles and the
activity in the field which gives us concern that this quarter will
be the start of some 'dark days ahead' for Pivotal (and its
investors)." On this news, Pivotal's stock price fell $7.60.

To learn more about the Pivotal Software class action go to:
https://bespc.com/PVTL-2

Eros International Plc (NYSE: EROS)

Class Period: July 28, 2017- June 5, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2019

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Eros and its executives engaged in a scheme to use
related-party transactions to fabricate receivables that they
reported in Eros's public financial disclosures; (2) because of
this scheme, Eros's financial position was weaker than what the
Company disclosed; (3) consequently, the Company's Indian
subsidiary, Eros International Media Ltd, missed loan payments and
had its credit downgraded; and (4) due to the foregoing,
defendants' statements about Eros's receivables, business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To learn more about the Eros class action go to:
https://bespc.com/eros-2

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA)

Class Period: August 4, 2017- May 10, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2019

The complaint filed on June 21, 2019 alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
denying that Teva "engaged in any conduct that would give rise to
liability" in various antitrust proceedings and investigations that
enveloped the company. In truth, and as Defendants failed to
disclose to investors, (i) contrary to its public denials, Teva had
in fact engaged in a vast, industry-wide price-fixing scheme and
other collusive misconduct since at least 2012; (ii) Teva was not
only a participant, but the company at the heart of the
anticompetitive scheme; and (iii) several Teva employees had such
deep involvement in the scheme that they would ultimately be named
personally as defendants in a sweeping civil enforcement action
filed by the AGs of virtually every state in the nation. On
December 9, 2018, it was publicly disclosed that the scope of the
State AG's investigation had expanded greatly to include 300 drugs
and at least 16 companies, exposing "the largest cartel in the
history of the United States." On this news, the price of Teva ADS
fell $0.97 per share or 5%, to close at $18.44 per share on
December 10, 2018. On May 10, 2019, a coalition of 44 states filed
a 524-page antitrust complaint revealing previously undisclosed
facts regarding Teva's participation in the generic drug
price-fixing conspiracy. Among other things, the action detailed
Teva's role as a "consistent participant" in the conspiracy,
implementing price increases on upwards of 110 generic drugs and
colluding with competitors regarding over 85 different generic
drugs. On this news, the price of Teva ADS fell $2.13 per share or
approximately 15%, to close at $12.23 per share on May 13, 2019.

For more information on the Teva class action go to:
https://bespc.com/teva

Contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Phone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com
[GN]



ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Removes Parsons Suit to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case of ROBERT PARSONS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESTENSON
LOGISTICS, LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, filed
a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Sacramento (Case No. 34-2019 00252929) to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
June 5, 2019. The clerk of court for the Eastern District of
California assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01030. The case is assigned to
Troy L Nunley and referred to Magistrate Kendall J Newman.

Estenson Logistics, LLC provides logistics services. The Company
offers container, supply chain consulting, warehousing, inventory
management, and other related services. Estenson Logistics serves
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Max W. Gavron, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP, LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333


FAF, INC: Campbell Suit Transferred to Eastern Dist. of Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KEVIN CAMPBELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FAF, INC., FORWARD AIR
CORPORATION, PRIROITY CAPITAL GROUP D/B/A PRIORITY LEASING, ODYSSEY
TRANSPORT, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00142 (Filed Jan.
22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee (Greeneville) on June 24, 2019. The
Eastern District of Tennessee Court Clerk assinged Case No.
2:19-cv-00107-PLR-MCLC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Pamela L. Reeves.

The case is a class and collective action lawsuit challenging
Defendants' policy and practice of unlawfully misclassifying its
non-exempt hourly Driver employees as independent contractors
exempt from the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
California wage and hour laws.

As a result of its unlawful misclassification policy and practice,
Defendants have failed to provide meal and rest periods and pay
premiums for missed breaks, failed to compensate for all hours
worked, unlawfully deducted expenses from Drivers' wages, failed to
pay for waiting time penalties, failed to provide timely and
itemized wage statements, and engaged in unfair business practices
pursuant to California Business and Professions Code, the lawsuit
says.

FAF, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Forward Air Corporation.
Forward Air Corp. provides time-definite surface transportation and
related logistics services to the North American deferred air
freight market.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          Michelle S. Lim, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
             KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Boulter, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT S. BOULTER
          1101 Fifth Avenue, Suite 235
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          Telephone: (415) 233-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 233-7101
          E-mail: rsb@boulter-law.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Christopher J Eckhart, Esq.
          Christopher C McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          James H Hanson, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT
             HANSON & FEARY, P.C. (IN)
          10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com
                  jhanson@scopelitis.com

FAIRLIFE, LLC: Maltreated Dairy Cow, Sabeehullah Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
MOHAMMAD SABEEHULLAH and NABIL KHAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FAIRLIFE, LLC, MIKE
McCLOSKEY, and SUE McCLOSKEY, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00222 (N.D. Ind., June 17, 2019), seeks to hold Defendants
liable for engaging in a massive consumer fraud involving the sale
of milk products.

The Defendants advertised, promoted, and sold a variety of milk
products at premium prices justified solely by the representation
that the milk was obtained from dairy cows that receive
"extraordinary" care. That was false. Fair Oaks Farms, run by
defendants Mike and Sue McCloskey, abused and tortured the dairy
cows and young calves on the farm. Undercover video exposed the
sickening treatment of these animals -- treatment that one hopes is
far worse than the treatment of dairy cows and calves on any other
dairy farm that produces and sells milk at a non-premium price. The
Plaintiffs were deceived into purchasing Defendants' products.

Mr. Sabeehullah is willing to pay a premium price to buy from
companies that humanely treat the animals used to produce their
products. Sabeehullah purchased a Fairlife ultra-filtered milk
product. Throughout the Indiana Class Period, Fairlife advertised
on its label that it provided "extraordinary" care for the dairy
cows that produced the milk. Mr. Sabeehullah purchased this product
because he believed and relied on this representation. Mr.
Sabeehullah was injured in fact and lost money because of the false
representation. Mr. Sabeehullah stopped purchasing this product
after learning of Defendants' inhumane treatment of the dairy cows
that produced the milk, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq.
          Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984-8100
          E-mail: Ashlea@PaulLLP.com
                  Laura@PaulLLP.com

               - and -

          Syed Ali Saeed, Esq.
          SAEED & LITTLE, LLP
          18 W. Vermont Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 614-5741
          E-mail: Ali@Sllawfirm.com

FCI LENDER: Court Denies Class Certification in Tabick Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit CHRISTOPHER TABICK, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
vs. FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 17-CV-4577
(RJD) (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Raymond J. Dearie entered an order
denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

   "Class A for consumers who received a letter materially
   identical or substantially similar to Plaintiffs letter
   regarding a debt which imposed interest when it was unlawful to

   do so"; and

   "Class B, for consumers who were sent, but did not receive, a
   letter materially identical or substantially similar to the
   letter Plaintiff received."

The Court said, "Defendant opposes the motion arguing that
Plaintiffs claims present unique issues of fact and law that are
not suitable for litigation as a class action. Despite discovery
having been completed in this case. Plaintiff provides no evidence
to support certification of either of the proposed classes. The
Plaintiffs complaint contains mostly highly individual allegations
relating to an alleged implicit waiver of interest later sought to
be collected by a different debt collector. There are no
allegations that any, much less many, other members of proposed
Class A received collection letters imposing unlawful interest
under similar circumstances, and Plaintiffs papers in support of
their motion for certification contain no facts or documents from
which the Court can determine that there is a large enough group of
consumers with claims sufficiently similar to Plaintiffs to warrant
class litigation. Additionally, the Court sees no basis on which to
certify proposed Class B given that there is no indication that any
of the members of this proposed class suffered any cognizable
injury under the FDCPA since they did not receive Defendant's
allegedly violative letters. Based on the dearth of information
submitted by Plaintiff and the highly individualized circumstances
and harms alleged in the Complaint."

The Plaintiff brought the action under the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act, alleging that Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter
which failed to accurately state the amount of debt owed because
the letter reflected interest due on Plaintiffs home loan even
though, as Plaintiff asserts, the interest had been waived by
Plaintiffs creditor, in violation of 15 U.S.C. sections 1692e,
1692e(a)(2), 1692e(10), 1692f and 1692g(a)(l).[CC]

FEDERAL AVIATION: Johnson Suit Transferred to District of Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Lucas K. Johnson, on behalf of himself and the Class he
seeks to represent, the Plaintiff, vs. United States Department of
Transportation; E laine L. Chao, Secretary of the U.S. Department
of Transportation; Federal Aviation Administration; and Daniel K.
Elwell, Acting Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02431 (Filed Sept.
12, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia (Washington, DC) on June 26, 2019. The
District of Columbia Court Clerk assinged Case No.
1:19-cv-01916-RDM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Randolph D. Moss.

The case involves the decision by Federal Aviation Administration
policymakers to engage in racial balancing by screening and
eliminating qualified applicants for air traffic control positions
based upon their race.  It is a violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 to make hiring decisions based upon race unless
a bona fide occupational qualification exists. A BFOQ is a quality
or an attribute that employers are allowed to consider when making
decisions on the hiring and retention of employees. A general
desire for racial diversity in the workplace does not constitute a
BFOQ.

The Plaintiff brings this action alleging violations of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to challenge Defendant FAA policy,
pattern, and practice of discriminatory hiring practices regarding
applicants for air traffic controller positions. The FAA
implemented these policies and practices in 2014 intending them to
have a disparate impact on Title VII protected groups. FAA has
engaged in intentional disparate treatment of the same Applicant
Groups to unlawfully advantage African-American ATC Applicants, the
lawsuit says.

United States Department of Transportation (DOT) is a cabinet-level
department within the Executive Branch of the federal government.
Through its various agencies, the DOT promulgates regulations and
policies governing transportation within the United States,
including aviation matters. FAA is the national aviation authority
of the United States. As a DOT agency, the FAA has authority to
regulate all aspects of American civil aviation. The FAA is
responsible for setting policies for the hiring of air traffic
controllers in the United States and ensuring the safest aerospace
system in the world.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael W. Pearson, Esq.
          CURRY, PEARSON, & WOOTEN PLC
          814 West Roosevelt
          Phoenix, AZ 85007
          Telephone: (602) 258-1000
          Facsimile: (602) 523-9000
          E-mail: mpearson@azlaw.com

FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Hurlburt Sues over Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND HURLBURT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-00690-GLS-CFH (N.D.N.Y., June 10, 2019)
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt. The case is assigned to Senior Judge Gary L. Sharpe
and referred to Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel.

Financial Recovery Services, Inc. provides debt collection
services. The Company offers comprehensive coverage, auditing,
monitoring, electronic file transfer, legal collections,
skiptracing, bilingual capability, and comprehensive data security
services. Financial Recovery Services serves clients in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave., Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


FIRST AMERICAN: Gibbs Law Group Files Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gibbs Law Group LLP has filed the first nationwide class action
lawsuit accusing First American Title Company of failing to
properly secure 885 million sensitive customer files, instead
choosing to store them in a "woefully insecure,"
publicly-accessible system. "First American has turned the American
dream of home ownership into a financial security nightmare for its
customers," according to the complaint.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that First American Title Company
was negligent, and violated its contracts with customers, in the
way it stored their personal information, which included bank
account numbers, Social Security numbers, financial and tax
records, and photos of their drivers' licenses. This grave lapse in
security resulted in publicly exposing hundreds of millions of
customers' personal files, leaving them vulnerable to identify
theft and other cybercrimes.

The victims assert that despite First American's purported
"commit[ment] to safeguarding customers' personal information," and
its repeated promises to provide "secure, reliable, and affordable
records storage solutions," the title insurance company, which is
the largest of its kind in the United States, was negligent in
storing its records and violated the law by exposing sensitive
files to anyone who wanted to access them. In addition, the lawsuit
alleges that First American chose to maintain these careless
security practices despite repeated warnings from the FBI about an
exponential increase in cyberattacks targeting the real estate
industry.

"Consumers did not deserve for their personal information to be
treated so recklessly," said Andre Mura of Gibbs Law Group.

"It is shocking that a company of this magnitude would blatantly
disregard the most basic safety protocols when housing troves of
highly-sensitive, personal information," added data breach attorney
David Berger.

First American customers who believe they were affected by the
First American data leak and would like to learn more about their
legal rights in the First American Data Breach Lawsuit may contact
our team at (510) 350-9700.

                      About Gibbs Law Group

Gibbs Law Group is a national litigation firm representing
consumers in lawsuits in state and federal courts. The firm serves
individuals in cases involving financial fraud and consumer
protection laws. Gibbs Law Group's attorneys have been named among
the Best Lawyers in America (c) and have been recognized among the
Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar and Top Plaintiff Lawyers in
California. [GN]


FLORIDA: Faces Class Action Over Solitary Confinement Overuse
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Ross, writing for WJCT, reports that a class-action lawsuit
has been filed challenging the use of solitary confinement in
Florida prisons.

Florida corrections officials are overusing the practice of
solitary confinement in the state's prisons, according to the
Southern Poverty Law Center.

A growing body of medical evidence shows extended periods of
solitary confinement can lead to suicidal thoughts and can cause
permanent psychological damage.

"Solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment, it violates
the 8th Amendment to the federal Constitution. And we say that
because the impact of solitary confinement on individuals, there's
a substantial risk of mental health damage," said Shalini Goel
Agarwal, a supervising attorney with the Southern Poverty Law
Center.

Nationwide, about 4.5 % of the prison population is in solitary. In
Florida it's more than double that with about 10 percent of the
population in solitary. [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Persad et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, SURESH PERSAD, DANIEL G. WRIGHT and
ROBERT S. DRUMMOND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-12599-TGB-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a plaintiff class defined as:

      "all persons or entities who currently own or lease a
      "Class Vehicle" which means retail 2016 and 2017 model year
      Ford Explorers;

   2. certifying plaintiff Classes and Subclasses pursuant to
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) of individuals or entities
      who purchased or leased a "Class Vehicle" which means
      retail 2016 and 2017 model year Ford Explorers and who fall
      within one or more of the following Classes and appointing
      Plaintiffs as Class or Sub-Class Representatives:

      The Unjust Enrichment Class:

      "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky,
      Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico,
      Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington,
      and Wisconsin. Class Representatives: Suresh Persad (GA),
      Daniel G. Wright (PA), and Robert S. Drummond (PA).

      Fraudulent Concealment Classes:

      The Fraudulent Concealment by Clear and Convincing Evidence
      Sub-Class:

      "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle in Florida, Iowa, New York, Pennsylvania, South
      Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. Class Representatives:
      Daniel G. Wright (PA) and Robert S. Drummond (PA).

      The Fraudulent Concealment by Preponderance of the Evidence
      Sub-Class:

      "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle in California, Colorado, Georgia, and North
      Carolina. Class Representative: Suresh Persad (GA).

      The Express Warranty Class:

      "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle in California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District
      of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
      Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York,
      North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South
      Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
      Class Representatives: Suresh Persad (GA), Daniel G. Wright
      (PA), and Robert S. Drummond (PA).

      The Implied Warranty Classes:

      The Implied Warranty, Without Proof of Privity, Sub-Class:

      all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, the
      District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Maryland,
      Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
      Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
      Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
      South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
      Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

      Class Representatives: Daniel G. Wright (PA) and Robert S.
      Drummond (PA).

      The Breach of Implied Warranty, Third Party Beneficiary,
      Sub-Class:

      "all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle in California, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, New York,
      Ohio, and Washington.

      Class Representative: Suresh Persad (GA).

      The Georgia Class: in the alternative, or for purposes of
      Consumer Protection and Negligent Misrepresentation claims,
      all persons or entities who purchased or leased a Class
      Vehicle in Georgia.

      Class Representative: Suresh Persad (GA).

      The Pennsylvania Class: in the alternative, or for the
      purposes of Consumer Protection and Negligent
      Misrepresentation claims, all persons or entities who
      purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in Pennsylvania.

      Class Representatives: Daniel G. Wright (PA) and Robert S.
      Drummond (PA).

      Excluded from all Classes are: (a) all Judges who have
      presided over the Action and their spouses; (b) all current
      employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives
      of Defendant, and their family members; (c) any affiliate,
      parent or subsidiary of Defendant and any entity in which
      Defendant has a controlling interest; (d) issuers of
      extended vehicle warranties and service contracts; (e) any
      person or entity who settled with and released Defendant
      from any causes of action asserted in Plaintiffs' Amended
      Class Action Complaint; and (f) any person or entity who
      files a timely and proper request for exclusion.

   4. appointing the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
      LLP and the Miller Law Firm, P.C. as Co-Lead Counsel.

   5. directing that Notice to the Class be disseminated in
      accordance with a Notice Place to be submitted to the Court
      for the Court’s approval.

   6. any other such relief in furtherance of class
      certification.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          William Kalas, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  wk@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          James P. McEvilly, III, Esq.
          Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
          Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq.
          Natalie Lesser, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  jmcevilly@ktmc.com
                  tgraden@ktmc.com
                  ebarlieb@ktmc.com
                  nlesser@ktmc.com


FORD MOTOR: Sued over Inaccurate Testing of Fuel Economy Ratings
----------------------------------------------------------------
RIVERSIDE TURF FARM, INC. and FRANK B. FLANDERS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00102-LAG (M.D.
Ga., June 17, 2019), seeks relief for the injuries sustained as the
result of the inaccurate testing methods used by Ford to ascertain
the fuel economy ratings of its vehicles and material misstatements
regarding those ratings used in the marketing and sales of certain
2017-2019 Ford vehicles in the United States.

The case is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf
of themselves and a class of current and former owners or lessees
of model year 2017 through 2019 Ford automobiles that were marketed
and sold with false fuel-economy ratings. Such vehicles include the
2019 Ford Ranger and 2017- 2019 Ford F-150.

The Plaintiffs' experts have examined nominal road load numbers
that Ford used for fuel economy and emissions certifications for
the 2018 F-150 and 2019 Ranger as reported to the EPA and CARB.
When compared with other vehicles of the same class with similar
weights and dimensions, Ford's road loads plotted against speed
produced curves that were abnormally low, especially in the lower
speed ranges more heavily weighted in federal MPG determinations.

Ford represented to customers their vehicles had achieved specific
MPG estimates. Ford, however, concealed that it conducted
inadequate and inaccurate EPA fuel economy testing, resulting in
Class Vehicles with overstated miles-per gallon EPA fuel economy
ratings.

Ford's EPA fuel economy ratings and advertising statements
overstated by a material amount the actual numbers that the
required testing would have produced. These misstatements are
material because the EPA numbers provide a necessary tool for
vehicle comparison for consumers when evaluating vehicles to lease
or purchase, and they exist to help foster realistic numbers with
which consumers can compare one of the most important factors in
new-car buyers' purchase decisions.

The use of EPA's testing methods is required by federal law, but
Ford's testing methods were flawed and insufficient. They produced
inaccurate fuel economy ratings that did not comply with federal
regulations. Ford itself admits that its U.S. emissions
certification process is a cause for concern.

Ford knew or should have known facts indicating the inaccuracies in
the promised gas mileages of its vehicles. Ford consciously or
recklessly disregarded facts that indicated the fuel economy
ratings were erroneous and overstated.

Since at least September of 2018 Ford has been aware of concerns
pertaining to gas mileage inaccuracies through Ford's "Speak Up"
employee reporting channel. Furthermore, standard internal testing
and investigation should have revealed the problem.

Ford willfully and uniformly failed to identify and correct its
misstatements. Ford's failure to disclose the defects in its fuel
economy testing constitutes an actionable Plaintiffs reserve the
right to amend or add to the vehicle models included in the
definition of Class Vehicles after conducting discovery.

The Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged by Ford's
misrepresentations, concealment, and non-disclosure of the
incorrect fuel economy numbers, because they were misled into
purchasing Ford vehicles of a quality different than they were
promised and paying more for their Class Vehicles than they
otherwise would have, and by paying higher fuel costs that they
would otherwise have not paid.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class are:

          Charles Hudson, Esq.
          L. Shane Seaborn, Esq.
          PENN & SEABORN LLC
          1971 Berry Chase Place
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: 334 676-1626
          Facsimile: 334 687-5111
          E-mail: Charlie@pennandseaborn.com
                  Shane@pennandseaborn.com

FORMOSA PLASTICS: Do et al. Sue over Toxic Waste Discharge
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Formosa Plastics
Corporation, U.S.A., Formosa Plastics Corporation, Ltd., and Susan
Wang, Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Corporation, Formosa Plastics
Corporation, U.S.A. and Formosa Plastics Corporation, Ltd for
alleged violations of the Vietnamese Civil Code, the Vietnamese Law
on Fisheries, the Vietnamese Law on Environmental Protection, the
Vietnamese Law on Water Resources, the Vietnamese Law on Natural
Resources and Environment of Sea and Islands, and for public
nuisance. The case is captioned Hoa Thi Do, John Doe 1, John Doe 2,
John Doe 3, John Doe 4, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.,
Formosa Plastics Corporation, Ltd., and Susan Wang, individually
and as director of Formosa Ha Tinh Steel Corporation, Formosa
Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. and Formosa Plastics Corporation,
Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-14390 (D.N.J., June 27, 2019).

This case arises out of Defendants' responsibility for the largest
environmental disaster in the history of Vietnam, the 2016 Formosa
Ha Tinh toxic waste discharge. The disaster resulted in loss of
life, devastation of the local economy and environment, and
substantial health risks for the local population. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants are liable for their acts and omissions that
created a public nuisance, by which Plaintiffs have each been
uniquely injured, actionable under New Jersey law and the laws of
any other applicable jurisdiction. Defendants are liable for this
nuisance in part because they engaged in ultra-hazardous
activities, namely, the construction and operation of a steel mill.


Formosa Plastics Group is a vertically-integrated network of
corporations, subsidiaries and affiliates under common family
ownership and direction, which together form an integrated
corporate enterprise. The Formosa Group itself has no separate
corporate personality, but controls multiple corporations under its
umbrella, including Defendants Formosa U.S.A. and Formosa Plastics.
Defendant Susan Wang has been a top executive in the leadership of
the Formosa Group since at least 2006 and is also a director of
Defendants Formosa U.S.A. and Formosa Plastics, as well as a
director of Formosa Ha Tinh. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Judith Brown Chomsky, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JUDITH BROWN CHOMSKY
     8120 New 2nd Street
     Elkins Park, PA 19027
     Telephone: (215) 266-7170
     Facsimile: (866) 216-4358
     E-mail: judithchomsky@icloud.com

             - and –

     Marco Simons, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MARCO SIMONS
     1050 Connecticut Ave #65225
     Washington, DC 20035
     Telephone: (917) 696-3304
     E-mail: marco.b.simons@gmail.com


FRESNO BEVERAGE: Intrastate Drivers Exempt from FAA, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abernethy, Esq. -- rabernethy@weintraub.com -- of Weintraub
Tobin, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in this age of
expensive class-action litigation, many California companies have
found solace in their arbitration agreements. Under certain
circumstances, the enforcement of such agreements includes the
dismissal of class action claims. This has largely been made
possible by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) which requires judges
to enforce a wide range of written arbitration agreements
notwithstanding contrary state law. California courts have a long
history of delivering rulings that attempt to narrow the scope and
effect of the FAA. As one of the latest examples, the California
Court of Appeal for the Fifth District held that truck drivers who
complete only intrastate deliveries are exempt from the FAA because
their work was part of a "continuous stream of interstate travel."

In Nieto v. Fresno Beverage Company, Inc. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th
274, a Fresno-based driver who delivered products for a beverage
company filed a class action lawsuit against his employer alleging
various wage and hour violations under California Labor Law. The
employer responded by filing a petition to compel arbitration based
on the written arbitration agreement the driver signed when he was
hired. The employer argued that courts were required to enforce all
arbitration agreements "involving" interstate commerce under the
FAA, regardless of any contrary state law.

The driver argued that he was exempt from arbitration pursuant to
Section 1 of the FAA, and thus should be able to maintain his class
action in state court. Section 1 provides a narrow exemption from
the FAA's coverage to certain transportation workers "engaged in"
foreign or interstate commerce. The employer contended that a
delivery truck driver who does not personally cross state lines is,
by definition, not "engaged in interstate commerce" or engaged in
the movement of interstate commerce for purposes of Section 1 of
the FAA, and therefore cannot qualify for the exemption.

The court sided with the driver, concluding that though the
drivers' individual deliveries were made entirely within the state
of California, they were merely the final leg of a continuous
journey of beverages to the employer's warehouse from out-of-state.
The Court held that "'[i]nterstate commerce' includes not only
goods that travel across state lines but also 'the intrastate
transport of goods in the flow of interstate commerce.'" Nieto, 33
Cal.App.5th at 282-83. An actual crossing of state lines is not a
necessary condition for the exemption to apply. The court cited
cases like Palcko v. Airborne Express, Inc. (3d Cir. 2004) 372 F.3d
588, where the FAA exemption was applied to workers whose duties
involved monitoring and directing drivers who physically delivered
interstate packages, even though they weren't driving at all.  The
court therefore found the driver to be a transportation employee
exempt from the FAA. Consequently, the arbitration agreement was
not enforced and the case was permitted to proceed as a class
action in state court.

So what's the takeaway for California employers? Given this Court
of Appeals' interpretation of the FAA, employees who facilitate the
transportation of goods from out of state -- as a driver, monitor,
director or otherwise -- are now more likely to successfully bring
class actions against their employers, whether or not they signed
bilateral arbitration agreements. The minimum degree of involvement
required by employees in the transportation process is likely to be
the subject of future litigation. In the meantime, arbitration
agreements remain enforceable against employees who are not exempt
from the FAA. [GN]


GALILEE MEMORIAL: Fails to Implement Promises Under Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Jackson, writing for Memphis Commercial Appeal, reports
that Morris Jones was setting flowers on the gravesite of his uncle
and brother on Memorial Day morning at the re-opened Galilee
Memorial Gardens in Bartlett as he began to reflect on the
dedication his relatives made.

Jones, 54, of Cordova, said his brother Darryl Jones died at age 20
while serving in the Army. His uncle, Willie Jones, passed in 1990
after serving in World War II.

Morris Jones said his uncle faced issues of segregation during the
war but thinks his uncle was just glad it was over.  

"They had to go through things that I'm sure they were not proud
of, but to serve their country, they did what they had to do. And
that is what makes it so special," Jones said.

Darryl Jones enlisted in the Army in 1979 and was killed 12 days
before his 21st birthday during a fight.

Morris Jones has younger relatives in the Navy, some of which have
retired.

For the Jones' family, the observance of Memorial Day is a priority
for them.

"It means a lot. They care enough for their country to serve their
country. So we just want to honor them, not just this day, but all
days because they gave so much," Jones said.

Walter Pegges, a pastor at Fullview Baptist Church in Bartlett,
said he knows at least 50 people that were members of his church or
had family members that served in the military and are buried at
Galilee Memorial Gardens.

Pegges said he has been meeting with representatives from the State
of Tennessee for the last five years to "get the cemetery where
it's supposed to be."

The cemetery faced controversy last year after a class-action
lawsuit said that funeral directors habitually left bodies at the
cemetery to be buried, but did not wait to see if that happened,
according to a report from the Commercial Appeal last year.

The lawsuit said that Galilee mishandled bodies that were supposed
to be buried there and that the funeral homes failed in their
obligation to the families that hired them by not overseeing the
burial of their loved ones.

Galilee had been closed since owner Jemar Lambert was arrested in
2014.

Families were awarded $7,500 for each body represented in the
class-action lawsuit, but still were unhappy with the result.

Pegges said things have gotten better at the cemetery, but there
are still a lot of things that have been promised but have not been
completed.

"They promised us a memorial wall that would keep the names of the
people that were buried. We also asked for a pedestrian gate so
people could come in at anytime," Pegges said.

The state decided the cemetery will be open to the public on
weekends and holidays as a part of a new court-approved plan by the
Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance.

After an April 23 court hearing, the decision was approved May 20.


The cemetery is open for limited visits on Saturdays, Sundays and
specific holidays from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

The holidays are: the Fourth of July, Labor Day Monday, Veteran's
Day, Thanksgiving Thursday, Christmas Day, Martin Luther King, Jr.,
holiday and President's Day. [GN]


GC SERVICES: Court Denies Class Certification in Jaber Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit SABAH JABER, individually, and as
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-13971-VAR-SDD (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Jugde Victoria A.
Roberts entered an order denying, without prejudice, Plaintiff's
motion to certify a class of:

   "(i) all persons at a Michigan address, (ii) to whom Defendant
   sent, or caused to be sent, a letter that was not returned by
   posta  service, (iii) in an attempt to collect a credit card
   debt referred by a credit card company, and which, as shown by
   the nature of the alleged debt, Defendant's records, or the
   records of the original creditors, was primarily for personal,
   family, or household purposes, (iv) during the one year period
   prior to the date of filing this action".

The Court said, "Because Jaber's class definition is too broad, and
because she fails to satisfy the numerosity, commonality, and
typicality requirements, the Court declines to discuss the
remaining requirements of Rule 23. Without determining whether
Jaber has a valid claim or not, the Court finds Jaber's unique
situation -- that she was a victim of identity theft -- prevents
her from establishing that her claim is typical of those of the
proposed class members."[CC]

GEICO GENERAL: 11th Cir. Tosses PIP Policy Cass Action
------------------------------------------------------
King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reported that on April
19, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit threw out a putative class action
seeking declaratory relief against GEICO, citing the lead
plaintiff's lack of standing.  The Eleventh Circuit's decision was
based on the long-settled rule that a party seeking declaratory
relief must allege a reasonable expectation of future injury.

Gerber filed suit in September 2016, claiming that GEICO was
wrongfully withholding payment of certain medical expenses in
personal injury protection ("PIP") cases.  In lieu of monetary
relief, Gerber sought a declaration that GEICO had breached the
terms of its policy on behalf of a purported class of healthcare
providers who had been assigned PIP benefits from GEICO insureds.
In June 2017, U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom certified a class, and
the Judge granted summary judgment in favor of the healthcare
providers five months later.  GEICO appealed both orders.

On appeal, GEICO argued that Gerber lacked standing because
Carruthers, the assignor, received more than the applicable policy
limits on his claim.  Gerber countered that the class would
experience future harm in disputes about other, similar claims.

The Eleventh Circuit agreed with GEICO because "Gerber, as
assignee, stands in Carruthers' shoes," and the possibility of
future, similar harm to Carruthers was too contingent to satisfy
Article III.  Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court's
decisions and ordered the case dismissed.

This case serves as a reminder that lack of standing can defeat a
claim at any phase of litigation, regardless of whether the claim
presents an "important issue" that "has been pending for several
years and has consumed a lot of both judicial and attorney
resources."

The case is A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC v. GEICO General Insurance
Co. [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Reaves Suit over Defective 2.4L Engine
------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP REAVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV20121 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 7, 2019) alleges that the Defendants' motor
vehicles equipped with a 2.4L engine, including the 2010-2013
Chevrolet Equinox, contained one or more design and manufacturing
defects in their engines that cause them to be unable to properly
utilize engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off and consume
abnormally high amounts of oil.

The Plaintiff alleges that the 2.4L engine in 2010-2013 vehicles
manufactured by the Defendants, equipped with the 2.4L engine,
including 2010-2013 Chevrolet Equinox vehicles, contains one or
more design and manufacturing defects that causes it to be unable
to properly utilize engine oil and, in fact, to improperly burn off
and consume abnormally high amounts of oil.

General Motors LLC was incorporated in 2009 and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. General Motors LLC operates as a subsidiary
of General Motors Company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL REVENUE: Thompson Moves to Certify two FDCPA Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled RACHEL M. THOMPSON, On Behalf
of Herself and Others Similarly Situated v. GENERAL REVENUE
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:16-cv-00734-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), moves for
certification of two classes pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3),
23(c)(4) and 23(c)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to
certain issues under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The proposed classes are:

   * CLASS 1 (As to the Issues of FDCPA Liability and Statutory
     Damages):

     All persons to whom Defendant mailed at least one written
     communication dated July 27, 2014 to the present; to collect
     a non-tax debt owed to the State of Ohio and/or its related
     entities, which debt was referred to Defendant for
     collection by the Ohio Attorney General ("OAG") pursuant to
     a Third Party Collection Vendor Agreement; and in which
     Defendant sought to recover "collection costs" pursuant to
     (former) Ohio Revised Code Sections 109.081 and 131.02.
     Specifically excepted from this Class are all persons to
     whom Defendant mailed written communications relating to any
     accounts placed with Defendant for collection of debts
     incurred after April 5, 2017, and/or for all accounts placed
     with Defendant for debts that were not incurred for
     personal, family or household purposes; and

   * CLASS 2 (As to the Issue of Disgorgement (or Payment
     Reapplication) of "Collection Costs" Paid):

     All persons to whom Defendant mailed at least one written
     communication dated July 27, 2014 to the present; to collect
     a non-tax debt owed to the State of Ohio and/or its related
     entities, which debt was referred to Defendant for
     collection by the Ohio Attorney General ("OAG") pursuant to
     a Third Party Collection Vendor Agreement; and in which
     Defendant sought to recover "collection costs" pursuant to
     (former) Ohio Revised Code Sections 109.081 and 131.02; and
     after which resulted in any payment from such persons of any
     funds applied to "collection costs".  Specifically excepted
     from this Class are all persons to whom Defendant mailed
     written communications relating to any accounts placed with
     Defendant for collection of debts incurred after April 5,
     2017, and/or for all accounts placed with Defendant for
     debts that were not incurred for personal, family or
     household purposes.

In addition, with regard to Class 2, the Plaintiff seeks
certification as to the issue of whether payments made on the
identified accounts and applied to "collection costs" should be
disgorged (or reapplied).  The Plaintiff further asks that the
Court to appoint her as the class representative for each of the
two described Classes, and to appoint her counsel as Class counsel
for each of the two Classes.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Nobile, Esq.
          NOBILE & THOMPSON CO., L.P.A.
          4876 Cemetery Road
          Hilliard, OH 43026
          Telephone: (614) 529-8600
          Facsimile: (614) 629-8656
          E-mail: jenobile@ntlegal.com


GHANA: Quarry Site Explosion Victims File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
GhanaWeb reports that five years after an explosion at a quarry
site at Paebo in the Nsawam-Adoagyiri Municipality in the Eastern
Region, 757 residents of the area have initiated a class action
against the government and three private entities, seeking
compensation of GH¢13.78 million for the injuries they suffered
and the destruction of their properties.

The December 23, 2015 explosion killed one person, injured more
than 20 people, destroyed many houses and displaced more than 1,200
people.

The class action is being led by three of the residents -- Mr
Lukman Osman, Mr Ali Ibn E. Chambas and Ms Angela Adu-Poku

In the suit filed at the Human Rights Division of the Accra High
Court by their counsel, Mr Chris Osei Yeboah, the plaintiffs accuse
the defendants of negligence and for failing to control and
regulate the storage of the explosives as stipulated by law.

The defendants include the Attorney-General (A-G), the Minister of
the Interior, the Minerals Commission and the Nsawam-Adoagyiri
Municipal Assembly.

Other are AKY Mining Services Limited, the company which owned the
warehouse which housed the explosives, Alhaji Adam Kofi Yamoah, the
Managing Director of AKY Mining Services, and Paebo Quarry Limited,
the quarry company.

Reliefs

Apart from the damages, the plaintiffs, also, want the court to ban
the defendants from ever using the quarry to store explosives.

They are further seeking interests on all the sums that will be
awarded to them by the court until the final payment of their
compensation.

Negligence

It is the case of the plaintiffs that Paebo Quarry illegally
allowed AKY Mining Services to construct a warehouse for the
storage of explosives.

They also aver that the Minerals Commission, the minister of the
interior and the Nsawam-Adoagyiri Municipal Assembly failed in
their duty to ensure that the warehouse housing the explosives was
constructed in accordance with the stipulated rules and
regulations.

Other particulars of negligence filed by the plaintiffs include the
illegal use of a mining concession for unapproved storage of
explosives, the non-existence of an explosive operating plan and
failure to maintain a security and an emergency response plan at
the quarry site.

Committee report

The plaintiffs argued that a committee, set up by the minister of
the interior to investigate the explosion, established that the
warehouse was constructed and was being operated contrary to
acceptable standards and laid down regulations.

"Due to the negligence of the defendants, the plaintiffs have
suffered various degrees of injury to their person and properties.
Despite repeated demands and meetings with the defendants, the
defendants have failed or refused to pay any compensation to the
plaintiffs for the damages suffered.

The refusal to pay compensation has caused the plaintiffs very
serious economic hardship and embarrassment," the statement of
claim added.

Extension of time

Meanwhile, at the hearing of the case, the court, presided over by
Justice Gifty Agyei Addo, granted two separate motions by the A-G
and the Minerals Commission for an extension of time to file their
defence.

The court has, subsequently, ordered the two state institutions to
file their defence within 10 days.

Dynamite explosion

The warehouse that exploded was said to contain ammonia and
dynamite chemicals.

The explosion affected houses as far as three kilometres away from
the quarry site with either the whole or part of the roofings,
doors, windows and louvre blades shattered by the explosion of two
containers containing ammonia and dynamite chemicals.

Some of the affected buildings sighted by a Daily Graphic team,
which visited the area on December 28, 2015, included those of the
St Martin's Senior High School (SHS) and the St Joseph the Worker
Catholic Church, both at Adoagyiri, and the Voltic Mineral Water
Company at Yawkrom.

The Daily Graphic team saw some of the metals that flew from the
explosion and caused damage to roofing sheets, louvre blades and
other valuables. [GN]


GLADSTONE PORTS: Faces Class Action Over Expansion Project
----------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Thompson, Esq. -- maurice.thompson@clydeco.com -- of Clyde
& Co LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that Murphy Operator
Pty Ltd and two other plaintiffs have commenced a class action
against Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd (GPC) for loss and damage
alleged to have arisen from GPC's Gladstone Port expansion project
in 2011 and 2012. The action is also commenced on behalf of persons
who fit within the definition 'group member', namely certain
persons, companies or partnerships engaged in commercial fishing in
an area defined as the 'Affected Waters', or fish handling and
processing, and wholesale fishing businesses reliant on such
catch.

Background to the class action

Clyde & Co are acting for Murphy Operator Pty Ltd, Tobari Pty Ltd
and SPW Ventures Pty Ltd (the plaintiffs) who have brought a class
action against the Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited (the
defendant) (GPC) in connection with GPC's handling of the Gladstone
Port "expansion" project in 2011 and 2012.

The plaintiffs allege that:

From early September 2011, GPC excavated spoil during
harbour-dredging operations and stored the spoil in a reclamation
area behind a "bund" wall, in circumstances where GPC knew or ought
to have known that the bund wall was not adequate to stop the spoil
from escaping back in to the harbour waters;

The spoil escaped and contaminated the waters in the harbour, and
also waters in a wide geographic area;

The contamination caused harm to commercial fish stocks across an
area extending from north of Gladstone up to in the vicinity of
Yeppoon, to south of Fraser Island down to Bribie Island (the
Affected Waters); and

The loss of and decreased value of commercial fish stocks caused
financial loss to the plaintiffs and the group members (together
the "claim group").

The plaintiffs also make claims under the legal heading of "public
nuisance", alleging that GPC's conduct caused an unreasonable
interference in the claim group's enjoyment of their public rights
to fish in the Affected Waters, which has caused damage including a
lost chance to process fish caught in the Affected Waters.

The defendant, GPC, denies the plaintiffs' allegations and is
defending the class action.

This class action is being funded by commercial litigation funder,
LCM Operations Pty Ltd (LCM). [GN]


GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Faces Collins' Labor Suit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Goodwill Industries
of Greater Cleveland & East Central Ohio, Inc. for alleged overtime
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Ohio
wage-and-hour laws, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Section 4111.03 and Ohio
Revised Code 4113.15, which requires prompt payment of earned
wages. The case is captioned JAMISE COLLINS, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GOODWILL
INDUSTRIES OF GREATER CLEVELAND & EAST CENTRAL OHIO, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01433 (N.D. Ohio, June 20, 2019).

Collins worked for Defendant as an hourly non-exempt employee in
one of Defendant's Ohio retail stores and on numerous occasions she
worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek. However, the
Defendant failed to pay proper overtime compensation and unlawfully
excluded the non-discretionary bonus in determining Plaintiff's
regular rates for purposes of overtime compensation.

Goodwill Industries of Greater Cleveland & East Central Ohio, Inc.
is an Ohio corporation maintaining business location in Cuyahoga
County, Ohio. It operates stores that provides revenue to help fund
skill-building programs and services. Its stores also serve job
training sites. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Lalak, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     614 West Superior Avenue, Suite 1148
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Telephone: (216) 230-2955
     E-mail: clalak@ohlaborlaw.com

             - and -

     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: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Hit With Class Action Over Patient Data Sharing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Google
and the University of Chicago Medical Center are facing a class
action lawsuit accusing the hospital of violating federal privacy
law by sharing patient health records with Google, which the
internet giant allegedly used to create its own electronic health
record management system.

On June 26, 2019, attorneys from the firm of Edelson P.C. filed a
complaint in Chicago federal court on behalf of named plaintiff
Matt Dinerstein.  The lawsuit alleges Google "pulled off what is
likely the greatest heist of consumer medical records in history."
Saying personal information such as credit card and Social Security
numbers is "run-of-the-mill" data, the lawsuit said "the personal
medical information obtained by Google is the most sensitive and
intimate information in an individual's life, and its unauthorized
disclosure is far more damaging to an individual's privacy."

According to the complaint, Google in 2017 enacted a plan to obtain
electronic health records from nearly every UC Medical Center
patient from 2009 to 2016 and then "file a patent for its own
proprietary and commercial EHR system that wouldn't be published
until well after it had obtained hundreds of thousands of EHRs from
the University."

Dinerstein's complaint said the university's patient admission
forms promise to not disclose records to third parties for
commercial purposes, and further alleged Google and UC falsely
claimed the records didn't contain individual patient information
because they "included detailed datestamps and copious free-text
notes," and using detailed geolocation information "Google — as
one of the most prolific data mining companies — is uniquely able
to determine the identity of almost every medical record the
University released."

The complaint said Google used a direct subsidiary called DeepMind
to analyze medical records and create commercial products, using
its artificial intelligence machine learning to make connections
between hospital records and Google user data. It also said most
"hospitals, researchers and health care providers alike" rebuffed
Google's efforts, until it got UC to agree to provide records that
should've been protected under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.

Dinerstein said he spent parts of eight days at the UC Medical
Center in June 2015, generating "numerous pages of health records."
He said he used his smartphone during the stay, including Google
software and accounts, allowing the company to link his unnamed
records to his other personal information.

He said UC and Google jointly published a January 2018 article in
Digital Medicine, at nature.com, describing the research and
methodology while acknowledging the contents of the records.

"Only months after the transfer was complete did it become public
that the datestamps, along with free-text notes data, were only
provided by the University, and not by any other hospital working
with Google," Dinerstein said. "That's not simply a coincidence or
a failure to persuade on the part of Google. Rather, the reason no
other hospital, including the other health care providers
partnering with Google, provided this type of information is
because it would be a prima facie violation of HIPAA to share or
even receive medical records in this form."

Formal complaints include a violation of the Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and breach of express or implied
contract against UC, tortious interference with contract and unjust
enrichment against Google and intrusion upon seclusion against
both.

Dinerstein said the class would include "hundreds of thousands of
individuals."

In addition to damages, class certification and a jury trial,
Dinerstein seeks an injunction forcing UC to comply with HIPAA
regulations, a court order barring it from disclosing records
without patient consent and another order prohibiting Google from
using and forcing it to delete records it obtained from the
school.
[GN]


HARTFORD LIFE: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Gorin Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alex Gorin filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Alex Gorin v. Hartford Life Insurance Co., Case No.
2:18-cv-03729-DMG-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The nature of suit is stated as employee retirement.

The appellate case is captioned as Alex Gorin v. Hartford Life
Insurance Co., Case No. 19-55743, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Alex Gorin's opening brief is due on August 26,
      2019;

   -- Appellee Hartford Life Insurance Company's answering brief
      is due on September 24, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ALEX GORIN, and all others similarly situated,
is represented by:

          Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
          Peter S. Sessions, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525
          E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net
                  psessions@kantorlaw.net

Defendant-Appellee HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:

          Marissa Marie Franco, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          E-mail: marissa.franco@ogletree.com

               - and -

          Sean P. Nalty, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          E-mail: sean.nalty@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Mark E. Schmidtke, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          56 S. Washington Street
          Valparaiso, IN 46383
          Telephone: (219) 242-8668
          E-mail: mark.schmidtke@ogletreedeakins.com


HEALTH NET: Ninth Cir. Appeal Initiated in Barkan Insurance Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ohad Barkan filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Ohad Barkan v. Health Net of California, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:18-cv-06691-MWF-AS, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The lawsuit arises from insurance-related issues.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(assigned Case No. BC711987) was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the
District Court on August 3, 2018.

Health Net provides health insurance coverage for individuals,
families, small business, large groups and Medicare Advantage
recipients.

The appellate case is captioned as Ohad Barkan v. Health Net of
California, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-55749, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 29, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on August 27, 2019;

   -- Appellant Ohad Barkan's opening brief is due on October 7,
      2019;

   -- Appellees Centene Corporation, Health Net Life Insurance
      Company, Health Net of California, Inc., Health Net, Inc.
      and Managed Health Network, Inc.'s answering brief is due
      on November 7, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellants OHAD BARKAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel J. Callahan, Esq.
          Richard T. Collins, Esq.
          Edward Susolik, Esq.
          CALLAHAN & BLAINE APLC
          3 Hutton Centre Drive
          Santa Ana, CA 92707
          Telephone: (714) 241-4444
          E-mail: DCallahan@callahan-law.com
                  RCollins@callahan-law.com
                  ESusolik@callahan-law.com

               - and -

          Damon D. Eisenbrey, Esq.
          SONGSTAD & RANDALL LLP
          2201 Dupont Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 757-1600

               - and -

          Lisa S. Kantor, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525
          E-mail: lkantor@kantorlaw.net

               - and -

          John D. Van Ackeren, Esq.
          FREEMAN, FREEMAN & SMILEY, LLP
          1920 Main Street, Suite # 1050
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 252-2777
          E-mail: john.vanackeren@ffslaw.com

Defendants-Appellees HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California
corporation; HEALTH NET LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
corporation; MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK, INC., a Delaware corporation;
HEALTH NET, INC., a Delaware corporation; and CENTENE CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation, are represented by:

          Ileana Maria Hernandez, Esq.
          John Michael LeBlanc , Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4116
          E-mail: ihernandez@manatt.com
                  jleblanc@manatt.com

               - and -

          Brendan Vincent Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5800
          E-mail: bsullivan@wc.com


HECLA MINING: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of July 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP reminds investors that three weeks remain to
make a motion for lead plaintiff in a securities class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of Hecla Mining Company ("Hecla" or the "Company")
(NYSE:HL) between March 19, 2018 and May 8, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to recover
damages for Hecla investors under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the
court no later than July 23, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Your ability to share in any recovery
does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff.

If you purchased HL securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit Hecla Mining Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
falsely and misleadingly represented that the Nevada operations
would be "accretive" and cash flow positive, or at the very least
"self-funding", but this was not true. As admitted by the
Defendants at the end of the Class Period, the Defendants knew from
their extensive due diligence that the Nevada mines faced many
undisclosed material problems that would prevent the operations
from being cash flow positive, or even cash flow neutral.
Specifically, Defendants were aware from their extensive due
diligence that the Nevada operations had material problems in terms
of excessive water, equipment availability, achieving enough
development to have consistent production, and lack of
characterization of ore types, among other things.

On May 9, 2019, Hecla shocked investors when, before the market
opened, the Company issued a press release entitled "Hecla Reports
First Quarter Results Nevada operations under review" (the "May 9
Press Release"), in which the Company disclosed a "comprehensive
review" of its Nevada operations that it characterized during the
ensuing conference call as "really just asking the question, are we
going to get the return for the investment we're making."
Defendants admitted that the Nevada operations suffered from
negative cash flow and other negative operating metrics, that
Defendants were not sure if Hecla would ever get a positive return
on its investment in the Nevada operations and that they might
write off the Nevada operations. Additionally, the Company reported
a net loss of over $25 million for the first quarter of 2019 based
in large part on a gross loss of $13.8 million from its Nevada
operations.

After these disclosures, Hecla's common stock declined by 23.5%
over two trading days, from a closing price of $2.04 per share on
May 8, 2019, to close at $1.56 per share on May 10, 2019.   The
stock price has not recovered and on May 23, 2019 closed at $1.38
per share.

Contact:

         Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
         Matthew Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street, New York,
         New York 1001
         Phone: (877) 779-1414
                (212) 779-1414
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
                Bigin@bernlieb.com
[GN]




HERON THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Notes of Aug. 5 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announced that approximately a few weeks remain to make a
motion to serve as lead plaintiff in a class action pending against
Heron Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: HRTX) on behalf of those who
purchased Heron securities between October 31, 2018 and April 30,
2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit,
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California, seeks to recover damages for Heron investors under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased HRTX securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit Heron Therapeutics HRTX
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.  

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Heron had failed to include adequate Chemistry, Manufacturing,
and Controls ("CMC") and non-clinical information in its new drug
application ("NDA") for HTX-011, a drug for management of
post-operative pain; (ii) the foregoing increased the likelihood
that the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") would not approve
Heron's NDA for HTX-011; and (iii) as a result, Heron's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On May 1, 2019, Heron announced that it had received a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA on April 30, 2019 regarding
the Company's NDA for HTX-011.  Heron advised investors that "[t]he
CRL stated that the FDA is unable to approve the NDA in its present
form based on the need for additional CMC and non-clinical
information."

On this news, Heron's stock price fell $3.93 per share, or 18.13%
to close at $17.75 per share on May 1, 2019.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Heron class action,
you must move the court no later than August 5, 2019. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

Contact:

         Matthew Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street, New York,
         New York 1001
         Phone: (877) 779-1414
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
                
[GN]



HOME DEPOT: Robinson & Cole Attorneys Discusses Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson & Cole
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court held on May 29 that a third-party defendant
could not remove a class action to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because the term "defendant" as used in
CAFA refers only to the party or parties sued by the original
plaintiff. The Court's opinion also has implications beyond the
class action context because it addresses the scope of removal
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(a). The key implication of
this decision in class actions is that a company that regularly
brings suit against consumers (typically in collections matters)
may be forced to defend a class action counterclaim filed by the
consumer in state court, without any opportunity to remove the case
to federal court. Companies may be able to avoid this outcome if
there is a governing arbitration provision or forum selection
clause in the applicable consumer contract.

In Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 1701471, the lawsuit
began as a collections suit by Citibank, N.A. against George
Jackson, seeking to recover for an unpaid balance on a Home Depot
credit card. Jackson counterclaimed against Citibank, and brought
third-party class action claims against Home Depot and Carolina
Water Systems, Inc. After Citibank dismissed its claims against
Jackson, Home Depot removed the case to federal court. The district
court remanded the case on the grounds that Home Depot as a
third-party defendant had no right of removal. The Fourth Circuit
affirmed, and the Supreme Court affirmed as well.

Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. The Court first addressed
the scope of the right of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), the
removal statute enacted long before CAFA, which provides for
removal of a civil action "by the defendant or the defendants . . .
." The Court noted that it was plausible that the term "defendant"
referred to any person or entity sued in a civil case, but
concluded that was not the best interpretation of the statute.
Instead, the Court concluded that Section 1441(a) focuses on
whether there is jurisdiction over the "civil action," not
particular claims or counterclaims made therein. The Court
concluded that "Section 1441(a) thus does not permit removal based
on counterclaims at all, as a counterclaim is irrelevant to whether
the district court had 'original jurisdiction' over the civil
action." Slip op. at 6. The Court also reasoned that: (1) the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure distinguish between "defendants,"
"third-party defendants," and "counterclaim defendants"; (2) other
removal statutes in the bankruptcy and patent/copyright context
allow "any party" to remove; and (3) the Court held in Shamrock Oil
& Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941) that a counterclaim
defendant that was the original plaintiff had no right of removal
under a predecessor statute to § 1441.

The Court then addressed the scope of the right of removal under 28
U.S.C. § 1453(b), part of CAFA, which provides for removal of a
putative class action "without regard to whether any defendant is a
citizen of the State in which the action is brought, except that
such action may be removed by any defendant without the consent of
all defendants." The Court concluded that the use of the words "any
defendant" in this statute were simply intended to clarify that the
in-state defendant limitation and consent requirement do not apply
to a removal under CAFA. The Court noted that, in other contexts,
the word "any" is given an "expansive meaning," but concluded that
Congress did not intend an expansive meaning in this context. Slip
op. at 10. The Court noted that "[o]f course, if Congress shares
the dissent's disapproval of certain litigation 'tactics,' it
certainly has the authority to amend the statute. But we do not."
Id.at 11.

Justice Alito wrote a lengthy dissent, joined by Chief Justice
Roberts and Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. I won't belabor the
dissent here because it does not appear to provide guidance on the
scope of the majority opinion that is now the governing law. In
brief, the dissent's key points included: (1) the purpose of CAFA
was to expand defendants' right of removal, contrary to the tactic
employed by Jackson's counsel here; (2) the ordinary meaning of the
word "defendant," i.e., a party being sued, includes a counterclaim
defendant or third-party defendant; (3) the word "any" should be
given an expansive meaning; and (4) the Court previously stated
that there is no anti-removal presumption under CAFA.

This decision upholds prior rulings by some lower courts that
counterclaim defendants have no right of removal. In the class
action context, the decision is likely to have the most impact on
companies that regularly bring suits against consumers that may
result in a class action counterclaim, or get brought into such
suits as third-party defendants. Other than lobbying Congress to
amend CAFA, potential strategic options from the defense
perspective may include the use of arbitration provisions in
consumer contracts that the Supreme Court's decisions have upheld,
and potentially the use of forum selection clauses that could
attempt to restrict the filing of CAFA-eligible class actions to
federal courts. [GN]


ICBC: Court of Appeal Okays Privacy Violation Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Zytaruk, writing for Cloverdale Reporter, reports that the B.C.
Court of Appeal has broadened the scope of a class-action lawsuit
against ICBC that involves violation of the privacy of 78 customers
whose information was sold by an employee to a criminal
organization.

Justice Elizabeth Bennett rendered her decision in the case of Ufuk
Ari versus ICBC on May 28, with Justices Anne MacKenzie and Gail
Dickson concurring.

Ari is the representative plaintiff in a class action lawsuit
brought against ICBC for violation of privacy resulting from an
ICBC employee accessing the information of 78 ICBC customers and
provided it to a criminal organization. The corporation, Bennett
noted, retains an enormous collection of personal and private
information about British Columbians.

The court heard a former ICBC employee, Candy Elaine Rheaume, "for
no business purpose" accessed the personal information – names,
addresses, drivers license numbers, vehicle descriptions and
identification numbers, licence plate numbers and claim histories
-- and gave this to an acquaintance in the drug trade, for $25 per
name. Rheaume pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining a computer
service and received a suspended sentence and nine months'
probation.

Bennett noted the illegally obtained information was used to target
13 of the plaintiffs for vandalism, arson and shootings between
April 2011 and January 2012.

"Two people have been found criminally responsible for their
involvement in the attacks," she noted. "The attackers thought they
were targeting police officers solely because the vehicles were
parked at or near the Justice Institute" in New Westminster.

While Rheaume was not named as a defendant in the class action
lawsuit Ari's lawyer argued ICBC is vicariously liable for her
wrongdoing.

The plaintiffs are claiming general and pecuniary damages for
violation of privacy, expenses paid for alternate accommodation,
security and moving expenses, and loss of past and future income.

There is a publication ban on information that could identify any
potential class members except in the case of those who have
already begun proceedings in B.C. Supreme Court.

The matter was brought to appeal after a lower court judge found no
evidence of misconduct on ICBC's part and concluded Rheaume hadn't
violated the privacy of other affected residents at the primary
plaintiffs' premises because she didn't accessed their names.

The court heard that after the breach ICBC cooperated with police
and strengthened its security protocols.

"The chambers judge certified the class proceeding but declined to
include other residents at the premises of the primary plaintiffs
in the class or to certify the issue of punitive damages," Bennett
noted. "It is not plain and obvious that the statute is not broad
enough to extend to the other residents, and ICBC's subsequent
laudable conduct does not necessarily insulate it from an award of
punitive damages."

Bennett decided to allow the appeal, include the other residents in
the class action and also certified punitive damages as a common
issue.

"The targets of the criminal organization were individuals and
their families who attended at the Justice Institute, who were not
necessarily the registered owners of the vehicles," Bennett said.
"It is arguable that anyone living at the address where the vehicle
was registered had a reasonable expectation that their address
would not be provided to a criminal organization." [GN]


IZEA INC: Sept. 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Federman & Sherwood and
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIAN PEREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

IZEA, INC., EDWARD MURPHY, and LEANN C. HITCHCOCK.

Defendants

Case No. 2:18-cv-02784-SVW-GJS

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
OF CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING THEREON

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF IZEA, Inc.
("IZEA") DURING THE PERIOD MAY 15, 2015 THROUGH APRIL 3, 2018,
INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that Lead
Plaintiffs in the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") have
reached a proposed settlement with Defendants for $1,200,000.00 in
cash, plus interest earned (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held on September 23, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., before
the Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, United States District Judge, in
Courtroom 10A of the United States District Court, Central District
of California, at 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90012 for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the Court should certify the
Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23; (2) whether the proposed Settlement of
$1,200,000.00 in cash, plus any return thereon, should be approved
by the Court as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as against Defendants
and Defendants' Released Parties as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement dated as of April 15, 2019; (4) whether the Plan of
Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and, therefore, should
be approved; (5) whether the application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for
the payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and
expenses incurred in connection with the Action should be approved;
and (6) such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

If you purchased IZEA's common stock during the period from May 15,
2015 through April 3, 2018, inclusive, your rights may be affected
by the settlement of the Action.  If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement (the "Notice")
and a copy of the Proof of Claim, you may obtain copies by writing
to IZEA Securities Settlement c/o KCC Class Action Services, Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 404128, Louisville, KY 40233-4128, or by
calling 1-866-680-4835.  You may also obtain copies on the internet
at www.IZEASecuritiesSettlement.com. Complete information
concerning the Action may be obtained from the Court files on this
matter.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely submit
a Proof of Claim to the Claims Administrator's address provided
above and postmarked no later than August 19, 2019.  If you are a
member of the Settlement Class and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not share in the distribution of the net proceeds of
the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgment
or orders entered by the Court.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion, at the
address above and postmarked no later than September 3, 2019, in
the manner and form detailed in the Notice.  If you properly
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound
by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in the Action and
you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
and/or Fee and Expense Application must be filed in the manner
detailed in the Notice with the Clerk of the Court and delivered to
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and Counsel for Defendants, such that
it is received by each party no later than September 3, 2019, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Any questions should be directed to:

Claims Administrator:
IZEA Securities Settlement
c/o KCC Class Action Services
P.O. Box 404128
Louisville, KY 40233-4128
Louisville, KY 40233-4128
www.IZEASecuritiesSettlement.com

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:
William B. Federman
A. Brooke Murphy
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
(405) 235-1560
wbf@federmanlaw.com
abm@federmanlaw.com

Phillip Kim
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York City, New York 10016
(212) 686-1060
pkim@rosenlegal.com  

DATED: May 7, 2019                                                
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN]


J G MOUSSE INC: Valdez-Padilla, Zamora Seek to Recover Unpaid Wage
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against J G Mousse, Inc. et
al for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case
is captioned FAUSTO VALDEZ-PADILLA and FELICIANO SUSANO ZAMORA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s), J G MOUSSE, INC d/b/a ROMA PIZZA AND PASTA, and JALEH
MOUSSAPOU, as an Individual, Defendant(s), Case No.
1:19-cv-03594-DLI-SJB (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2019).

Plaintiffs Fausto Valdez-Padilla and Feliciano Susano Zamora seek
to recover unpaid wages from the Defendant. This employment-related
class action is assigned to Hon. Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry.

J G Mousse, Inc. owns and operates Roma Pizza and Pasta, an Italian
restaurant located in Astoria, New York. The restaurant serves
pasta, pizza, calzones, sandwiches & burgers, with free local
delivery. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Erica Williams, Esq.
     KIRKLAND & ELLIS
     601 Lexington Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: +1 (202) 389-5044
     E-mail: erica.williams@kirkland.com


JANSSEN BIOTECH: Louisiana Health Transferred to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY D/B/A BLUE
CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA, and HMO LOUISIANA, INC., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC., JANSSEN ONCOLOGY, INC.,
JANSSEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, LLC, and BTG INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00474 (Filed April 18, 2019), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, to U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Newark) on June 24, 2019. The District of New Jersey Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-14146-SDW-LDW to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Susan D. Wigenton.

The Plaintiff and the proposed class seek to recover damages,
including treble damages, under the state antitrust and consumer
protection laws enumerated below or in the alternative, damages
under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

Absent the Defendants' unlawful conduct, generic competition for
Zytiga would have entered as early as December 2016 and no later
than October 2017. Instead, the defendants' unlawful conduct
prevented generic manufacturers from entering the market with
competing abiraterone acetate products for more than year, delayed
the entry of additional generic competitors, and has cost
purchasers hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharge damages.

Janssen Biotech, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, specializes in
the development and commercialization of therapeutic products for
patients and the healthcare community. Its products are developed
primarily through monoclonal antibody technology.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq.
          Marc C. Greco, Esq.
          Kip A. Harbison, Esq.
          Michael A. Glasser, Esq.
          William D. Moore, III, Esq.
          Anders T. Sleight, Esq.
          GLASSER & GLASSER PLC
          580 E Main St., Suite 600
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 625-6787
          E-mail: bill@glasserlaw.com
                  marcg@glasserlaw.com
                  kip@glasserlaw.com
                  michael@glasserlaw.com
                  wmoore@glasserlaw.com
                  asleight@glasserlaw.com

               - and -

          Wyatt B. Durrette , Jr., Esq.
          DURRETTE ARKEMA GERSON & GILL PC
          1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-6900
          Facsimile: (804) 775-6911

               - and -

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregory T. Arnold, Esq.
          Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
          E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                  lauren@hbsslaw.com
                  grega@hbsslaw.com
                  bradleyv@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          James R. Dugan II, Esq.
          David S. Scalia, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          One Canal Place, Suite 1000
          365 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180
          Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
          E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Gordon Dwyer Todd, Esq.
          Kimberly Ann Leaman, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP (DC)
          1501 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 736-8711

               - and -

          Perry Andrew Lange, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
             HALE & DORR LLP (DC)
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 663-6363

JOB OPTIONS: Rhodan Suit Moved to Southern District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PIERRE RHODAN, individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. JOB OPTIONS, INC., a
California corporation; JEFFREY A. JOHNSON, an individual; RICHARD
SKAY, an individual; JOUNINA BOKA, an individual; and DOES 4
through 10 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-2018-00060219-CU-OE-CTL (Filed March 25, 2019), was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California on June 17, 2019. The
Southern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-01141-CAB-BGS to the proceeding.

The case is an employment related wage and hour class and
representative Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and
Labor Code Private Attorney General Act, the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs bring this proposed class action against Defendants
for wage and hour violations of the California Labor Code and the
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders , all of which contribute
to Defendants' deliberate unfair competition. The Plaintiffs
seeking damages, penalties, restitution, injunctive and other
equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Isaac Dawoodjee, Esq.
          DAWOODJEE LAW FIRM
          501 West Broadway, Suite 800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 940-6171
          Facsimile: (619) 488-6600

               - and -

          Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq.
          500 West Harbor Drive, Suite 1113
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 886-7224
          Facsimile: (619) 259-5455

JOSHUA COLLINS: Schlesinger Sues over Unauthorized Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN SCHLESINGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the  Plaintiff, v. JOSHUA COLLINS, an
individual, d/b/a/ XPRESSCAPITALGROUP.COM, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-03483-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 18, 2019), seeks to stop its
illegal practice of making unauthorized calls that play
prerecorded
voice messages to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide,
and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct.
Defendant did not obtain consent prior to placing these calls and,
therefore, are in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, Collins sells business capital loans.
As a primary part of his marketing efforts, Defendant and his
agents placed thousands of automated calls employing a prerecorded
voice message to consumers' cell phones nationwide.

Congress enacted the TCPA in 1991 to restrict the use of
sophisticated telemarketing Congress found that these calls were
not only a nuisance and an invasion of privacy to consumers
specifically but were also a threat to interstate commerce
generally. By placing the calls at issue, the Defendant has
violated the privacy and statutory rights of Plaintiff and the
Class.

On April 11, 2019, the Plaintiff received a call from 813-906-5219.
When Plaintiff answered the call, he heard a prerecorded voice
message asking him to press one to receive a business capital loan.
The Plaintiff did not need a business capital loan, but Plaintiff
"pressed one" to see who was calling. The Plaintiff was connected
to Defendant Xpress and/or its agents. Xpress and/or his agents
emailed him an application from a website operated by Defendant
Collins at www.xpresscapitalgroup.com. The Plaintiff never
consented to receive calls from Defendant. Plaintiff has no
relationship with Defendant and has never requested that Defendant
contact him in any manner, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:

          Mark L. Javitch, Esq.
          MARK L. JAVITCH, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          210 S. Ellsworth Ave No. 486
          San Mateo CA 94401
          Telephone: 402-301-5544
          Facsimile: 402-396-7131
          E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com

KOTTEMANN LAW: Faces Banks Suit over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
ERICKA BANKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KOTTEMANN LAW FIRM, Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-00375 (M.D., La., June 10, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The
case is assigned to Judge John W. deGravelles and referred to
Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder Doomes.

Kottemann Law Firm provides legal services. It is also serve as a
debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Raburn, Esq.
          MCCARTY & RABURN,
          A CONSUMER LAW FIRM, PLLC
          2931 Ridge Rd., Suite 101
          Rockwall, TX 75032
          Telephone: (225) 412-2777
          E-mail: jonathan@geauxlaw.com


LAND HOME FINANCIAL: Faces Clayton Suit in Sacramento
-----------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action lawsuit has been filed against
Land Home Financial Services Inc. The case is captioned as JENAY
CLAYTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LAND HOME FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.; and DOES
1-100, Case No. 34-2019-00258005-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento
Cty., June 7, 2019).

Land Home Financial Services, Inc. provides financial services. The
Company offers mortgage loans on house construction, remodeling,
and on land selling. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 North Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259


LIVENT CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of July 22 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announced that approximately three weeks remain to make a
motion to serve as a lead plaintiff in a class action pending
against the Livent Corporation ("Livent," "LTHM" or the "Company")
(NYSE: LTHM) alleging claims on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired Livent shares pursuant to or traceable to Livent's initial
public offering ("IPO") on or around October 12, 2018.  

If you purchased Livent securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit Livent LTHM Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

The complaint, which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleges that Defendants
violated the Securities Act of 1933. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in the Livent Securities Class Action you must move the
Court no later than July 22, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements in the offering documents relating to the IPO, including
failing to disclose that: (i) a supply contract with Nemaska
Lithium Inc. had been terminated; (ii) the Company would be forced
to fulfill its customer contracts using alternative vendors at
reduced revenues and lower margins; (iii) the Company had a
long-standing contract to supply lithium hydroxide to a customer at
a much lower price than any of Livent's existing contracts; (iv)
the Company's margins were squeezed due to that customer's
increased orders; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about Livent's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On February 11, 2019, Livent released its fourth quarter 2018
financial results that missed top line sales targets, citing
difficulties negotiating contracts with existing customers. On this
news, Livent's share price fell $0.57, over 4%, to close at $12.55
per share on February 12, 2019.

On May 8, 2019, Livent announced disappointing financial results
for first quarter 2019, citing further customer issues. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $1.70, nearly 16%, to close at
$9.03 per share on May 8, 2019.

Contact:

         Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
         Matthew Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street, New York,
         New York 1001
         Phone: (877) 779-1414
                (212) 779-1414
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
                Bigin@bernlieb.com
[GN]



LOTO-QUEBEC: Appeal Court Refuses to Authorize Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Dupoy, Esq., of Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, in an
article for Mondaq, reports that on May 9, 2019, the Court of
Appeal handed down its decision in Karras v. Societe des loteries
du Quebec in which it dismissed an application for authorization to
institute a class action against Loto-Quebec. In its decision, the
Court of Appeal reviewed the principles governing authorization of
a class action and confirmed that the authorization judge, in
exercising his role as a filter, must dismiss any action that has
no reasonable chance of success in light of the evidence tendered.

The facts
The plaintiff had been buying lottery tickets for over 20 years
when she sought authorization to institute an action in damages
against Loto-Quebec on the grounds that it failed to disclose to
lottery ticket buyers the actual odds of winning a jackpot. The
plaintiff also alleged that Loto-Quebec was making false
representations since its advertising suggested the existence of a
life of luxury while failing to disclose the actual odds of winning
the lottery.

The plaintiff claimed that Loto-Quebec violated various provisions
of the Civil Code of Quebec (CCQ) and the Consumer Protection Act
(CPA), which provide that merchants have a duty to inform consumers
about important facts likely to influence their decision whether or
not to purchase a product. As a result, the plaintiff sought
damages equal to the profits Loto-Quebec generated on lottery
ticket sales over the past three years, as well as $150 million in
punitive damages.

The Court of Appeal's decision
In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial
judgment and dismissed the action in its entirety. The Court
pointed out that the evidence filed by Loto-Quebec clearly showed
that it provides lottery ticket buyers, on its website for example,
with all relevant information regarding the odds of winning for
each type of product available. The Court added that the
information on the odds of winning can be lengthy and that it would
be unreasonable to reproduce the information on the back of every
ticket. The Court also found that the information on the back of
the lottery tickets was in all respects compliant with the
applicable regulations.

The Court found that Loto-Quebec's advertising contained no false
or misleading representations. According to the Court, the mere
fact that their ads convey an appearance of happiness does not
violate the provisions of the law prohibiting false or misleading
representations. According to the Court, Loto-Quebec is not
required to reproduce on each of its ads the statistics on the odds
of winning.

The Court also issued certain comments regarding the plaintiff's
role and her ability to represent the interests of all class
members. The Court mentioned that, during her examination on
discovery, the plaintiff acknowledged that she believed her chances
of winning were around one in five million (in reality, her chances
were one in fourteen million). According to the Court, the
important fact for the consumer is the low likelihood of winning
rather than the specific mathematical statistics.

The Court added that the plaintiff had no individual claim since
consumers are required to inform themselves and that she failed to
do so even though the relevant information was fully available. The
Court added that the representative had not shown any interest in
the issues raised in this matter until the attorney ad litem
suggested she act as a representative. Lastly, the Court found that
the alleged causal connection was, at the very least, problematic
in this case and that the very existence of the proposed class
seemed vague. In light of such circumstances, the Court of Appeal
dismissed the motion for authorization to institute a class
action.

Importance of the decision
The Court of Appeal's decision confirms that it is possible to have
a class action dismissed at the authorization stage when the
defendant files evidence in the Court record (with its
authorization) to establish that the key allegations of the motion
are false and are nothing more than mere assumptions, opinions or
inferences of facts that the Court should not assume to be true at
the authorization stage.

* Loto-Quebec was represented before the Court of Appeal by Mtre
Olivier Kott Ad. E. -- olivier.kott@nortonrosefulbright.com -- and
Mtre Dominic Dupoy from Norton Rose Fulbright. [GN]


LOWBRAU BIER: Faces Valencia Labor Suit in Sacramento California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lowbrau Bier Garten
LLC. The case is captioned as WILLIAM VALENCIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWBRAU BIER
GARTEN LLC; MICHAEL HARGIS; BROCK MACDONALD; and DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00258038-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super.,
Sacramento Cty., June 7, 2019).

Lowbrau Bier Garten LLC is engaged in the restaurant business. The
Company also sells draft brews & pub grub, including various
sausages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
          SHIMODA LAW CORP.
          9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200
          Elk Grove, CA 95624
          Tel: (916) 525-0716
          E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com


LYFT, INC: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of July 16 Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announced that that approximately two weeks remain to make a
motion for lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit
against Lyft Inc. ("Lyft" or the "Company) (NASDAQ: LYFT) alleging
claims on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Lyft shares
pursuant to or traceable to Lyft's initial public offering ("IPO")
on or around March 29, 2019.  

The complaint, which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, alleges that Defendants
violated the Securities Act of 1933.

If you purchased Lyft securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options, please visit Lyft Class Action Lawsuit or
contact Matthew Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 16, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

According to the lawsuit, Lyft's offering materials issued in
connection with its IPO failed to disclose that: (1) Lyft's claimed
ridesharing position was overstated; (2) more than 1,000 of the
bicycles in Lyft's rideshare program suffered from safety issues
that would lead to their recall; (3) Lyft's drivers were becoming
disincentivized from driving for Lyft; (4) Lyft failed to warn
investors that a labor disruption could affect its operations; and
(5) as a result, Lyft's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

As the true facts emerged in the wake of the IPO, the Company's
shares fell from the offering price of $72 per share to $57 per
share on April 15, 2019.

Contact:

         Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
         Matthew Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street, New York,
         New York 1001
         Phone: (877) 779-1414
                (212) 779-1414
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
                Bigin@bernlieb.com
[GN]



MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE INC., and
RHADA GEISMANN M.D. P.C., the Plaintiffs, v. MASIMO CORPORATION, et
al., the Defendants, Case No. 8:14-cv-00001-JVS-ADS (C.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiffs will move the Court on August 26, 2019, to certify a
class of:

   "all persons or entities who were successfully sent one or
   more faxes stating: "Go from OW! to Wow! Noninvasive & Quick
   HEMOGLOBIN," with the Masimo "Pronto" device, sent on or
   about October 12, 2011; or (2) "Go from OW! to Wow! A New
   Solution for Noninvasive Spot checking Hemoglobin," with the
   Masimo "Pronto 7" device, sent on or about April 10, 2012.
   (the "Class")."[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 625-1600
          E-mail: meiselas@geragos.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Glenn Hara, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  ghara@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Matthew E. Stubbs, Esq.
          Montgomery Jonson LLP
          600 Vine Street, Suite 2650
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241-4722
          Facsimile: (513) 241-8775
          E-mail: mstubbs@mojolaw.com

MASTERS PHARMACEUTICAL: Grand Family Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, GRAND FAMILY IMMEDIATE MEDICAL CARE
P.C., a New York professional corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. MASTERS PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC, an Ohio limited
liability company, and MASTERS DRUG COMPANY, INC. d/b/a MASTERS
PHARMACEUTICAL, a Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03321-DLI-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. taking class certification motion under submission and
      deferring further activity on it until after the discovery
      cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23
      scheduling order, or alternatively;

   2. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification pursuant

      to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.[CC]

Attorneys for GRAND FAMILY IMMEDIATE MEDICAL CARE P.C.,
individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, are:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: 914-358-5345
          Facsimile: 212-571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

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

MDL 2741: Jimenez et al. Sue over Dangers of Roundup Herbicide
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Monsanto Company
for strict product liability claim for the defective design and for
failure to warn; for negligence; for fraud, misrepresentation, and
suppression; for wrongful death; and for violations of the state
consumer protection statutes. The case is captioned CESILIO
JIMENEZ, a California consumer; MIRJANA DJURDJEVIC as proposed
administrator of the estate of GORAN MILOSEVIC (deceased), an
Illinois consumer; BARBARA RITCHEY as proposed administrator of the
estate GREGORY RITCHEY (deceased), a Tennessee consumer; MARK
WASILESKI, a Pennsylvania consumer; DIANE MONTGOMERY as proposed
administrator of the estate of STEPHEN SCHARFE (deceased), a Nevada
consumer; KENNETH BAUCOM, a Texas Consumer; MARILYN LYDON, an
Arizona consumer; KENNETH LOVING, a Tennessee consumer; LARRY
POPLIN, Sr., a Virginia consumer; MARY CLINE as proposed
administrator of the estate of GARRY CLINE (deceased), a Tennessee
consumer; WILLIAM RINAMAN, a North Carolina consumer; DARWIN TYLER,
a Tennessee consumer; TERESA WADE, a West Virginia consumer; VERNON
REDMON, a Kentucky consumer; Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 16-MD-02741-VC (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2019).

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for the injuries sustained by
them as the direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct and
negligence of the Defendant in connection with the design,
development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide
Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Plaintiffs
maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to
human health, unfit and unsustainable to be marketed and sold in
commerce and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the
dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation in active status with a
principle place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel C. Burke, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP.
     10 East 40th Street
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 779-1414
     Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
     E-mail: dburke@bernlieb.com
             dweck@bernlieb.com


MDL 2741: Rodriguez v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
LETICIA RODRIGUEZ, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 2:19-cv-355
(Filed May 30, 2019) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on June 24, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03619-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 Pritchett 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 Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
          KAGAN LAW FIRM
          8191 College Pkwy Suite 303,
          Fort Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 466-1161
          Facsimile : (239) 466-7226
          E-mail: liz@kagan-law.com

               - and -

          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1473 South 4th Street
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 717-4080
          Facsimile: (502) 717-4086
          E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com

MINNESOTA: Settlement Jurisdiction in METO Suit Extended to 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
issued an Order extending Jurisdiction on Settlment Agreement in
the case captioned James and Lorie Jensen, as parents, guardians,
and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen; James Brinker and Darren
Allen, as parents, guardians, and next friends of Thomas M.
Allbrink; Elizabeth Jacobs, as parent, guardian, and next friend of
Jason R. Jacobs; and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota; Director, Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a
program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of
the State of Minnesota; Clinical Director, the Minnesota Extended
Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human
Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Douglas Bratvold,
individually and as Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services,
an agency of the State of Minnesota; Scott TenNapel, individually
and as Clinical Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services,
an agency of the State of Minnesota; and the State of Minnesota,
Defendants. Civil No. 09-1775 (DWF/BRT). (D. Minn.).

The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants asserting
multiple violations of federal and state law arising out of
allegations of abusive, inhumane, cruel, and improper use of
seclusion and mechanical restraints routinely imposed upon
[residents] of the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options program
(METO).

The parties entered into a Stipulated Class Action Settlement
Agreement, which was approved by the Court on December 5, 2011.  

The Stipulated Class Action Settlement Agreement provided for the
closure of the METO facility, established requirements regarding
restraint and seclusion at successor facilities, and established
requirements for the Department of Human Services (DHS) to
internally and externally monitor restraint use.

The Settlement Agreement also provided that the State shall
exercise best efforts for appropriate discharge of residents to the
most integrated setting through transition planning. In addition,
the Settlement Agreement imposed requirements relating to other
practices at METO and its successor facilities.

The Settlement Agreement also included System Wide Improvements
which identified goals and objectives in the areas of long-term
monitoring, crisis management, and training. The Settlement
Agreement further required the development of an Olmstead Plan
within eighteen months of the Settlement Agreement's approval.   

The Settlement Agreement also established requirements relating to
other state facilities, the modernization of state administrative
rules relating to positive behavioral supports (Rule 40), and the
substitution of offensive terminology in DHS publications.

The Court issued an Order requesting a comprehensive Summary Report
to evaluate Defendants' overall compliance with the Agreement in
lieu of the scheduled reporting requirements. The Court explained,
the Court must evaluate Defendants' compliance to assess the impact
of the Jensen lawsuit on the well-being of its class members and to
determine whether the Court's jurisdiction may equitably end. In
order to accomplish this, the Court requested reporting in three
areas: Internal Compliance Oversight Structure; Class Members'
Update; and assessment of all Evaluation Criteria.

In light of the previous Compliance Reports that removed
conclusions about whether each EC was met, the Court specifically
asked Defendants to state whether each EC was met and to provide
specific data supporting each conclusion. It was the Court's intent
that the Summary Report would serve as a tool to facilitate a
thorough review of compliance that would help establish a road map
for an equitable end to the Court's jurisdiction. The January 4,
2019 Order advised the parties to review the Summary Report to
assess compliance and identify next steps at a Status Conference in
April 2019. Defendants timely submitted the Summary Report on March
19, 2019 and self-assessed all ECs as in compliance.

The Court held the Status Conference on April 16, 2019. While the
Court reviewed a number of Defendants' Compliance Reports, a
special focus was placed on the Summary Report. In advance of the
Status Conference, the Parties and the Consultants were invited to
comment on Defendants' status of compliance. The parties addressed
the comments during the Status Conference; however, they failed to
agree on the status of compliance or a plan to move forward. They
disagreed over whether Defendants have complied with the Agreement.
While Defendants contend that they have met the requirements for
each EC and that the Court should end its jurisdiction immediately,
Plaintiffs strongly contest compliance and ask the Court to
reengage the Court Monitor to investigate multiple violations of
abusive conduct in state operated and licensed facilities.

The Plaintiffs also request an evidentiary hearing. The Consultants
also have concerns with respect to Defendants' assessment of
compliance. They found that Defendants' limited analysis and lack
of external verification in their Summary Report make it difficult
to conclude whether Defendants are truly in compliance.

Taking into account Defendants' Summary Report and the Plaintiffs'
and Consultants' responses to the Summary Report. The Court will
then identify specific required actions. Next, the Court will
address the Olmstead Plan, including the March 2019 proposed
Revision. Finally, the Court will discuss next steps necessary to
address remaining disputes.

The Jensen Agreement

Defendants' Summary Report and Responses

The Defendants' Summary Report addressed each of the three areas
required by the Court's January 4, 2019 Order on reporting. First,
Defendants discussed DHS's Internal Compliance Oversight structure.
The Summary Report also included updates on individual class
members. Finally, it provided an internal self-assessment of all
ECs.  Defendants concluded that they are in full compliance with
the Agreement. They request an immediate end to the Court's
jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs filed a letter response to Defendants' Summary
Report. Plaintiffs vehemently contest Defendants' compliance with
the Agreement, citing multiple violations including allegations of
abusive conduct in state operated and licensed facilities.
Plaintiffs' counsel  have consistently highlighted the need for the
elimination of restraints as fundamental to the settlement.  

The Plaintiffs ground their noncompliance arguments in the
Agreement, the Positive Supports Rule, and previous Court Orders.
Focused on the lack of meaningful external review, Plaintiffs
request that  the Court actively involve the Independent Court
Monitor and hold an evidentiary hearing on the use of prohibited
restraints.  

Issues Requiring Further Investigation and Review

The Court has reviewed the Summary Report, letters, presentations
offered at the April 16, 2019 Status Conference, and relevant
historical materials of records and identifies several issues in
need of further investigation and review as set forth below.

Use of Prohibited Techniques

The Defendants state repeatedly in their Summary Report that "the
Jensen Internal Reviewer has monitored the use of restraints at
Minnesota Life Bridge and has found that Minnesota Life Bridge has
used no prohibited restraints or techniques or has used restraints
only on an emergency basis. Defendants, however, appear to be
verifying this information via sampling and without more
comprehensive verification. Defendants provide little detail
regarding the total number of reports, the basis of any emergency,
an assessment of any trends, or an explanation on how Defendants
quantify known use of prohibited restraint or techniques by a third
party.

Thus, the Court cannot conclude whether Defendants have complied
with the obligations set forth in the Agreement.

The Court finds that external review is required. As discussed
above, David Ferleger, who was initially appointed as Court
Monitor, assumed the role of External Reviewer pursuant to the
consent of both sides. Thus, the Court could direct the Court
Monitor to perform this work, as requested by Plaintiffs. However,
Defendants have objected to the ongoing involvement of Mr.
Ferleger. While the Court does not concede that Defendants'
objection has any merit, the Court will allow Defendants the option
to demonstrate that they have indeed developed the external review
mechanisms to provide independent and objective assurance,
advisory, and investigative services to the Department in relation
to the Jensen Settlement Agreement.

The Independent Subject Matter Experts were developed by DHS to
bring "significant improvements to the care and treatment of
persons with developmental disabilities, as outlined in the
Settlement Agreement" through a master contract program. The
Independent Subject Matter Experts have a minimum of five years'
experience in one or more specified Specialty Services Areas.  One
of the four specific areas identified includes positive behavior
practices.

Accordingly, the Court will require Defendants to engage Subject
Matter Experts to conduct an external review of Defendants'
compliance regarding prohibited restraints.

Scope of the Settlement Agreement and CPA Relating to Prohibited
Restraints

Plaintiffs have raised ongoing concerns surrounding the treatment
of persons with developmental disabilities at Minnesota Security
Hospital and Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center. As one example,
Plaintiffs claim ongoing use of mechanical restraints on people
with developmental disabilities at Minnesota Security Hospital,
including use of restraint chairs on vulnerable citizens with
disabilities as violations of the Settlement Agreement and CPA.  

PROHIBITED TECHNIQUES

The Plaintiffs argue that Defendants agreed that the Settlement
Agreement precludes the use of prohibited restraints at the
Minnesota Security Hospital and elsewhere.  Citing the Court's
directive letter to the Court Monitor. Plaintiffs argue that Anoka
Regional Treatment Center and Minnesota Security Hospital are
within the scope of the changes in restraint and seclusion policy
and practice" contemplated by the Settlement Agreement.

The Defendants appear to disagree that the ECs pertaining to
prohibited techniques obligate the Defendants beyond the Facility
or Facilities defined in the CPA. Consistent with this position,
Defendants have limited their reporting on Facilities to Stratton
Lake, Donnelly, and Bromberg's Lake.  

The Defendants also assert full compliance with the Agreement's
provisions regarding the Positive Supports Rule Rule 40, to
prohibit procedures that cause pain, whether physical, emotional or
psychological, and establish a plan to prohibit use of seclusion
and restraints for programs and services licensed or certified by
the department.

The dispute about scope on the use of prohibited restraints must be
resolved before the Court can confirm whether compliance must be
further investigated and reviewed by a Subject Matter Expert or the
Court Monitor. Accordingly, the parties must meet and confer no
later than August 1, 2019, to discuss their positions on whether
provisions of the Agreement on prohibited techniques include the
Minnesota Security Hospital and Anoka Regional Treatment Center or
beyond. The parties must also meet and confer to determine whether
there are disputes relating to the ECs regarding the Positive
Supports Rule for the Court to decide.

If the parties are unable to enter into a Stipulation, they must
inform the Court no later than August 15, 2019 of their separate
views and propose a process for the Court to consider the dispute
consistent with the applicable enforcement proceedings set forth in
the Settlement Agreement or other procedures permitted pursuant to
the Agreement. Following the parties' submission, the Court will
set a hearing and issue a briefing schedule. Once any disputes
regarding scope are resolved, the need for further external
investigation and review will be determined.

The Staff Training

The Court also concludes that external investigation and review is
necessary to ensure that Defendants have complied with certain ECs
relating to staff training. Accordingly, the Court requires
Defendants to assign an Independent Subject Matter Expert to
review:

The CPA states, Facility treatment staff received training in
positive behavioral supports, person-centered approaches,
therapeutic interventions, personal safety techniques, crisis
intervention and post crisis evaluation.  

While the Summary Report indicates that training is offered, it
fails to show that all Facility treatment staff actually received
the training.

The CPA states, Facility staff training is consistent with
applicable best practices, including but not limited to the
Association of Positive Behavior Supports, Standards of Practice
for Positive Behavior Supports (http://apbs.org).Staff training
programs will be competency-based with staff demonstrating current
competency in both knowledge and skills.

Although the Summary Report provides a detailed description of the
training curriculum provided to staff and the process to determine
staff competency, it provides no documentation or verification that
staff has actually achieved competency.

The Subject Matter Expert must assess overall compliance with ECs
54-56, including but not limited to verifying that each staff
member has actually received and achieved competency in all areas
of required training. The Subject Matter Expert must complete an
initial report prior to October 15, 2019, unless a different date
is adopted by the Court. Defendants will have ten days to respond
to the initial Subject Matter Expert report. The Subject Matter
Expert will submit a final report within ten days after receipt of
Defendants' response, or within ten days of submission of the
initial report, if Defendants do not make a response. Defendants
will share the final reports with Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, the
Consultants, and the Court.  

Treatment Homes

The Court also finds that additional verification and review is
necessary regarding the number of treatment homes needed to satisfy
the Agreement. The Consultants have repeatedly raised concerns that
the current number of homes may be insufficient. They cite
Diversion Minutes and referral lists which illustrate lengthy wait
lists. The Court notes that EC 88 specifically discusses an
assessment of need.  Further, EC 93 states that DHS will create
stronger diversion supports through appropriate staffing and
comprehensive data analysis.

Accordingly, the Court requires Defendants to supplement their
Summary Report to present their assessment and analysis on the
treatment homes no later than October 15, 2019. The Court
encourages, but does not require, the Defendants to engage a
Subject Matter Expert to assist with the assessment and analysis.

Olmstead Plan

The Court approved the Olmstead Plan. The Court declined to approve
several previous versions, finding that they failed to comply with
the standards and requirements set forth in the Agreement or
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). The Olmstead Plan includes
significant and strategic goals, as well as specific and realistic
strategies for achieving each goal and clear indication of the
agencies responsible for ensuring that the goals are met.

On February 22, 2016, the Court ordered Defendants to submit
quarterly and annual status reports on Olmstead Plan implementation
and progress towards measurable goals. The Court further directed
that all potential amendments to the Olmstead Plan should be
identified and included in each annual report on or before December
31, and that adopted amendments must be reported to the Court on or
before February 28, or in the case of a leap year, February 29. The
Court also reserved the right to request further or other
information upon receipt of each report.

The Defendants have timely submitted multiple reports and proposed
revisions.  

Olmstead Plan March 2019 Proposed Revision

The Court requires additional information before it can determine
whether the goals set forth in the March 2019 Revision to the
Olmstead Plan, are acceptable under the Agreement's requirements.
Plaintiffs and the Consultants have raised concerns about the
adoption and implementation of the Positive Supports Rule (formally
called Rule 40) as set forth in the Agreement. Accordingly, the
Court must determine whether the Agreement provisions relating to
Olmstead require incorporation of additional or modified goals
relating to prohibited restraints.

Extended Jurisdiction and Next Steps

Extended Jurisdiction

The Court's jurisdiction over this matter was scheduled to end on
December 4, 2019. However, as set forth above, the Court requires
additional information to determine whether issues of noncompliance
remain. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Section XVII.B, and
the Eighth Circuit's ruling that this Court may extend its
jurisdiction as it deems just and equitable, the Court's
jurisdiction is extended to September 15, 2020.  The Court
expressly reserves the authority and jurisdiction to order an
additional extension of jurisdiction, depending upon the status of
Defendants' compliance and absent stipulation of the parties. Until
the Court's jurisdiction ends, all reporting requirements remain
unchanged.

The Court's jurisdiction is extended to September 15, 2020. The
Court expressly reserves the authority and jurisdiction to order an
additional extension of jurisdiction, depending upon the status of
Defendants' compliance and absence stipulation of the parties.

Use of Prohibited Techniques: Defendants must identify and assign a
Subject Matter Expert to review and report on ECs 5-40 by August 1,
2019. Defendants must first reach out to Dr. Gary LaVigna. The
Subject Matter Expert must complete an initial report prior to
October 15, 2019, unless a different date is adopted by the Court.
Defendants will have ten days to respond to the initial Subject
Matter Expert report. The Subject Matter Expert will submit a final
report within ten days after receipt of Defendants' response, or
within ten days of submission of the initial report, if Defendants
do not make a response. Defendants will share the final reports
with Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, the Consultants, and the Court.

Scope of the Settlement Agreement and CPA Relating to Prohibited
Restraints: The parties must meet and confer no later than August
1, 2019 to discuss their positions on whether provisions of the
Agreement on prohibited techniques include the Minnesota Security
Hospital and Anoka Regional Treatment Center (or beyond). The
parties must also meet and confer to determine whether there are
disputes relating to the ECs regarding the Positive Supports Rule
for the Court to decide. If the parties are unable to enter into a
Stipulation, they must file a Joint Statement to inform the Court
of their respective positions no later than August 15, 2019 and
propose a process for the Court to resolve the dispute consistent
with the enforcement proceedings set forth in the Settlement
Agreement or other procedure permitted pursuant to the Agreement.
The Court will set a hearing and issue a briefing schedule.
Following the Stipulation or the Court's determination on scope,
the external review of prohibited restraints may be amended.

Staff Training: Defendants must identify and assign a Subject
Matter Expert to review and report on ECs 54-56 no later than
August 1, 2019. The Subject Matter Expert must assess overall
compliance with ECs 54-56, included but not limited to verifying
that each staff member has actually received and achieved
competency in all areas of required training. The Subject Matter
Expert must complete an initial report prior to October 15, 2019,
unless a different date is adopted by the Court.

The Defendants will have ten days to respond to the initial Subject
Matter Expert report. The Subject Matter Expert must submit a final
report within ten days after receipt of Defendants' response, or
within ten days of submission of the initial report, if Defendants
do not make a response. Defendants must share the final reports
with Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, the Consultants, and the Court.

Treatment Homes: The Defendants must supplement their Summary
Report no later than October 15, 2019 to present their assessment
and analysis on the need for and current availability of treatment
homes.

Positive Support Rule: The parties must meet and confer no later
than August 1, 2019 to determine whether there are issues related
to the Positive Support Rule that must be resolved before the Court
considers the Olmstead Plan March 2019 Revision. If the parties are
unable to enter into a Stipulation, they must inform the Court no
later than August 15, 2019 of their separate positions and propose
a process for the Court to resolve the dispute consistent with the
enforcement proceedings set forth in the Settlement Agreement or
other procedure permitted pursuant to the Agreement. The Court will
set a hearing and issue a briefing schedule.

Reporting Requirements: All reporting requirements remain
unchanged.

Requests: The Plaintiffs' request for an evidentiary hearing is
denied pending receipt of the Independent Subject Expert's initial
report and final report. The Defendants' request that the Court
"address the applicable legal standard the Court is using to
determine the circumstances under which it will end its involvement
in this matter, including what specific actions remain outstanding"
is also denied as premature.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2g7h69x from Leagle.com.

James Jensen, as parents, guardians and next friends of Bradley J.
Jensen and others similarly situated, Lorie Jensen, as parents,
guardians and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen and others
similarly situated, James Brinker, as parents, guardians and next
friends of Thomas M. Allbrink and others similarly situated, Darren
Allen, as parents, guardians and next friends of Thomas M. Allbrink
and others similarly situated & Elizabeth Jacobs, as parent,
guardian and next friend of Jason R. Jacobs and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark R. Azman --
MRAzman@olwklaw.com -- O'Meara Leer Wagner & Kohl, PA & Shamus P.
O'Meara -- SPOMeara@olwklaw.com -- O'Meara Leer Wagner & Kohl, PA.

Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota & State of Minnesota, Defendants, represented by Aaron
Winter, Minnesota Attorney General's Office,Anthony R. Noss,
Minnesota Attorney General's Office, Michael N. Leonard, Minnesota
Attorney General's Office & Scott H. Ikeda, Minnesota Attorney
General's Office.

Director, Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the
Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota, Clinical Director, the Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services,
an agency of the State of Minnesota & Douglas Bratvold,
individually, and as Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options, a program o f the Minnesota Department of Human Services,
an agency of the State of Minnesota, Defendants, represented by
Aaron Winter, Minnesota Attorney General's Office & Scott H. Ikeda,
Minnesota Attorney General's Office.

Scott TenNapel, individually, and as Clinical Director of the
Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program o f the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota,
Defendant, represented by Aaron Winter, Minnesota Attorney
General's Office, Christopher A. Stafford -- cstafford@fredlaw.com
-- Fredrikson & Byron, PA, Samuel D. Orbovich --
sorbovich@fredlaw.com -- Fredrikson & Byron, PA &Scott H. Ikeda,
Minnesota Attorney General's Office.


MISSION ROAD: Collins Seeks OT Pay for Service Specialists
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Mission Road
Ministries for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA). The case is captioned REBECCA COLLINS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF, vs. MISSION
ROAD MINISTRIES, DEFENDANT, Case No. 5:19-cv-00713 (W.D. Tex., June
19, 2019).

Plaintiff and other service specialists recorded their hours worked
via a computer time clock with their fingerprints, which logged
their hours into a payroll system maintained by Defendant. However,
Defendant failed to accurately record all of the time worked off
the clock by Plaintiff and other service specialists and failed to
properly compensate all of their off the clock hours. Plaintiff's
and other service specialists' after-hours work is not recorded on
Defendant's time clock. Accordingly, Plaintiff on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, bring this action under the FLSA
for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated overtime compensation for all hours they
worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

Mission Road Ministries owns and operates a center that assists
children and adults with intellectual and other developmental
disabilities in residential, day activity services and vocational
programs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Stewart Sues over Autodialed Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEAN STEWART, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MONITRONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03585 (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 2019), seeks
to stop Monitronics from violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by making autodialed collection calls to consumers
who have not given Monitronics consent to call them using an
autodialer (and to stop calling them after repeated stop requests),
and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all
persons injured by Monitronics' conduct.

According to the complaint, Monitronics operates using the d/b/a
Brinks Home Security. Monitronics operates one of the largest home
security alarm monitoring companies in the US. In order to attempt
to collect on debts from its own clients, Monitronics calls
telephone numbers of people it believes may be associated with the
clients from whom they are trying to collect but who in fact are
not Monitronics customers.

In Plaintiff's case, Monitronics placed over autodialed debt
collection calls to his cellular phone number despite the fact that
he has never been a Monitronics client and has never consented to
Monitronics calling him.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and the putative Classes are:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          11 Broadway, Suite 615
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Blands Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
HOMER A. BLAND JR. and JANIS E. BLAND, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01833(E.D. Mo., June 26,
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. Homer A.
Bland Jr.'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
          E-mail: sethw@getbc.com
          Telephone: (314) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (314) 421-0359

MONSANTO COMPANY: Cohen Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
SAUL COHEN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-03632 (N.D. Cal., 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:

          Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
          Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
          Leland H. Belew, 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
                  leland@andrusanderson.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Daigle Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE B. DAIGLE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00410-SDD-EWD (M.D. La., 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:

          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: Garred Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN GARRED, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-01766-JAR (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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Isom Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
SHIRLEY G. ISOM, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00136-MPM-RP (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: Kendrick Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
WENDY W. KENDRICK, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-03326-VC (M.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: Lee Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS M. LEE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-00795 (W.D. La., 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:

          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: Loper Blames Roundup Products for Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH LOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; BAYER AG; and BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13546 (D.N.J., June
7, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup, containing the active
ingredient glyphosate which causes cancer.

According to the complaint, the Defendants market and sell their
Roundup products containing glyphosate. Glyphosate has been found
to be carcinogenic, linked to causing various forms of cancer, and
in particular non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. As such, Roundup is dangerous
to human health and unfit to be marketed and sold in commerce,
particularly without proper warnings and directions as to the
dangers associated with its use.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Morris Dweck, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
          E-mail: dweck@bernlieb.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Pye Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------
HORACE PYE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-01770 (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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Robbins Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
GWENDOLYN ROBBINS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00338-LG-RHW (S.D. Miss., June 24,
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, 24th 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: Roundup Products Cause Cancer, Colvin Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG COLVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY; BAYER AG; BAYER
CROPSCIENCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-13542-JMV-JBC
(D.N.J., June 7, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and sale of the herbicide Roundup,
containing the active ingredient glyphosate which causes cancer.

According to the complaint, the Defendants market and sell their
Roundup products containing glyphosate. Glyphosate has been found
to be carcinogenic, linked to causing various forms of cancer, and
in particular non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. As such, Roundup is dangerous
to human health and unfit to be marketed and sold in commerce,
particularly without proper warnings and directions as to the
dangers associated with its use.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Morris Dweck, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
          E-mail: dweck@bernlieb.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Tory Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------
HAMILTON TORY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 5:19-cv-00057-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss., June 24, 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, 24th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8000
          Facsimile: (833) 277-4214
          E-mail: bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com
                  jenochs@morrisbart.com

MOVING SOLUTIONS: Rider Seeks Initial Nod of $470K Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Gary Middle Rider, et al. v.
Moving Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-04015-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), move for preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

The case is a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of nonexempt
movers against the Defendants.  On July 17, 2017, the Plaintiffs
filed a Rule 23 class action complaint alleging that Defendant
Moving Solutions failed to pay them for all regular and overtime
wages.

After a full day of mediation on November 30, 2018, before the Hon.
Jaime Jacobs May (Ret), the Parties agreed to settle this case for
$470,000 to be paid by the Defendants.  The Settlement Sum includes
attorney's fees, costs and expenses directly related to the case.
Subject to Court approval, Class Representatives Barbara Middle
Rider, Robert Garza, Albert Arellano, and Jose Don Coronado shall
receive Service Awards of $5,000 each.

Subject to Court approval, Class Counsel will be paid up to 25% of
the gross settlement for attorneys' fees, and an additional amount
for reasonable litigation costs not to exceed $8,500.

The members of the class shall recover damages based upon the
number of work weeks they worked during the class period.  The net
settlement is an estimated $290,183.  The settlement shall be
funded in two installments.  The first for $235,000 shall be paid
within thirty days after the final approval.  The second payment of
$235,000 shall be made 210 days later.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 18, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Dal Bon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES DAL BON
          606 North 1st Street
          San Jose, CA 95112
          Telephone: (408) 472-5645
          Facsimile: (877) 711-0577
          E-mail: jdb@wagedefenders.com


MUTUAL OF OMAHA: Littler Mendelson Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Simmons, Esq. -- wsimmons@littler.com -- and Rod M.
Fliegel, Esq. -- rfliegel@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson, in
an article for Mondaq, reports that a federal court's recent
decision demonstrates the value in reviewing all documents related
to the independent contractor background screening process to
attempt to solidify potential defenses to expansive class-action
claims. As previously discussed, background screening laws and
claims -- individual and class action -- continue to rise. Class
actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) often seek
statutory damages of $100-$1,000 for every person screened with
allegedly non-compliant forms or procedures. These claims are often
hyper-technical, meaning that this is one area of law where the old
maxim "substance over form" does not necessarily apply. As the use
of contingent workers and independent contractors continues to
rise, the latest decision presents an opportunity to review current
forms and processes and to potentially make adjustments before a
lawsuit arises.

Overview of the Decision
The recent decision by the Southern District of Iowa in Smith v.
Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company is an example of potential
opportunities to enhance defenses to the hyper-technical FCRA class
action claims businesses can face.

In Smith, the plaintiff originally filed a FCRA lawsuit challenging
the defendant's "pre-adverse action" process under 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681b(b)(3).  Section 1681b(b)(3) generally requires businesses
using consumer reports (background checks) "for employment
purposes" to provide a copy of the report and summary of rights
under the FCRA before taking any adverse action "based in whole or
in part" on the report.  The plaintiff claimed that he did not
obtain a position as an insurance agent based on his background
check, and that the company had failed to comply with these
pre-adverse action requirements.  The company defended the claim on
summary judgment, however, in part on the threshold issue that the
plaintiff was an independent contractor and therefore the
prerequisite of "employment purposes" for Section 1681b(b)(3) to
apply to the plaintiff was lacking.  After reviewing the
evidentiary record, the court ultimately held that the company was
right -- the position that the plaintiff applied for was an
independent contractor position so the "employment purposes" FCRA
requirements, including Section 1681b(b)(3), did not apply.  The
court followed several other federal district court decisions that
also held that the FCRA's employment purposes requirements do not
apply to contractor screening.

Although the court's ruling should have ended the case, there was a
catch.  While the company's summary judgment motion was pending on
the threshold FCRA coverage issue, the plaintiff amended the
complaint to add an alternative theory of relief.  The plaintiff
now claimed that if it turned out that he was an independent
contractor, and if the court agreed that the FCRA's employment
purposes provisions do not apply to independent contractors, then
the company had violated a separate FCRA provision, Section
1681b(f).  Section 1681b(f), a rarely-litigated FCRA provision,
states:

A person shall not use or obtain a consumer report for any purpose
unless

(1) the consumer report is obtained for a purpose for which the
consumer report is authorized to be furnished under this section;
and

(2) the purpose is certified in accordance with section 1681e of
this title by a prospective user of the report through a general or
specific certification.

The FCRA provides a list of "permissible purposes" for a consumer
reporting agency (CRA) to prepare consumer reports for businesses.
One of the "permissible purposes" is "employment purposes."  Often,
CRAs will have businesses "certify" to the purpose for which they
will obtain consumer reports in the initial screening services
agreement to comply with this and other similar FCRA requirements.


The plaintiff alleged in the amended complaint that the company had
certified to the CRA that it would obtain consumer reports only for
"employment purposes."  The plaintiff thus claimed that if the
company now asserted that his consumer report was not obtained for
"employment purposes" via its independent contractor defense, then
the company had violated Section 1681b(f) by obtaining a report for
some other purpose that it had not certified to.  The company moved
to dismiss this alternative theory of relief, but the court held
that the plaintiff could proceed to litigate the theory.   

It is important to note that the court's decision on this point,
unlike the independent contractor issue, was not on summary
judgment and therefore not based on an evidentiary record.  The
court made no ruling on whether the plaintiff's assertions about
the certification were, in fact, true.  And the court noted that
the company was correct, in theory, that there were other
additional "permissible purposes" for which the company could have
properly obtained plaintiff's report.  For instance, the company
could have been allowed to obtain the report "in accordance with
the written instructions" of the plaintiff, which is another
enumerated "permissible purpose" for obtaining reports.  But the
court noted that at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court had to
take the allegations as true that the company had obtained the
plaintiff's report for a not-certified-to permissible purpose.
Thus, the plaintiff stated a potential claim under Section
1681b(f).

Action Steps for Employers and CRAs

The cautionary tale from Smith is that employers and CRAs are best
served by taking a broad view of potentially relevant documents for
independent contractor screening compliance.

Tellingly, the Smith court looked to a variety of documents to
determine that the position for which Smith had sought to be
engaged was a contractor position.  The court reviewed the
application documents Smith completed, his independent contractor
agreement, his background check disclosure and authorization,
evidence about discussions regarding the opportunity, and other
evidence regarding how the position would function if Smith had
obtained it.  The key documents repeatedly referred to Smith
"contracting" with the company, and this consistency helped
buttress the company's independent contractor FCRA defense.

On the other hand, the court's decision on the plaintiff's added
Section 1681b(f) claim shows that language used in other documents
such as the contract between the CRA and company may also be
relevant to the overall FCRA compliance analysis.  Because the
court's decision on this claim was non-evidentiary, it is unclear
exactly what these communications will reveal.  But the court's
logic suggests the claim would fail if the screening contract
specified that the business might seek independent contractor
screening reports for permissible purposes other than "employment
purposes."  Of course, there may be other defenses available that
were not yet before the court to consider.

Because of the potential focus on contract documents signaled by
the Smith court, it can be helpful for CRAs and employers to work
cooperatively on language consistency for the full array of
potentially-relevant screening documents to best ensure defenses.
It may also make sense for human resources personnel or in-house
counsel with background check compliance expertise to be involved
in contract discussions rather than having the contracts reviewed
only by a vendor procurement generalist.

Importantly, the independent contractor defense may apply to class
actions under several other FCRA provisions.  There are an array of
requirements that apply only to "employment purposed" reports, such
as a special certification requirement (Section 1681b(b)(1)),
"stand alone disclosure" (Section 1681b(b)(2)), and special notices
or procedures for reporting public records to employers (Section
1681k).  Many putative nationwide class action cases have
specifically targeted these provisions.  If the language of
potentially-relevant documents clearly and consistently reflects a
bona-fide independent contractor screening relationship, both the
CRA and employer may have defenses that can be decided as a matter
of law, i.e., without an expensive jury trial, for these claims.

But contractor and contingent workforce screening is a complicated
compliance area, particularly because of the overlay of additional
state and local legal requirements and because plaintiffs (as Smith
eventually did) often claim that they are misclassified as
independent contractors.  Moreover, the Supreme Court has not
definitively ruled that independent contractor screening is not
"employment purposes" screening.  These and other factors mean that
there is often not a "one size fits all" approach to independent
contractor screening forms and processes.  Experienced counsel,
compliance and human resources personnel familiar with the
"360-degree" background screening litigation risks can help to
brainstorm an approach and work to identify potentially-relevant
documents to review based on the business's specific operations.
[GN]


NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Notes of July 8 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

Nabriva Therapeutics PLC (NBRV)
Class Period: November 1, 2018 - April 30, 2019
Deadline: July 8, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/nbrv

On April 30, 2019, Nabriva disclosed receipt of a Complete Response
Letter ("CRL") from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
for the Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") seeking marketing
approval of CONTEPO™ (fosfomycin) for injection for the treatment
of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI), including acute
pyelonephritis. Nabriva advised investors that "[t]he CRL requests
that Nabriva address issues related to facility inspections and
manufacturing deficiencies at one of Nabriva's contract
manufacturers prior to the FDA approving the NDA." On this news,
Nabriva's stock price fell $0.82 per share, or 27.42%, to close at
$2.17 per share on May 1, 2019.

Equity Bancshares, Inc. (EQBK)
Class Period: May 11, 2018 and April 22, 2019
Deadline: July 12, 2019
For more info: www.bgandg.com/eqbk

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls to assess credit risk; (2) that, as a result,
certain of the Company's loans posed an increased risk of loss; (3)
that, as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur
significant losses for certain substandard loans; and (4) that, as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Contact:

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz
         Investor Relations Analyst
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Phone: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com
               peretz@bgandg.com
[GN]



NATIONAL EDUCATION: Wilford Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Scott Wilford, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in their lawsuit entitled Scott Wilford, et al. v. National
Education Association, et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01169-JLS-DFM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Santa Ana.

The lawsuit arises from job-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Scott Wilford, et al. v.
National Education Association, et al., Case No. 19-55712, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 22, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on August 22, 2019;

   -- Appellants Harlan Elrich, Jelena Figueroa, Rebecca
      Friedrichs, Gene Gray, Bonnie Hayhurst, Michael Monge, Mike
      Rauseo and Scott Wilford's opening brief is due on
      September 30, 2019;

   -- Appellees American Federation of Teachers, Attorney General
      for the State of California, California Federation of
      Teachers, California Teachers Association, Certificated
      Hourly Instructors, Long Beach City College Chapter, Coast
      Federation of Educators, Local 1911, Community College
      Association, Exeter Teachers Association, Mt. San Antonio
      College Faculty Association, Inc., National Education
      Association of the United States, Orange Unified Education
      Association, Saddleback Valley Educators Association,
      Sanger Unified Teachers Association, Savanna District
      Teachers Association, South Orange County Community College
      District Faculty Association and United Teachers Los
      Angeles' answering brief is due on October 30, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SCOTT WILFORD, et al., are represented by:

          John J. Bursch, Esq.
          BURSCH LAW PLLC
          9339 Cherry Valley SE, Suite 78
          Caledonia, MI 49316
          Telephone: (616) 450-4235
          E-mail: jbursch@burschlaw.com

               - and -

          Bradford G. Hughes, Esq.
          SELMAN BREITMAN LLP
          11766 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-6538
          Telephone: (310) 689-7040
          E-mail: bhughes@selmanlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED
STATES, et al., are represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Demain, Esq.
          Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: jdemain@altshulerberzon.com
                  skronland@altshulerberzon.com

Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA is represented by:

          Lara Haddad, Esq.
          AGCA-OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          300 South Spring Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 269-6250
          E-mail: Lara.Haddad@doj.ca.gov


NEW ORLEANS, LA: S&WB Employees Sign Onto Federal Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Roberts, writing for FOX 8 Live WVUE, reports that more than
200 people have signed onto a federal, class action lawsuit against
the city of New Orleans for damages.

This, after a notice went out to some residents that crews were
removing radioactive material beneath the street feet from their
homes.

"These people are of that area and have been there, and the danger
to them is something we need to get to the bottom of," said Madro
Bandaries, Esq.

But now Sewerage and Water Board employees who work in the Gert
Town neighborhood are also signing onto the lawsuit.

"They have complaints of a medical nature that would be consistent
with exposure to radiation. How do we know radiation's there? We
have to believe the City of New Orleans they said so," said
Bandaries.

Bandaries says their complaints are similar to others he
represents. And while the knowledge of the radioactive matter is
now public, he says both the residents and workers are still bound
to live and work there.

The City of New Orleans did find evidence of radioactive material
in the soil near Lowerline and Coolidge Corner in 2013, after
performing sweeps to prepare for the Super Bowl.

The lawsuit notes that this is the same site where warehouses for
the former Thompson Hayward Chemical Company once stood. But it
seems another LDEQ inspector tested the site again in 2015.

An LDEQ inspection report to de-list the plant was signed off on in
2016. Their findings: "no hazardous waste present".

But again, residents didn't find out any of this until early June,
only some receiving notice of the radiation roadwork.

"It's kind of scary, spooky, still spooky you know. I don't know if
it's under my house," said resident, Issac Cheatham.

The bins containing radioactive material are Cheatham's temporary
next-door neighbor.

"They didn't tell us nothing, they continued working and that was
it," said Cheatham.

Cheatham says his concerns are growing even more. Because despite
the fact these bins are supposed to be gone in a matter of days, he
says nothing's keeping people from walking straight through the
fenced off area where only weeks ago crews were removing
radioactive material.

"Since it's blocked off, they don't want to go all the way around,
they see its open now," said Cheatham.

A spokesperson for the sewerage and water board says they were not
aware of the presence of radiation and could not confirm when they
were notified of when they were alerted of the radiation roadwork.

The EPA did not return our request for comment. A spokesperson with
the city has said they will have no further comment on this story
as the matter is under active litigation.
[GN]



O.C. COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement in Soto Suit Has Prelim Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement and Collective Action
Settlement in the case captioned DESIDERO SOTO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. O.C. COMMUNICATIONS, NC., et al., Defendant. Case No.
17-cv-00251-VC. (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs bring a representative wage and hour action under
federal and state laws on behalf of themselves and other
Technicians employed by OCC who install cable television, phone,
security and Unmet services. Plaintiffs allege eighteen causes of
action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act  (FLSA), the
California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code (UCL), and
Washington wage and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs assert the
first cause of action under the FLSA on behalf of themselves and
the Collective for Defendants' alleged failure to compensate
Technicians for all hours worked, including legally mandated
overtime premiums. Defendants dispute and deny all of Plaintiffs'
claims.

The Court grants preliminary approval of the terms and conditions
contained in the Amended Settlement, as to the California and
Washington Classes.

The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the class and
collective action settlement memorialized in the Amended Settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Court grants conditional certification of the provisional
California and Washington Classes, in accordance with the Amended
Settlement, for the purposes of this Amended Settlement only.

The California Class is defined as "all Technicians who are or were
employed by OCC in the State of California at any time from January
18, 2013 through December 21, 2018, and who do not validly exclude
themselves from the Settlement."

The Washington Class is defined as "all Technicians who are or were
employed by OCC in the State of Washington from March 13, 2015
through December 21, 2018, and who do not validly exclude
themselves from the Settlement."

The Court grants Approval of the terms and conditions contained in
the Amended Settlement as to the Collective. The Court
preliminarily finds that the terms of the Amended Settlement are
reasonable, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable
law The Court confirms its August 31, 2017, Order conditionally
certifying the Collective. The Collective is defined as "all Opt-In
Plaintiffs who are or were employed by OCC at any time from and
including January 18, 2014, through December 21, 2018."

The Court authorizes the retention of CPT Group, Inc. as Settlement
Administrator for the purpose of the Amended Settlement, with
reasonable administration costs estimated not to exceed
$40,000.00.

The Court appoints Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP
and Berger Montague PC as Counsel for the Classes and the
Collective. (For purposes of representing the Classes, the
appointment is conditional. The Court also conditionally appoints
Plaintiffs Soto, Strickler, and Farias as Class Representatives for
the California Class, and Plaintiff Ortega as Class Representative
for the Washington Class. For purposes of the Collective,
Plaintiffs Soto, Strickler, Fondrose, Ortega, and Farias are
appointed as Collective representatives.

The Court approves the Notice of Settlement, attached as Exhibit 2,
and authorizes dissemination of the Notice of Settlement to Members
of the California and Washington Classes and the Collective.
Subject to the terms of the Amended Settlement, the Notice of
Settlement shall be mailed via first-class mail to the most recent
known address of each Member of the California and Washington
Classes and the Collective within the timeframe specified in the
Settlement, and sent via email to all such persons for whom OCC has
an email address.

The Court approves the proposed procedure for exclusion from the
Amended Settlement, which is to submit a written statement
requesting exclusion to the Amended Settlement Administrator no
later than 60 days following the date on which the Settlement
Administrator first mails the Notice of Settlement to Members of
the California and Washington Classes and the Collective. Any
Members of the California and Washington Classes who submit a
written exclusion shall not be a Member of the Settlement Class,
shall be barred from participating in the Settlement, and shall
receive no benefit from the Amended Settlement.

Class Counsel shall file a motion for approval of the fee and cost
award and of the service awards to the Class Representatives, with
the appropriate declarations and supporting evidence, at least 14
days prior to the Notice Deadline, to be heard at the same time as
the motion for final approval of the Amended Settlement.

Class Counsel shall file a motion for final approval of the Amended
Settlement, with the appropriate declarations and supporting
evidence, including a declaration setting forth the identity of any
Members of the California and Washington Classes and the Collective
who request exclusion from the Settlement, by September 16, 2019.

Each Member of the California and Washington Classes and the
Collective shall be given a full opportunity to object to the
proposed Settlement and request for attorneys' fees, and to
participate at a Final Approval Hearing, which the Court sets to
commence on October 17, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 4 of the
United States District Court, Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division. Any Member of the Classes and/or the Collective
seeking to object to the proposed Settlement may file such
objection in writing with the Court and shall serve such objection
on Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel. The written objection
requirement may be excused upon a showing of good cause.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2g7h69x from Leagle.com.

Desidero Soto, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Steven Stricklen, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Steeve Fondrose & Lorenzo Ortega, Plaintiffs,
represented by Carolyn Hunt Cottrell --
ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Shanon Jude Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger
Montague PC, Camille Fundora -- crodriguez@bm.net -- Berger
Montague PC, David Christopher Leimbach --
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com -Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP, Mira Pearl Karageorge, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, 2000 Powell StreetSuite 1400Emeryville, CA
94608, Neil Kailash Makhija  -- nmakhija@bm.net -- Berger Montague
PC, Sarah Rebecca Schalman-Bergen  -- sschalman-bergen@bm.net --
Berger Montague PC, Scott Lewis Gordon --
sgordon@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP & Todd Michael Schneider --
tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP.

O.C. Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey J.
Mann -- jmann@littler.com -Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Barbara Allyn
Blackburn  -- bblackburn@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.

Comcast Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daryl Steven Landy
-- daryl.landy@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Aleksandr Markelov -aleksandr.markelov@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis and Bockius LLP & Andrew Paul Frederick --
andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Daryl Steven Landy, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Aleksandr Markelov, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP,Andrew Paul
Frederick, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Barbara Allyn Blackburn --
bblackburn@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


PILOT CORPORATION: Shumard Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
DONALD SHUMARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PILOT CORPORATION and PILOT TRAVEL
CENTERS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00426-SWW (E.D.
Ark., June 18, 2019), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, as a result of
Defendants' commonly applied policy and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated a lawful minimum wage
and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in the maintenance/housekeeping
and janitor/maintenance hourly-paid positions that are standard in
Defendants' 650 retail travel centers and travel plazas. Throughout
Plaintiff's employment, Defendants classified Plaintiff and other
hourly-paid employees as non-exempt and paid Plaintiff an hourly
rate.

It was Defendants' commonly applied practice to pay Plaintiff and
other hourly-paid employees for fewer than all of the hours than
the number of hours they actually performed labor for Defendants.
Specifically, Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees were
required to work and subject to Defendants' policy or practice of
regularly making deductions for purported meal breaks despite
Plaintiff and the others similarly situated employees not actually
taking bona fide meal breaks; and also Plaintiff and the other
similarly situated employees had to perform off the clock work for
Defendants while not clocked-in, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Bragar Eagel Notes of Aug. 19 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel and Squire reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of stockholders of Pivotal
Software, Inc., Eros International Plc, and Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Pivotal Software, Inc. (NYSE: PVTL)

Class Period: Securities pursuant or traceable to Pivotal's April
2018 initial public offering ("IPO") and/or securities purchased or
acquired between April 24, 2019 and June 4, 2019 (the "Class
Period").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 19, 2019

The complaint filed on June 21, 2019 alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Pivotal was facing major problems with its sales
execution and a complex technology landscape; (ii) the foregoing
headwinds resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and
diminished growth as its customers and the industry's sentiment
shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because the
Company's products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with
the industry-standard platform; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. On June 4, 2019, post-market, Pivotal reported
its financial and operating results for the first quarter of fiscal
year 2020, advising investors that "sales execution and a complex
technology landscape impacted the quarter." Wedbush Securities
analyst Daniel Ives called the quarter a "train wreck" and
characterized the Company's operating results as "disastrous,"
asserting that Pivotal's "management team does not have a handle on
the underlying issues negatively impacting its sales cycles and the
activity in the field which gives us concern that this quarter will
be the start of some 'dark days ahead' for Pivotal (and its
investors)." On this news, Pivotal's stock price fell $7.60.

To learn more about the Pivotal Software class action go to:
https://bespc.com/PVTL-2

Eros International Plc (NYSE: EROS)

Class Period: July 28, 2017- June 5, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2019

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Eros and its executives engaged in a scheme to use
related-party transactions to fabricate receivables that they
reported in Eros's public financial disclosures; (2) because of
this scheme, Eros's financial position was weaker than what the
Company disclosed; (3) consequently, the Company's Indian
subsidiary, Eros International Media Ltd, missed loan payments and
had its credit downgraded; and (4) due to the foregoing,
defendants' statements about Eros's receivables, business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To learn more about the Eros class action go to:
https://bespc.com/eros-2

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA)

Class Period: August 4, 2017- May 10, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2019

The complaint filed on June 21, 2019 alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
denying that Teva "engaged in any conduct that would give rise to
liability" in various antitrust proceedings and investigations that
enveloped the company. In truth, and as Defendants failed to
disclose to investors, (i) contrary to its public denials, Teva had
in fact engaged in a vast, industry-wide price-fixing scheme and
other collusive misconduct since at least 2012; (ii) Teva was not
only a participant, but the company at the heart of the
anticompetitive scheme; and (iii) several Teva employees had such
deep involvement in the scheme that they would ultimately be named
personally as defendants in a sweeping civil enforcement action
filed by the AGs of virtually every state in the nation. On
December 9, 2018, it was publicly disclosed that the scope of the
State AG's investigation had expanded greatly to include 300 drugs
and at least 16 companies, exposing "the largest cartel in the
history of the United States." On this news, the price of Teva ADS
fell $0.97 per share or 5%, to close at $18.44 per share on
December 10, 2018. On May 10, 2019, a coalition of 44 states filed
a 524-page antitrust complaint revealing previously undisclosed
facts regarding Teva's participation in the generic drug
price-fixing conspiracy. Among other things, the action detailed
Teva's role as a "consistent participant" in the conspiracy,
implementing price increases on upwards of 110 generic drugs and
colluding with competitors regarding over 85 different generic
drugs. On this news, the price of Teva ADS fell $2.13 per share or
approximately 15%, to close at $12.23 per share on May 13, 2019.

For more information on the Teva class action go to:
https://bespc.com/teva

Contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Phone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com
[GN]



PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided.

Pivotal Software, Inc. (PVTL)

Class Period: investors who purchased common stock pursuant or
traceable to the April 2018 initial public offering and/or Pivotal
securities between April 24, 2018 and June 4, 2019.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 19, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/pivotal-software-inc-loss-form?prid=2135&wire=1

The lawsuit alleges: Pivotal Software, Inc. made materially false
and/or misleading statements throughout the class period and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) Pivotal was facing major problems with
its sales execution and a complex technology landscape; (ii) the
foregoing headwinds resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales
cycles, and diminished growth as its customers and the industry's
sentiment shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because
the Company's products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible
with the industry-standard platform; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

To learn more about the Pivotal Software, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Cloudera, Inc. (CLDR)

Class Period: April 28, 2017 - June 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 6, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cloudera-inc-loss-form?prid=2135&wire=1

The lawsuit alleges: Cloudera, Inc. made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cloudera
was finding it increasingly difficult to identify large enterprises
interested in adopting the Company's Hadoop-based platform; (ii)
Cloudera needed to expend an increasing amount of capital on sales
and marketing activities to generate new revenues, even as new
revenue opportunities were diminishing; and (iii) Cloudera had
materially diminished sales opportunities and prospects and could
not generate annual positive cash flows.

To learn more about the Cloudera, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

FedEx Corporation (FDX)

Class Period: September 19, 2017 - December 18, 2018
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 26, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/fedex-corporation-loss-form?prid=2135&wire=1

The lawsuit alleges that, during the class period, FedEx
Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) TNT's overall package volume
growth was slowing as TNT's large customers permanently took their
business to competitors after the Cyberattack; (2) as a result of
the customer attrition, TNT was experiencing an increased shift in
product mix from higher-margin parcel services to lower-margin
freight services; (3) the anticipated costs and timeframe to
integrate and restore the TNT network were significantly larger and
longer than disclosed; (4) FedEx was not on track to achieve TNT
synergy targets; and (5) as a result of these undisclosed negative
trends and cost issues, FedEx's positive statements about TNT's
recovery from the Cyberattack, integration into FedEx's legacy
operations, customer mix, customer service levels, profitability,
and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the FedEx Corporation class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]



POSTURE WORKS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned 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.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a
class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and
appointing Anderson + Wanca as Class Counsel, and for such other
and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847/368-1500
          Facsimile: 847/368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com

PRICESMART, INC: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 22 Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of
PriceSmart, Inc., Hecla Mining Company, A.O. Smith Corporation, and
Community Health Systems, Inc. Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.

PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQ: PSMT)

Class Period: October 26, 2017 - October 25, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 22, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
the company's omni-channel business strategy had failed to reach
key operating goals; (2) the company's South America distribution
strategy had failed to realize key cost saving goals; (3) the
company had invested Trinidad and Tobago dollars into certificates
of deposits with financial institutions; (4) these investments had
been improperly classified as cash and cash equivalents; (5) the
relevant corrections would materially impact financial statements;
(6) there was a material weakness in the company's internal
controls over financial reporting; (7) increasing competition
negatively impacted the company's revenue and profitability; and
(8) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about the company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the PriceSmart class action go to:
http://bespc.com/pricesmart

Hecla Mining Company (NYSE: HL)

Class Period: March 19, 2018 - May 8, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 23, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
falsely and misleadingly represented that the Nevada operations
would be "accretive" and cash flow positive, or at the very least
"self-funding."  Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants were aware from their extensive due diligence that the
Nevada operations had material problems in terms of excessive
water, equipment availability, achieving enough development to have
consistent production, and lack of characterization of ore types,
among other things.

To learn more about the Hecla class action go to:
http://bespc.com/hl/

A. O. Smith Corporation (NYSE: AOS)

Class Period: July 26, 2016 - May 16, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
failed to disclose that the company had used a distribution
partner, Jiangsu UTP Supply Chain, to artificially inflate the
company's sales and gross margins in the important Chinese market.

To learn more about the A. O. Smith class action go to:
http://bespc.com/aos/

Community Health Systems, Inc. (NYSE: CYH)

Class Period: February 20, 2017 - February 27, 2018

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1)
the company had understated its contractual allowances; (2) the
company had understated its provision for bad debts; (3) as a
result, the company had overstated its net operating revenue; (4)
as a result, the company had understated its net loss; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants positive statements about the
company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Community Health class action go to:
http://bespc.com/cyh/

Contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Phone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com
[GN]



PYXUS INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP reminds investors that approximately five
weeks remain to make a motion for lead plaintiff in a securities
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of those who purchased or
acquired the securities of Pyxus International Inc. ("Pyxus" or the
"Company") (PYX) from June 7, 2018 through November 18, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks to recover Pyxus
shareholders' investment losses.

If you purchased Pyxus securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Pyxus PYX Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) that the Company was experiencing longer shipping cycles; (2)
that, as a result, the Company's financial results would be
materially affected; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal
control over financial reporting; (4) that the Company's accounting
policies were reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 8, 2018, the Company disclosed that sales declined
approximately 12% year-over-year due to the timing of shipments and
the larger crop last year in South America. On this news, the
Company's share price fell $7.01, or nearly 28%, to close at $18.26
on November 8, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On November 9, 2018, the SEC announced that the Company had settled
charges that it had materially misstated financial statements from
at least 2011 through the second quarter of 2015 due to improper
and insufficient accounting, processes, and control activities for
inventory, deferred crop costs, and revenue transactions in Africa.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.88, or nearly 16%,
to close at $15.38 on November 9, 2018, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 6, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Pyxus securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/pyxusinternationalinc-pyx-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-142/


Contact:

         Michael S. Bigin, Esq.
         Matthew Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street, New York,
         New York 1001
         Phone: (877) 779-1414
                (212) 779-1414
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
                Bigin@bernlieb.com
[GN]



RA MEDICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 6 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. Shareholders interested in serving as
lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the
court and further details about the cases can be found at the links
provided.

Intersect ENT, Inc. (XENT)

Class Period: August 1, 2018 - May 6, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : July 15, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/intersect-ent-inc-loss-form?prid=2141&wire=1

About the lawsuit: During the class period, Intersect ENT, Inc.
allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Intersect lacked adequate
reimbursement representatives to ensure physicians had access to
SINUVA, Intersect's sinus implant; (2) Intersect's sales force
would focus on ensuring reimbursement; (3) Intersect's sales
representatives were less focused on driving sales; (4) physicians
were less likely to adopt Intersect's SINUVA due to transaction
costs associated with seeking reimbursement; (5) Intersect would
increase staffing to address these issues; and (6) as a result of
the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Intersect's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Intersect ENT, Inc. class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (ASNA)

Class Period: September 16, 2015 - June 8, 2017
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 6, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ascena-retail-group-inc-loss-form?prid=2141&wire=1

About the lawsuit: Throughout the class period, Ascena Retail
Group, Inc. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the ANN Acquisition
was a complete disaster for the Company as Ann's operations were in
far worse condition than had been represented to the public; (b) in
order to mask the true condition of Ann, Defendants improperly
delayed recognizing an impairment charge to the value of Ann's
goodwill and, as a result, Ascena's reported income and assets were
materially overstated and the Company's financial results were not
prepared in conformity with GAAP; (c) many of the brands acquired
in the ANN Acquisition were in steep decline and were also
materially overvalued on Ascena's Class Period financial
statements; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked
a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company,
its operations and prospects.

To learn more about the Ascena Retail Group, Inc. class action
contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Ra Medical Systems, Inc. (RMED)

Class Period: stockholders that purchased Ra Medical securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's September 2018 initial
public offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : August 6, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ra-medical-systems-inc-loss-form?prid=2141&wire=1

About the lawsuit: Ra Medical Systems, Inc. allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements during the class
period and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's evaluation
of sales personnel candidates was inadequate; (2) the Company's
training program for sales personnel was inadequate; (3) as a
result, the Company could not reasonably assure that its newly
hired sales personnel were adequately experienced; (4) as a result,
the Company would suffer a shortage of qualified sales personnel;
(5) the Company's manufacturing process could not reasonably
support increased catheter production; (6) as a result, the Company
would suffer production delays; and (7) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To learn more about the Ra Medical Systems, Inc. class action
contact jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request the court
appoint as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]




RAYTHEON: Cruz Sues over Non-Payment of Retiree Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Raytheon Company
concerning its failure to pay benefits under several of its defined
benefit pension plans that are part of the Raytheon Master Pension
Trust in amounts that are actuarially equivalent to a single life
annuity, as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA). The case is captioned Johnny Cruz, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Raytheon
Company, Kelly B. Lappin, in her capacity as Plan Administrator for
the Raytheon Company Pension Plan for Hourly Employees, the
Raytheon Company Pension Plan for Salaried Employees, the Raytheon
Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan, the Raytheon Bargaining Retirement
Plan, and the Raytheon Retirement Plan for Engineers & Contractors,
Inc. and Aircraft Credit Employees, and John/Jane Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-11425 (D. Mass., June 27, 2019).
Plaintiff Johnny Cruz alleges that Raytheon is causing retirees to
lose part of their vested retirement benefits in violation of ERISA
by not offering benefits that are actuarially equivalent to the
single life annuity.

Raytheon is a defense contractor specializing in the development of
electronics, mission systems integration and cybersecurity
solutions with its headquarters in Waltham, Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
     Robert A. Izard, Esq.
     Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
     Oren Faircloth, Esq.
     IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP
     29 South Main Street, Suite 305
     West Hartford, CT 06107
     Telephone: (860) 493-6292
     Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
     Email: dneedham@ikrlaw.com
            rizard@ikrlaw.com
            mkindall@ikrlaw.com
            ofaircloth@ikrlaw.com

            - and -

     Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
     Mark G. Boyko, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
     Washington, DC 20007
     Telephone: (202) 463-2101
     Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
     E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com
             mboyko@baileyglasser.com


RED ROBIN: Geraci Suit Transferred to District of Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------
The case John Geraci, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Red Robin International, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-15542 (Filed Nov. 1, 2018), was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
(Denver) on June 24, 2019. The District of Colorado Court Clerk
assinged Case No. 1:19-cv-01826-KLM to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Kristen L. Mix.

Red Robin regularly sends out automated, template-based text
messages to consumers advertising the Red Robin Royalty program
itself and various promotions and sales offered via the Red Robin
Royalty Program. However, Red Robin does not allow consumers to opt
out of receiving future messages, resulting in consumers’
repeated receipt of unwanted, unauthorized automated text messages,
the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff brings this class action for damages, injunctive
relief, and declaratory relief from the illegal actions of
Defendant.

Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. is "a casual dining restaurant
chain founded in 1969 that operates through its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Red Robin International, Inc., and under the trade
name, Red Robin Gourmet Burgers and Brews.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Sofia Balile, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, L.L.C.
          43 Danbury Road, 3rd Floor
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424

REWALK ROBOTICS: Yan Appeals Mass. Dist. Ct. Ruling to 1st Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Wang Yan and Movant Joanne Geller filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Yan, et al. v. ReWalk Robotics
Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-10169-FDS, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 20,
2019, Melanie A. Conroy, Esq. -- mconroy@pierceatwood.com -- of
Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reported that on May 16, 2019, the District of Massachusetts denied
a lead plaintiff's motion to amend a complaint that sought to
overcome standing deficiencies of the original class representative
by adding a new named plaintiff.  The District Court dismissed the
putative class action without prejudice, holding that if a class
action has only one representative, and that party does not have
standing, the District Court lacks jurisdiction over the case and
cannot permit the lead plaintiff substitution.

In Yan v. ReWalk Robotics, Ltd., lead plaintiff Wang Yan brought a
putative class action for alleged violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
company's 2014 initial public offering.  In a class action
complaint filed in 2017, Yan claimed that ReWalk concealed material
information in its IPO documents concerning a failure to comply
with FDA regulations and continued to make materially false
statements after the IPO.  In August 2018, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss all Securities Act claims for failure
to plead a false or misleading statement and dismissed all Exchange
Act claims because Yan lacked standing based on his dates of share
purchase, which were limited to the time of the IPO.  Dismissal was
granted without prejudice so that Yan could make a supplemental
pleading on the standing issue or seek a substitute lead
plaintiff.

Yan moved in September 2018 to amend the complaint to add another
representative as named plaintiff.

The appellate case is captioned as Yan, et al. v. ReWalk Robotics
Ltd., et al., Case No. 19-1614, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant WANG YAN, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated parties, and Movant-Appellant JOANNE
GELLER are represented by:

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Omar Jafri, Esq.
          Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 S LaSalle, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                  ojafri@pomlaw.com
                  lsmollar@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 3rd Ave.
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          Seaport East
          2 Seaport Ln
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
                  astewart@shulaw.com

Plaintiffs QIAN DENG, DAVID HERSHLIKOVITZ, JACKIE888, INC., MICHAEL
C. KEMMERLING, NARBEH NATHAN and PAUL SISLIN are represented by:

          Jeffrey Craig Block, Esq.
          Jason Mathew Leviton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
                  jason@blockesq.com

Defendants-Appellees REWALK ROBOTICS LTD., et al., are represented
by:

          Douglas Baumstein, Esq.
          Susan L. Grace, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1095
          Telephone: (212) 819-8200
          E-mail: dbaumstein@whitecase.com
                  susan.grace@whitecase.com

               - and -

          Samuel R. Feldman, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          75 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109-1814
          Telephone: (617) 979-9328
          E-mail: samuel.feldman@whitecase.com

Defendants-Appellees BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., JEFFRIES LLC and
CANACCORD GENUITY INC. are represented by:

          Anthony Antonelli, Esq.
          Douglas H. Flaum, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          200 Park Ave.
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 318-6000
          E-mail: anthonyantonelli@paulhastings.com

               - and -

          Douglas Baumstein, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1095
          Telephone: (212) 819-8200
          E-mail: dbaumstein@whitecase.com

               - and -

          David S. Godkin, Esq.
          James E. Kruzer, Esq.
          BIRNBAUM & GODKIN LLP
          280 Summer St., Suite 500
          Boston, MA 02210-0000
          Telephone: (617) 307-6100
          E-mail: godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com
                  kruzer@birnbaumgodkin.com


SENTRY WEST: Colleton Seeks Overtime Pay for Salespersons
---------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY COLLETON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SENTRY WEST, INC., CHRISTOPHER LEMLEY,
and BRIAN MCGRATH, the Defendants, Case No. 1982CV00812 (Mass,
Super., June 26, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay
overtime wages and Sunday premium pay.

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.

In addition, the Defendants uniformly deduct a one-hour meal break
from sales employees'compensable working time, regardless of the
amount of time each sales employee actually spends not working,
further depriving them of earned wages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David T. Musen, Esq.
          Raven Moeslingerc
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: dtm@mass-legal.com
                  rm@mass-legal.com
                  nfo@mass-legal.com


SOOK CORPORATION: Cruz Santiago Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Sook Corporation
(d/b/a Noodies Thai Kitchen, Woraphong Worachinda and Joyze
Nuttakarn for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned JAIME CRUZ
SANTIAGO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, -against- THONG SOOK CORPORATION (D/B/A NOODIES THAI
KITCHEN), WORAPHONG WORACHINDA, and JOYZE NUTTAKARN, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05747 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2019).

Plaintiff Cruz worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that he worked. In addition,
Defendants allegedly maintained a policy and practice of unlawfully
appropriating Plaintiff Cruz's and other tipped employees' tips and
made unlawful deductions from Plaintiff Cruz's and other tipped
employees' wages.

Sook Corporation is doing business as Noodies Thai Kitchen, a Thai
Restaurant located in the Hell's Kitchen neighborhood of Manhattan.
Woraphong Worachinda and Joyze Nuttakarn possess ownership
interests and operational control over Noodies Thai Kitchen. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STATE FARM: MSP Recovery Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC; MSP RECOVERY,
LLC; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC; and MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, the
Plaintiffs, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01537-JBM-TSH (C.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class of:

   "Medicare Advantage Plans ("MA Plans") that, like Plaintiffs,
   seek recovery from State Farm under the MSP Act's private cause

   of action."

The Plaintiffs use the term "MA Plan" to refer to all entities that
provide Medicare Part C benefits and take on financial risk to do
so. Within the population of MA Plans, the Plaintiffs use the term
"MAO" (Medicare Advantage Organization) to designate those MA Plans
that contract directly with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services (CMS). Other MA Plans include "first tier" or "downstream"
entities that contract with MAOs, including Management Service
Organizations ("MSOs") and Independent Physician Associations
("IPAs").

While courts and parties have sometimes utilized the term MAO to
refer to the broader population of Medicare entities, Plaintiffs
attempt to consistently use "MA Plan" (a term used in the MSP Act)
to eliminate any potential confusion.

State Farm is a primary payer that provided no-fault policies to
insureds who are also Medicare beneficiaries. Plaintiffs, on behalf
of the class of MA Plans, allege a systemic non- or under-payment
of reimbursement of conditional payments and medical items and
services provided by MA Plans to beneficiaries who were covered by
State Farm no-fault policies at the time of injury.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          David M. Hundley, Esq.
          Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
          Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          1100 Poydras Street, Suite 2505
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 355-0086
          E-mail: dhundley@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Andres Rivero, Esq.
          Jorge A. Mestre, Esq.
          Charlie E. Whorton, Esq.
          David L. Daponte, Esq.
          RIVERO MESTRE LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
          E-mail: cwhorton@riveromestre.com

               - and -

          R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
          Adam M. Foster, Esq.
          BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
          10940 Wilshire Boulevard, 17th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 207-3233
          Facsimile: (310) 820-7444
          E-mail: rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com
                  afoster@baumhedlund.com

STELLAR IP: Fischler Sues over Web Accessibility for Blind Persons
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Stellar IP, LLC for
alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New
York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights
Law. The case is captioned BRIAN FISCHLER, Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
STELLAR IP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03610 (E.D.N.Y., June
20, 2019).

Plaintiff Brian Fischler brings this civil rights action against
Stellar IP, LLC for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website, www.stellarmanagement.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by blind or
visually-impaired people. Accordingly, Plaintiff Fischler seeks a
permanent injunction to cause Stellar to change its corporate
policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.

Stellar IP, LLC is a foreign limited liability company that is
organized under Delaware law, and authorized to do business in the
state of New York. The company owns and manages buildings
throughout the United States and New York, including locations at
120 Vermilyea Avenue, New York, New York, 301 East 47th Street, New
York, New York and 1071 St. Nicholas Ave, New York, New York. It
also rents within these buildings, studio apartments, and
apartments with one or more bedrooms. Stellar's website is heavily
integrated with its buildings and rental office at 156 William
Street, New York, New York, serving as their gateway. Through the
website, Stellar's customers are, inter alia, able to: learn
information about the buildings, including their locations,
apartment features and building amenities; view images of the
apartments; learn about the neighborhood; learn about current
offers; email an agent through a link contained on the website; and
apply for an apartment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
     Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq.
     LIPSKY LOWE LLP
     630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Telephone: (212) 392-4772
     E-mail: chris@lipskylowe.com
             doug@lipskylowe.com


STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Announces Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District
Court Southern District of New York has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit purchasers of Stemline Therapeutics, Inc. common stock.
(NASDAQ:STML):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED STEMLINE
THERAPEUTICS, INC. ("STEMLINE") COMMON STOCK FROM JANUARY 20, 2017
THROUGH FEBRUARY 1, 2017, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE, AND/OR PURSUANT OR
TRACEABLE TO STEMLINE'S SECONDARY PUBLIC OFFERING OF COMMON STOCK
ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 20, 2017 (THE "SPO").
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on September 23, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. before
the Honorable Paul A. Crotty, United States District Judge of the
Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 14C, New York, New
York 10007 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for
consideration including the sum of $680,000 should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the
proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of
Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to
one-third plus interest of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of
expenses of not more than $50,000 and an incentive payment of no
more than $4,000, in aggregate, or $1,000, each, to Lead Plaintiffs
and Representative Plaintiff, should be approved; and (4) whether
this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated March 11, 2019 (the
"Settlement Stipulation").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Stemline common stock during
the period from January 20, 2017 through February 1, 2017, both
dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and/or pursuant or
traceable to the SPO, your rights may be affected by this
Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you
may possess relating to your ownership interest in Stemline common
stock. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the
Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing
to or calling the Claims Administrator at: Stemline Therapeutics,
Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N.
Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866)
274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; (e-mail) info@strategicclaims.net.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked no later than October
23, 2019, to the Claims Administrator, establishing that you are
entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion
request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action,
including the releases therein, whether or not you make a claim.  

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than September 2, 2019, in the manner and
form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Settlement Stipulation, including the releases therein.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Plaintiffs'
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiffs and Representative
Plaintiff must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice and received no later than September 2, 2019, by each of the
following:

         Clerk of the Court
         United States District Court
         Southern District of New York
         500 Pearl Street
         New York, NY 10007 CO-LEAD COUNSEL:

         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, New York 10016

         COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS:

         ROPES & GRAY LLP
         Gregg L. Weiner
         1211 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, New York 10036

         SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
         Adam S. Hakki
         599 Lexington Avenue
         New York, New York 10022-6069

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Plaintiffs' Counsel:

         Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, New York 10016
         Phone: (215) 600-2817
         Email: info@rosenlegal.com [GN]

v

SUTTER HEALTH: Shares Medical Data to 3rd Parties, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 1; and JANE DOE II, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUTTER HEALTH, Defendant,
Case No. 34-2019-00258072 (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., June 10,
2019) is an action against the Defendant for disclosing personally
identifiable information about patients, including status as
patients, and the content of their communication with the
Defendant, to Facebook and other third-parties.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's conduct
in disclosing personally identifiable information about the
Defendant's patient to Facebook and other third-parties for
marketing purposes, violates California privacy laws including, the
California Invasion of Privacy Act, California's Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act. The information that the Defendant sends
to Facebook or third-parties is used to place patients into medical
interest categories for purposes of direct marketing. These
interest and activities relating to an individual's medical history
or medical treatment or diagnosis by a health care professional, is
a medical information protected by the California Civil Code.

Sutter Health, together with its subsidiaries, provides health
care, education, and research and administration services primarily
in Northern California. It also provides health education, health
libraries, school-based clinics, home health care, hospice care,
adult day care, prenatal clinics, community clinics, immunization
services, and health professions education. In addition, the
company operates California Pacific Medical Center, a hospital with
274 acute-care beds. Sutter Health is headquartered in Sacramento,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq.
          Nicole Ramirez, State Bar No. 279017
          KIESEL LAW LLP
          8648 Wilshire Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910
          Telephone: (310) 854-4444
          Facsimile: (310) 854-0812
          E-mail: kiesel@kiesel.law
                  koncius@kiesel.law
                  ramirez@kiesel.law

               - and -

          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          Jay Barnes, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
          112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784-6400
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: mbreit@immonsfirm.com
                  jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com


TARGET: Faces Class Action Over Lack of Health Care Coverage Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara DiNatale, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that a Palm
Harbor couple is pursuing a class-action lawsuit against Target,
accusing the retailer of breaking federal laws that regulate
employee benefits.

Shawn Rigney, 31, worked for Target until September of 2018. Rigney
and his partner, Kyle Adams, 29, were covered by Target's health
insurance. The notices Target sent to the men about the option to
continue their health care following Rigney's termination lacked
critical information that left them unable to retain coverage,
according to the lawsuit.

"Not only did (Rigney and Adams) lose their insurance coverage,"
the lawsuit says, "during that time they incurred medical bills
resulting in further economic injury."

Rather than give clear instructions, Target sent part of the
legally required information in a "piece-meal fashion" over more
than one piece of mail, according to the case filed on May 15.

By law, an employer that provided health benefits is required to
send a COBRA -- Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act --
notice to inform former workers of their rights to continue their
health care coverage.

"Notice is of enormous importance," the lawsuit says. "The COBRA
notification requirement exists because employees are not expected
to know instinctively of their right to continue their healthcare
coverage."

The lawsuit accuses Target of breaking the law because its notice
did not explain how to enroll or who contact, or have an address to
mail payments. Nor did Target explain what would happen if payments
were made late.

Ultimately the lawsuit argues Target's notice left the couple
unable to make an informed decision about health coverage. It also
says Rigney was left to pay out of pocket to see doctors for an
injury he sustained while at work for Target. He now works as a
Tampa Bay real estate agent.

It is unclear what job Rigney held and at which area store, though
the case is filed in Hillsborough County Circuit Court.

Rigney declined to comment. Target did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

If Rigney and Adams' case is certified as a class-action lawsuit,
other former employees who received the same type of notification
would be able to join the complaint. [GN]


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Bragar Notes of Aug. 23 Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel and Squire reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of stockholders of Pivotal
Software, Inc., Eros International Plc, and Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd.  Stockholders have until the deadlines below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.  Additional
information about each case can be found at the link provided.

Pivotal Software, Inc. (NYSE: PVTL)

Class Period: Securities pursuant or traceable to Pivotal's April
2018 initial public offering ("IPO") and/or securities purchased or
acquired between April 24, 2019 and June 4, 2019 (the "Class
Period").

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 19, 2019

The complaint filed on June 21, 2019 alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Pivotal was facing major problems with its sales
execution and a complex technology landscape; (ii) the foregoing
headwinds resulted in deferred sales, lengthening sales cycles, and
diminished growth as its customers and the industry's sentiment
shifted away from Pivotal's principal products because the
Company's products were outdated, inadequate, and incompatible with
the industry-standard platform; and (iii) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. On June 4, 2019, post-market, Pivotal reported
its financial and operating results for the first quarter of fiscal
year 2020, advising investors that "sales execution and a complex
technology landscape impacted the quarter." Wedbush Securities
analyst Daniel Ives called the quarter a "train wreck" and
characterized the Company's operating results as "disastrous,"
asserting that Pivotal's "management team does not have a handle on
the underlying issues negatively impacting its sales cycles and the
activity in the field which gives us concern that this quarter will
be the start of some 'dark days ahead' for Pivotal (and its
investors)." On this news, Pivotal's stock price fell $7.60.

To learn more about the Pivotal Software class action go to:
https://bespc.com/PVTL-2

Eros International Plc (NYSE: EROS)

Class Period: July 28, 2017- June 5, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2019

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Eros and its executives engaged in a scheme to use
related-party transactions to fabricate receivables that they
reported in Eros's public financial disclosures; (2) because of
this scheme, Eros's financial position was weaker than what the
Company disclosed; (3) consequently, the Company's Indian
subsidiary, Eros International Media Ltd, missed loan payments and
had its credit downgraded; and (4) due to the foregoing,
defendants' statements about Eros's receivables, business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To learn more about the Eros class action go to:
https://bespc.com/eros-2

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (NYSE: TEVA)

Class Period: August 4, 2017- May 10, 2019

Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2019

The complaint filed on June 21, 2019 alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
denying that Teva "engaged in any conduct that would give rise to
liability" in various antitrust proceedings and investigations that
enveloped the company. In truth, and as Defendants failed to
disclose to investors, (i) contrary to its public denials, Teva had
in fact engaged in a vast, industry-wide price-fixing scheme and
other collusive misconduct since at least 2012; (ii) Teva was not
only a participant, but the company at the heart of the
anticompetitive scheme; and (iii) several Teva employees had such
deep involvement in the scheme that they would ultimately be named
personally as defendants in a sweeping civil enforcement action
filed by the AGs of virtually every state in the nation. On
December 9, 2018, it was publicly disclosed that the scope of the
State AG's investigation had expanded greatly to include 300 drugs
and at least 16 companies, exposing "the largest cartel in the
history of the United States." On this news, the price of Teva ADS
fell $0.97 per share or 5%, to close at $18.44 per share on
December 10, 2018. On May 10, 2019, a coalition of 44 states filed
a 524-page antitrust complaint revealing previously undisclosed
facts regarding Teva's participation in the generic drug
price-fixing conspiracy. Among other things, the action detailed
Teva's role as a "consistent participant" in the conspiracy,
implementing price increases on upwards of 110 generic drugs and
colluding with competitors regarding over 85 different generic
drugs. On this news, the price of Teva ADS fell $2.13 per share or
approximately 15%, to close at $12.23 per share on May 13, 2019.

For more information on the Teva class action go to:
https://bespc.com/teva

Contact:

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Phone: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         Email: investigations@bespc.com
                fortunato@bespc.com
                walker@bespc.com
[GN]



U.S. BANK: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Virginia Guiette, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. U.S.
Bank National Association, the Defendant, Case No.: 1:18-cv-00174
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff move the Court for an order:

   1. granting final approval of the terms of a settlement
      agreement; and

   2. granting approval of a cy pres beneficiary.

Virginia Guiette and U.S. Bank National Association have reached a
fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement. Preliminary approval was
granted February 13, 2019 and this motion for final approval
follows the properly executed notice period.

The Hon. Timothy S. Black of the Ohio Southern District Court, for
good cause shown, has approved the parties' joint stipulated motion
for extension of time for Defendant to file its brief in support of
final approval of settlement.  Defendant shall file its brief in
support of final approval of the settlement by July 12.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-4808 Ext. 2
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          W. Mark Jump, Esq.
          JUMP LEGAL GROUP
          2130 Arlington Avenue
          Columbus, OH 43221
          Telephone: (614) 481-7216
          Facsimile: (866) 334-2208
          E-mail: wmjump@jumplegal.com

UNITED STATES: Homeland Security Sued in Texas Southern District
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against against Kevin K.
McAleenan, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
and Commissioner, U.S. Customs & Border Protection. The case is
captioned as JAIRO ALEXANDER GONZALEZ-RECINOS, through his next
friend, Walter Gonzalez Recinos; GERARDO HENRIQUE HERRERA RIVERA,
through his next friend, Jose Ayala; KEVIN EDUARDO RIZZO RUANO,
through his next friend, Antonio Torres Rizo; JONATHAN FERNANDO
BELTRAN RIZO, through his next friend, Antonio Torres Rizo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department
of Homeland Security and Commissioner, U.S. Customs & Border
Protection; JOHN P SANDERS, Acting Commissioner of Customs & Border
Protection; RODOLFO KARISCH, Chief Patrol Agent- Rio Grande Valley
Sector; MICHAEL J PITTS, Field Office Director, ICE/ERO, Port
Isabel Service Processing Center; and CARLA PROVOST, Chief of the
United States Border Patrol, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00095
(S.D. Tex., June 9, 2019). The case is assigned to Judge Fernando
Rodriguez, Jr.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elisabeth Lisa S Brodyaga, Esq.
          17891 Landrum Park Rd.
          San Benito, TX 78586-7197
          Telephone: (956) 421-3226
          Facsimile: (956) 421-3423
          E-mail: lisabrodyaga@aol.com

               - and -

          Jaime M Diez, Esq.
          Jones Crane, Esq.
          PO Box 3070
          Brownsville, TX 78523
          Telephone: (956) 544-3565

               - and -

          Manuel E Solis, Esq.
          PO Box 230529
          Houston, TX 77223
          Telephone: (713) 844-2700
          E-mail: msolis@lawsolis.com

               - and -

          Thelma Odilia Garcia, Esq.
          301 E Madison St.
          Harlingen, TX 78550
          Telephone: (956) 425-3701
          Facsimile: (956) 428-3731
          E-mail: lawofctog@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nancy Lynn Masso, Esq.
          Office of U S Attorney
          600 E Harrison, Ste 201
          Brownsville, TX 78520
          Telephone: (956) 548-2554
          Facsimile: (956) 548-2775
          E-mail: nancy.masso@usdoj.gov


UNIV. OF CHICAGO: Medical Center Hit With Class Suit Over Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Google
and the University of Chicago Medical Center are facing a class
action lawsuit accusing the hospital of violating federal privacy
law by sharing patient health records with Google, which the
internet giant allegedly used to create its own electronic health
record management system.

On June 26, 2019, attorneys from the firm of Edelson P.C. filed a
complaint in Chicago federal court on behalf of named plaintiff
Matt Dinerstein.  The lawsuit alleges Google "pulled off what is
likely the greatest heist of consumer medical records in history."
Saying personal information such as credit card and Social Security
numbers is "run-of-the-mill" data, the lawsuit said "the personal
medical information obtained by Google is the most sensitive and
intimate information in an individual's life, and its unauthorized
disclosure is far more damaging to an individual's privacy."

According to the complaint, Google in 2017 enacted a plan to obtain
electronic health records from nearly every UC Medical Center
patient from 2009 to 2016 and then "file a patent for its own
proprietary and commercial EHR system that wouldn't be published
until well after it had obtained hundreds of thousands of EHRs from
the University."

Dinerstein's complaint said the university's patient admission
forms promise to not disclose records to third parties for
commercial purposes, and further alleged Google and UC falsely
claimed the records didn't contain individual patient information
because they "included detailed datestamps and copious free-text
notes," and using detailed geolocation information "Google — as
one of the most prolific data mining companies — is uniquely able
to determine the identity of almost every medical record the
University released."

The complaint said Google used a direct subsidiary called DeepMind
to analyze medical records and create commercial products, using
its artificial intelligence machine learning to make connections
between hospital records and Google user data. It also said most
"hospitals, researchers and health care providers alike" rebuffed
Google's efforts, until it got UC to agree to provide records that
should've been protected under the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.

Dinerstein said he spent parts of eight days at the UC Medical
Center in June 2015, generating "numerous pages of health records."
He said he used his smartphone during the stay, including Google
software and accounts, allowing the company to link his unnamed
records to his other personal information.

He said UC and Google jointly published a January 2018 article in
Digital Medicine, at nature.com, describing the research and
methodology while acknowledging the contents of the records.

"Only months after the transfer was complete did it become public
that the datestamps, along with free-text notes data, were only
provided by the University, and not by any other hospital working
with Google," Dinerstein said. "That's not simply a coincidence or
a failure to persuade on the part of Google. Rather, the reason no
other hospital, including the other health care providers
partnering with Google, provided this type of information is
because it would be a prima facie violation of HIPAA to share or
even receive medical records in this form."

Formal complaints include a violation of the Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and breach of express or implied
contract against UC, tortious interference with contract and unjust
enrichment against Google and intrusion upon seclusion against
both.

Dinerstein said the class would include "hundreds of thousands of
individuals."

In addition to damages, class certification and a jury trial,
Dinerstein seeks an injunction forcing UC to comply with HIPAA
regulations, a court order barring it from disclosing records
without patient consent and another order prohibiting Google from
using and forcing it to delete records it obtained from the
school.
[GN]



US ENRICHMENT: Sued Over Piketon School Radioactive Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony e. Rutherford, writing for Huntington News, reports that a
class action federal complaint has been filed in connection with
radioactive contamination at Zahn's Corner Middle School which was
suddenly closed May 13, 2019.

Winds have carried the radioactive materials and other metals
throughout the area in such concentrations that radioactive
materials and metals can be found deposited in soils and buildings
in and around Piketon, Ohio. Environmental evidence gathered thus
far indicates that property and persons near the Portsmouth Site
have been and continue to be exposed to toxic and radioactive
substances and are negatively impacted by toxic and radioactive
releases from the Portsmouth Site, the complaint alleges.

The class includes residents on neighboring properties up to a
seven mile radius from the former Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The
proposed class exceeds 100 individuals and the amount of damages
exceed $5,000,000.

Although Stuart E. Scott and Kevin C. Hulick of the Cleveland firm
Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP are lead attorneys, Huntington's
Mark Underwood and the Jason Leasure of Vital & Vital are on the
complaint as well as the Thompson Barney firm in Charleston, WV.

Vina Colley, a co-founder of National Nuclear Workers for Justice
and Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and
Security and a former worker for the plant, said, "We are happy to
see the community has sought justice, however, the damage to the
kids can never be reversed."

Colley supports the lawsuit and hints that more could follow.

She told the Columbus Dispatch, the demolition and clean up of the
plant has awakened new contamination. Colley and others have, for
decades, testified concerning radiation leaving the perimeter, but
officials have persistently denied the allegations.

"I don't want that stuff in the air," she said. "We've suffered
enough."

The case is captioned McGlone, et.al. v. United States Enrichment
Corp., et. al. [GN]


VERIZON WIRELESS: Langere Appeals C.D. Cal. Decision to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Damian Langere filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Damian Langere v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00191-DDP-AJW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
arises from an alleged massive fraud perpetrated by the Defendant
in connection with its selling and marketing of its extended
warranty program for mobile phones, specifically by, failure to
disclose to consumers that the phone manufacturer's express
warranty runs concurrently with the extended warranty for the first
year of coverage, and provides no additional benefits during that
time.

The appellate case is captioned as Damian Langere v. Verizon
Wireless Services, LLC, Case No. 19-55747, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 29, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on August 26, 2019;

   -- Appellant Damian Langere's opening brief is due on
      October 7, 2019;

   -- Appellee Verizon Wireless Services, LLC's answering brief
      is due on November 7, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DAMIAN LANGERE, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jordan Sander Esensten, Esq.
          ESENSTEN LAW
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 273-3090
          Facsimile: (310) 207-5969
          E-mail: jesensten@esenstenlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert Lawrence Esensten, Esq.
          WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, LLP
          5567 Reseda Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91357-7033
          Telephone: (818) 609-2384
          E-mail: resensten@wccelaw.com

Defendant-Appellee VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES, LLC, is represented
by:

          Marcos D. Sasso, Esq.
          Julia B. Strickland, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-5800
          E-mail: msasso@stroock.com
                  jstrickland@stroock.com


VITALITE HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Restigouche Negligence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colin McPhail, writing for CBC News, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit on behalf of patients at the Restigouche
Hospital Centre is seeking $500 million in damages for alleged
"historic negligence" at the Campbellton psychiatric facility
dating back to the 1950s.

Koskie Minsky LLP, a Toronto-based firm, filed a statement of claim
in Saint John Court of Queen's Bench on May 24. It named the New
Brunswick government and Vitalite Health Network as defendants.

The 28-page statement of claim alleges the defendants were
"negligent" in the operation of the facility and supervision of its
residents for decades.

It also alleges the defendants violated section 15 of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects people with a mental
disability, among other groups, from discrimination.

The class action has yet to be certified by the court, and a
certification motion date has not been set.

The court document says the defendants have 20 days to file a
statement of defence.

Treatment of patients at the provincial psychiatric hospital was
thrust into the spotlight in February when New Brunswick ombud
Charles Murray released a scathing report that revealed patients
had been victims of "mistreatment and inadequate care."

Murray said in one case, he believed gaps in care -- stemming from
chronic understaffing -- "may have resulted in the premature death
of a patient" last year.

The statement of claim names Darrell Tidd and Reid Smith as
plaintiffs. The fathers will be the litigation guardians for their
sons, Devan Tidd and Aaron Smith, who are both patients at the
hospital.

The two fathers voiced concern for their sons' care to CBC News in
the wake of the report. They said in February they're troubled by
what they believe is an understaffed centre that over-medicates
patients.

"It's on my mind every day, from the time I wake up to the time I
go to sleep," Tidd said.

The statement of claim describes the alleged of treatment of their
sons.

"Both Devan and Aaron were repeatedly and continuously physically
abused and punished by being physically restrained without
justification," the document states.

"Both Devan and Aaron were repeatedly prescribed medications they
did not need, which had the effect of restraining or sedating
them."

The claim also alleges the two witnessed staff assaulting
residents, were put in seclusion without cause and threatened by
other residents only to have their concerns dismissed by staff.

'There are systemic problems'
James Sayce, a lawyer at Koskie Minsky, said the firm hopes to
represent all past and present residents -- who were alive as of
May 24, 2017 -- of the institution, dating back to Jan. 1, 1954.

"There are systemic problems with the way this place is run," Sayce
said on May 28 in an interview from Toronto. "It's not run at the
standard a mental hospital, a psychiatric facility, should be run.
It never has been from the looks of things."

Koskie Minsky has a history of taking governments to court on
behalf of vulnerable people, Sayce said, noting the firm's work in
prosecuting governments over Indian residential schools.

"Our specialty at our firm is suing governments for historical
abuse," Sayce said.

"These people are some of the most vulnerable people in Canada and
most of them, if not all of them, would have a very difficult time
bringing this case on their own."

Past reports key to lawsuit
The claim is based on the stories of the plaintiffs as well as a
series of reports criticizing the administration of the hospital.

In addition to Murray's report, the lawsuit highlights a 1968
public report commissioned by the province that detailed some
"repeated" civil rights violations, appalling care of youth
residents and a mixture of overcrowding, understaffing and lack of
training.

Another eight reports, published between 1956 and 2010, were cited
to paint a picture of mismanagement, understaffing and abuse. Some
of the reports were internal documents or annual reports and
complaints to the ombud.

Sayce declined to say how his firm became aware of the Restigouche
Hospital Centre and how it reached the $500-million figure.

The damages suffered by residents listed in the statement of claim
include: emotional, physical, sexual and psychological abuse;
exacerbation of mental disability; impaired ability to find and
keep employment; lost income; and the loss of the general enjoyment
of life.

Politicians respond
Premier Blaine Higgs said at the legislature on May 28 he had to
first read the details of the action before commenting, but he did
say, "It's disappointing to hear."

George Weber, an independent mental health expert hired by the
province to review the hospital after the report was released,
recommended keeping the centre open but speeding up changes to
improve safety and treatment.

"Our goal was that we were putting measures in place to protect the
residents here, and we put a lot of effort into doing that," said
Higgs. "I know Vitalite had spent a lot of extra time and effort to
make it happen."

Vitalite Health Network disputed some of Muray's findings,
describing them as outdated. CEO Gilles Lanteigne said at the time
steps were already taken to improve the culture in the centre, and
he maintained patients are safe.

Green Party Leader David Coon said on May 28 he's still waiting to
see the province act on the recommendations in Murray's report. He
said he wasn't surprised to hear of the lawsuit.

Coon maintained his stance that the troubled youth annex, slated to
open next to Restigouche Hospital Centre, should be moved to
southern New Brunswick where there's adequate staff.

Youth annex uncertainty
A pair of Liberal MLAs said the class-action suit will be dealt
with through the justice system, but both Jean-Claude D'Amours and
Gilles Lepage said the youth annex must open.

Murray recommended cancelling the near-complete youth mental health
project. The province halted construction inside in March, though
work on the exterior was allowed to continue.

Higgs said on May 28 the government is still considering the
issue.

Fearing job losses, northern New Brunswick officials have been
fighting to keep the youth annex, and the main centre, in
Campbellton

"We need to make sure that the youth centre opens as soon as
possible," D'Amours said at the legislature, saying the governing
Tories need to confirm it will open.

"We need to offer the service that youth need, and, at this point,
we know Vitalite, the ombud, the independent [review] has been
done. I think we are confident the future will be brighter for the
centre."

Known as the Provincial Hospital until 2015, the 140-bed
Restigouche Hospital Centre housed thousands of youth and adults
since it opened in 1954, the statement of claim said.

It was established to be the province's lead centre for inpatient
mental health services, including for patients with neurocognitive
disorders, autism spectrum disorders and psychotic disorders.

The goal is to reintegrate patients back into their communities
when that's possible.

With files from Shaun Waters and Karissa Donkin [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Quebec Court Authorizes Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Faguy & Co. disclosed that on May 28, 2018, The
Honourable Justice Chantal Chatelain of the Superior Court of the
Province of Quebec authorized the bringing of a securities class
action against Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft ("VW AG") in Court
File No. 500-06-000838-173. The allegations made in the class
action have not been proven and are contested by VW AG.

The Quebec class action is brought on behalf of all residents of
Quebec who acquired VW AG's securities between March 12, 2009 and
September 18, 2015 (the "Class Period") and held all or some of
those acquired VW AG securities until after September 18, 2015. You
are a member of the Quebec class action if you meet this
description.

The Quebec class action asserts that VW AG made materially false or
misleading statements or omitted to disclose important information
in its disclosure documents released during the Class Period (the
"Impugned Documents") and in the conduct of its business affairs.
The Impugned Documents include annual reports, interim unaudited
and annual audited financial statements, and VW AG's code of
conduct, all issued during the Class Period.

Details of the authorization of the Quebec class action, including
the process for Class Members to opt out of the Quebec class
action, are available by consulting the link below.

Please note that Class Members may also be members of a U.S.
settlement class for VW AG's American Depositary Receipts, or may
have instituted another legal action against VW AG on the same
subject matter as the Quebec class action. Class counsel should be
contacted to learn more about the impact of these scenarios on the
opt-out and other legal rights in the Quebec class action.

The judgements of the Quebec Court and other information in both
English and French are available on class counsel's website at
http://faguyco.com/portfolio/volkswagen-class-action/as well as on
the Registre des actions collectives at
https://www.registredesactionscollectives.quebec/

For any inquiries, please contact class counsel representing Class
Members:

     Shawn Faguy
     Faguy & Co.
     329 de la Commune West, Suite 200
     Montreal, PQ H2Y 2E1
     Tel: 514.285.8100 x224
     Fax: 514.285.8050
     Email: skf@faguyco.com [GN]


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Woodall, et al. Seek to Certify 4 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit KATRINA WOODALL, et. al., on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated female inmates of the Wayne
County Jail, the Plaintiffs, vs. COUNTY OF WAYNE; et. al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-13707-AJT-EAS (E.D. Mich.), , the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an Order certifying these
classes:

CLASS NO. 1

   "all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated by
   the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County Jail
   Divisions from the period of November 14, 2014 until the date
   of judgment or settlement of this case, who, without a
   legitimate penological interest, were forcibly exposed in the
   nude to members of the opposite sex while being strip searched
   pursuant to the Wayne County Sheriff's policies, practices,
   and/or customs, and who allege they have suffered a compensable
   injury as a result of the search";

CLASS NO. 2

   "all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated by
   the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County Jail
   Divisions from the period of November 14, 2014, until the date
   of judgment or settlement of this case, who, without a
   legitimate penological interest, were stripped searched in a
   group with other inmates, and which searches did not afford
   privacy from others, pursuant to the Wayne County Sheriff's
   policies, practices, and/or customs, and who allege they have
   suffered a compensable injury as a result of the search";

CLASS NO. 3

   "all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated by
   the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County Jail
   Divisions from the period of November 14, 2014, until the date
   of judgment or settlement of this case, who, without a
   legitimate penological interest, were stripped searched under
   unsanitary and/or unhygienic conditions, including being
   exposed to the bodily fluids of other inmates who were being
   strip searched, pursuant to the Wayne County Sheriff's
   policies, practices, and/or customs, and who allege they have
   suffered a compensable injury as a result of the search"; and

CLASS NO. 4

   "(4) all females who were housed, detained, and/or incarcerated

   by the Wayne County Sheriff at any of the three Wayne County
   Jail Divisions from the period of November 14, 2014 until the
   date of judgment or settlement of this case, who, without a
   legitimate penological interest, were subject to derogatory
   gender-based comments by Defendant Graham during strip
   searches, and who allege they have suffered a compensable
   injury as a result of the search".

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated their Fourth
Amendment rights by subjecting them to unreasonable strip searches
while housed at the Wayne County Jail. During these
unconstitutional strip searches, the Plaintiffs, and dozens (in
fact hundreds) of similarly situated female inmates, were forcibly
exposed in the nude to male officers and staff who would stand
around watching the naked women while laughing, mocking them, and
commenting on their naked bodies.

The Plaintiffs seek monetary relief (Plaintiffs' claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief were dismissed by this Court in
its Opinion dated March 26, 2019 based on the fact that the instant
Plaintiffs were not incarcerated at the time of filing their
instant action) . In addition, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages
against the individual Defendants including Officer Graham. Graham
was the main culprit who would routinely strip search female
inmates, en masse, in the registry room while she would make
sexually exploitive, unprofessional, and degrading comments to the
women about their bodies, comment on their breast sizes, and
inquire of their sexual orientation all without any legitimate
penological interest, the lawsuit says.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Dennis A. Dettmer, Esq.
          Michael R. Dezsi, Esq.
          DETTMER & DEZSI, PLLC
          615 Griswold St, Suite 1410
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 281-8090
          E-mail: ddettmeresq@yahoo.com
                  mdezsi@dezsilaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          James W. Heath, Esq.
          Paul T. O'Neill, Esq.
          Davidde A. Stella, Esq.
          500 Griswold Street, 30 th Floor
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 224-5030
          E-mail: poneill@waynecounty.com
                  dstella@waynecounty.com

WEST SAINT JOHN: Class Action Over Water System Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Connell Smith, writing for CBC News, reports that a court in Saint
John has given the go-ahead to a class-action lawsuit launched over
changes to the city's west side water system.

The suit springs from a 2017 move by the city to change the water
system's source from the Spruce Lake Reservoir to a collection of
drilled wells in the South Bay area.

Shortly after the change, residents began to complain of leaking
pipes, water damage and failed water heaters.

"It sounds dramatic, but it will affect the rest of my life," west
Saint John resident Frances Brownell said on May 28.

She and fellow west sider Cheryl Steadman are the two plaintiffs
whose names are on the lawsuit.

Earlier on May 28, lawyers for the plaintiffs and the city said
they had agreed to the terms for the certification, and Justice
Deborah Hackett of the Court of Queen's Bench formally announced
the class action can proceed.  

Brownell, a senior, said her problems began with the discovery of
water on the floor of her laundry room.

A plumber revealed the leaking water pipe had also extensively
damaged a downstairs bedroom.

The repairs were made, but new leaks developed and Brownell ended
up having her drywall removed in many parts of her home to replace
the water pipes entirely.

"As the issues came up, I couldn't deal with them, I had no
recourse but to say I can't cover this," she said.

Brownell said she had to dip into her pension to pay for the
plumber, carpenter and electrician.

She estimated the repairs cost her $10,000 to $12,000.

The statement of claim alleges, among other things, that the city
was negligent when it changed the water supply and exposed property
owners' pipes to "a distinct chemistry, which de-scaled those water
distribution pipes and caused the water distribution pipes to be
damaged and/or fail."

The lawsuit seeks financial compensation for repairs to pipes,
damage to homes and appliances, loss of property value, and mental
and emotional damage.

Saint John mayor faces angry crowd at west side water meeting
Glenn Zakaib, one of the lawyers for the defence, said the
municipality's agreement on the terms of certification should not
be interpreted as meaning the city does not intend to defend
against the suit.

None of the allegations in the statement of claim have been proven
in court.

Both sides plan to apply for a summary judgment by Hackett, meaning
the case would either be won or lost without a trial at a court
hearing scheduled for May 12, 2020.

Should those motions fail, it could be 2021 or even later before a
trial gets underway. [GN]


WESTAMERICA BANK: Cook Sues over Robocalls
------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Westamerica Bank
for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA). The case is captioned SHERON COOK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WESTAMERICA
BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-03594 (N.D. Cal., June 20,
2019).

Cook alleges that Westamerica Bank has been engaged in practice of
placing calls using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) to
the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide without their prior
express written consent, in violation of the TCPA. Accordingly,
Plaintiff Cook brings this complaint to stop the Defendant's
practice; enjoin Defendant from continuing to place calls using an
ATDS to consumers who did not provide their prior express written
consent to receive them; and obtain redress for all persons injured
by its conduct.

Westamerica Bank is a corporation organized under the laws of
California with a principal place of business at 1108 Fifth Avenue,
San Rafael, California. It is a regional community bank with over
80 branches and two trust offices in 21 Northern and Central
California counties. [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


WRIGHT OF PENNSYLVANIA: Shook Seeks OT Pay for Traffic Technicians
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN ALLEN SHOOK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, 167 Presock Road Greensboro, PA 15338, the
Plaintiff, v. WRIGHT OF PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, 1200 Sharon Road, Suite
1 Beaver, PA 15009; and W.D. WRIGHT CONTRACTING, INC. 1200 Sharon
Road, Suite 1 Beaver, PA 15009, the Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-00726-DSC (W.D. Pa., June 18, 2019), contends that
Defendants have unlawfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and other
similarly-situated individuals employed in the positions of Traffic
Control Technician/Flagger and/or Traffic Control Field Supervisor,
overtime compensation pursuant to the requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff is a current employee of Defendants who is employed
in the position of Traffic Control Technician/Flagger. During the
course of their employment, Plaintiff and Class Plaintiffs
regularly worked more than 40  hours per week, but were not
properly compensated for their work in that Plaintiff and Class
Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime premium at 1.5 times their
regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.

In this regard, the Plaintiff contends that Defendants unlawfully
failed to pay him and Class Plaintiffs overtime compensation for
certain compensable pre- and post-shift work as well as certain
compensable travel time in violation of the FLSA and PMWA, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Rachel Rebecca Stevens, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
          Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000
          1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 267-273-1054
          Facsimile: 215-525-021
          E-mail: rstevens@phillyemploymentlawyer.com

ZUMIEZ INC: Chu Says Website Not Accessible for Disabled People
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Zumiez, Inc. for
alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA) and the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA). The case
is captioned KYO HAK CHU, individually and on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ZUMIEZ, INC., a
Washington corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-03511-JSW (N.D. Cal., June 19, 2019).

Plaintiff Kyo Hak Chu seeks redress against Zumiez, Inc. for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. Zumiez's
denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered thereby and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiffs' rights under the ADA and California's UCRA.

Headquartered in Washington, Zumiez, Inc operates stores that
provide to the public important goods and services. Its website
provides consumers with access to women, men and boys apparel
including tees, hoodies, sweatshirts, shorts, jeans, pants,
jackets, button ups, jerseys, tank tops, joggers, board shorts,
footwear including snowboard boots, slip-ons, high tops, sandals,
slides; outerwear including windbreakers, anoraks, tech fleece and
snowboard jackets; accessories including face masks, long
underwear, mitts, helmets, skate pads, gloves, fanny packs,
sunglasses, goggles, belts, backpacks, bags, beanies, visors, hats,
watches, necklaces, bracelets, rings, earrings, socks, snowboard
bindings; sporting equipment including roller skates, snowboards,
skateboards 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


[*] India Notifies Thresholds for Filing Class Action Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ashima Obhan, Esq., and Vrinda Patodia, Esq., of Obhan &
Associates, in an article for Mondaq, report that in January 2009,
India witnessed one of its biggest corporate scandals -- the
'Satyam scandal' also referred to as 'India's Enron'. Satyam
Computers Services Limited ("SCSL") was under the microscope for
fraudulent activity and misrepresentation of its accounts to its
board, stock exchanges, regulators, investors and all other
stakeholders. Thereafter, shareholders of SCSL, approximately
300,000 were unsuccessful in claiming damages worth millions due to
the absence of the provision for filing a class action suit under
the Companies Act, 1956. American investors on the other hand were
able to claim their part of damages in the US courts through a
class action suit against SCSL.

The concept of class action was first introduced in the US in the
year 1938. 'Class Action', which is also known as 'Representative
Action', is actually a form of lawsuit where a large group of
people collectively brings a claim to the court through a
representative. A class action suit is filed generally when a
number of people have suffered the same or similar injuries. Often
many of the individuals' injuries are relatively minor, such that
they might not pursue legal redress on their own. Together,
however, the value of the claims of the class add up, and claiming
as a class helps consolidate the attorneys, evidence, witnesses,
and most other aspects of the litigation.

Post the Satyam scandal, the Indian Parliament drafted the
Companies Bill, 2009 and introduced provisions enabling affected
shareholders to file a 'Class­ Action Suit'. Section 245 and 246
of the Companies Act, 2013 Act ("Act") specifically deals with the
class ­action suits. These provisions permit members and
depositors (both terms are as defined under the Act) to approach
the National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT") if they believe that the
affairs of the company are being conducted in a manner detrimental
to the interest of the company and its shareholders.

Section 245 of the Act provides that a certain number of members or
depositors are entitled to bring an action before the NCLT if they
are of the opinion that the management or conduct of the affairs of
the company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the
interests of the company or its members or depositors. Section 245
contains ten different sub clauses and provides the procedure as
well as the reliefs which can be sought.

Sub-Section 3 of Section 245 of the Act as illustrated below sets
forth the number of members/depositors required to file a class
action suit.

* Required Number of Members
For companies having a share capital–minimum 100 members or a
prescribed percentage of total members whichever is less, or a
member(s) holding a prescribed percentage of the shareholding in
the company. For a company without share capital -- not less than
1/5th of the total number of its members.

* Required Number of Depositors
Minimum 100 depositors or a prescribed percentage of the total
depositors, whichever is less or a depositor(s) to which the
company owes such percentage of the total deposits as prescribed.

Until recently, this prescribed numbers of members or depositors
required to file a class action suit had not been notified by the
government. The government has on May 8, 2019 amended the National
Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 and notified the threshold limits
for filing such class action suits under Section 245 of the Act.
The notified threshold limits are:

Members
(In case of a company having a share capital)

No. of Required Members/ Depositors
Whichever is less. - 100

Depositors - 100

Percentage of total Members/ Depositors - 5%

Percentage of shareholding/deposits owed

In the event of a listed company - 2%

In the event of an unlisted company - 5%

Notification of the thresholds permits shareholders to file class
action lawsuits against companies allowing minority shareholders
and investors to seek remedies such as restraining the company from
committing acts which either violate or which are ultra vires of
its charter documents; restraining companies from committing acts
contrary to the Act; claiming damages or other appropriate action
from directors, auditors, external advisors or any other person who
made incorrect statements or who engaged in suppression of material
facts or fraudulent conduct etc.

This redressal mechanism protects small and minority shareholders
and provides them with a powerful tool to keep companies in check.
It may even result in companies and their external auditors,
advisors and consultants being more diligent and careful in their
activities. [GN]


[*] Ontario Law Aims to Help Province in Opioid Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario's mental health and addictions system is disconnected with
uneven access to quality services, making it challenging for
patients and families to navigate a confusing system and get the
services they need.

That's why Ontario's Government for the People is protecting what
matters most by taking action to improve quality mental health and
addictions services and recover health care costs due to the opioid
crisis. On May 27, Ontario was set to introduce the Foundations for
Promoting and Protecting Mental Health and Addictions Services Act.
If passed, this act would establish a Mental Health and Addictions
Centre of Excellence within Ontario Health and support the
province's participation in the national class action lawsuit
British Columbia launched last year against more than 40 opioid
manufacturers and wholesalers.

"In response to longstanding calls for stronger provincial
leadership, our government is taking a system-wide approach to
building a connected mental health and addictions system," said
Christine Elliott, Deputy Premier and Minister of Health and
Long-Term Care. "The proposed Mental Health and Addictions Centre
of Excellence would ensure Ontario patients and families are able
to access integrated, standardized, evidence-based care and
services no matter where they live. The new centre would lay the
foundation as we develop and implement a comprehensive mental
health care strategy."

Creating the centre follows recommendations made in 2010 by the
Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, co-chaired by
Elliott and established through a motion she presented. Within
Ontario Health, the proposed Mental Health and Addictions Centre of
Excellence would:

Establish a central point of accountability and oversight for
mental health and addictions care.

Be responsible for standardizing and monitoring the quality and
delivery of services and clinical care across the province, to
provide a better and more consistent patient experience.

Provide support and resources to Ontario Health Teams, which is a
new model to integrate care and funding, connect patients to the
different types of care they need and help them navigate the
system.    

To respect taxpayers, the Foundations for Promoting and Protecting
Mental Health and Addictions Services Act would, if passed, support
Ontario's participation in the national class action lawsuit
British Columbia launched last year against more than 40 opioid
manufacturers and wholesalers. The lawsuit was launched on behalf
of all provincial, territorial and federal governments and aims to
recover government health care costs incurred due to opioid-related
disease, injury or illness. Our government intends to invest any
award from this litigation directly into frontline mental health
and addiction services.

"The opioid crisis has cost the people of Ontario enormously, both
in terms of lives lost and its impact on health care's front
lines," said Attorney General Caroline Mulroney. "If passed, this
proposed legislation would support us taking further action to
battle the ongoing opioid crisis and hold manufacturers and
wholesalers accountable for their roles in it."

Together, the government's actions will protect what matters most,
respect taxpayers and lay the strong foundation as the province
develops and implements a comprehensive and connected mental health
and addictions strategy.

Quick Facts
The government has held 19 consultations across the province with
mental health and addictions community organizations, frontline
service providers, hospitals, advocates, experts and people with
lived experience.

Establishing a Mental Health and Addictions Centre of Excellence is
part of the government's plan to modernize our public health care
system, which relentlessly focuses on patient experience and better
connected care, to reduce wait times and end hallway health care.
It is a major step toward integrating mental health and addictions
care into all parts of the health care system.

This year, the government is investing an additional $174 million
to support desperately needed mental health and addictions services
on the ground, in schools, communities and health centres across
the province. This is part of Ontario's commitment to invest $3.8
billion over 10 years to develop and implement a comprehensive and
connected mental health and addictions strategy. [GN]


[*] Plaintiffs Attorneys Diverge on Sexual Abuse Procedure Option
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that lawsuits brought
on behalf of victims of widespread sexual abuse on college campuses
have flooded the courts seeking to hold various universities across
the country accountable, with some reaching settlements in the
hundreds of millions of dollars.

But plaintiffs attorneys don't agree on exactly how to get there.

Should victims of sexual abuse file their own suits? Or bring a
class action? It's not just a procedural option. When it comes to
pursing justice for sexual abuse victims, plaintiffs attorneys have
strong opinions on both sides.

"I've never filed class actions in sexual abuse cases," said John
Manly, of Manly Stewart & Finaldi in Irvine, California. He
engineered a $500 million settlement with Michigan State University
and has several lawsuits against the University of Southern
California, both involving sexual abuse scandals. "If you represent
survivors, and you understand the law, and care about survivors,
you don't file class cases like this. The only ones who benefit are
the class lawyers and the institutions."

Not so, say class action lawyers.

"Through a class action, the many men we represent directly can
stand up for the hundreds of others in a representative capacity,"
Rex A. Sharp, an attorney who has filed a class action against Ohio
State University on behalf of hundreds of victims of former sports
doctor Richard Strauss, wrote in an email. "In addition, a class
action allows the survivors to speak as a group, even for those who
wish to remain in the background."

The debate in the plaintiffs' bar swirls as several universities,
amid the growing #MeToo movement, have come under fire for rampant
sexual abuse involving hundreds, sometimes thousands, of students
and athletes. Many involve a former staff doctor whose abuse
stretched over decades.

In 2014, Johns Hopkins University agreed to pay $190 million to
settle claims tied to former gynecologist Nikita Levy, accused of
secretly taking photographs of his patients' genitals. Then, last
year, Michigan State University agreed to pay $500 million to
resolve sexual abuse claims involving former sports doctor Larry
Nassar, a physician for USA Gymnastics. Last year, the University
of Southern California agreed to a $240 million settlement
involving its former gynecologist, George Tyndall.

In May, two more universities, Ohio State University and The
Rockefeller University, released reports following internal
investigations about former staff doctors accused of sexual abuse
over decades. OSU's report, compiled by outside counsel Perkins
Coie, found that Strauss, who students sometimes called "Dr. Jelly
Paws," had sexually abused at least 177 male athletes over two
decades, often conducting lengthy and detailed examinations of
their genitalia purportedly to test for hernia. And, on May 23,
Rockefeller's report, compiled by Debevoise & Plimpton, found that
Reginald Archibald, who treated children with growth problems at
the university's hospital, masturbated in front of patients and
fondled hundreds of kids from the 1940s to the early 1980s.

Strauss and Archibald have since died, and victims have filed
lawsuits against both institutions.

The question for lawyers representing those victims isn't whether
to sue -- but how to sue.

Class Actions: 'More People Coming Forward'
Historically, lawsuits alleging sexual abuse have been brought on
behalf of single plaintiffs. But, in the past few years, lawyers
specializing in class actions have found opportunities to bring
cases on behalf of large sets of victims entitled to compensation.

Johns Hopkins, for instance, agreed to settle a class action that
compensated 9,000 victims. USC's settlement also comes in a class
action, and OSU and Rockefeller face class actions tied to their
sexual abuse scandals.

Supporters say class actions provide compensation to everyone, not
just those willing to tell their story in court and hire a lawyer.

"You can try certain issues as a class so that women don't have to
keep coming into court and re-proving the modus operandi and how
long this took place, and who knew what and when from the USC
side," said Steve Berman, of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
co-lead counsel in the class action settlement with USC. "Plus, if
a class is certified and you send notice out to all the people who
this doctor saw, it's more likely to generate inclusion and more
people coming forward than if they just rely on individual cases .
. . because there are some women who just won't come forward."

In the Johns Hopkins and USC settlements, lawyers have carved out
various compensation amounts based on the level of injury to the
victim. USC, for instance, has agreed to pay between $2,500 and
$250,000 per victim, depending on what happened to her. They have
recommended appointing retired Judge Irma Raker, of the Maryland
Court of Appeals, the special master in the Johns Hopkins case who,
in an unusual move, provided a video to class members explaining
how she would administer individual claims ranging from $1,877 to
$27,935.

Class actions require judicial review, as well. In the USC case,
for instance, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson of the Central
District of California refused to grant preliminary approval of the
settlement, citing several Dec. 1 amendments to the Federal Rule 23
of Civil Procedure, which governs class actions. Lawyers revised
the settlement in May, estimating 15,000 potential claimants.

David Higgins, of Los Angeles-based Higgins Settlement Law, the
trustee in the Johns Hopkins settlement, said class actions tend to
have fewer costs because distributions come out of one case, rather
than several. But class actions also reach people who might not
have a claim strong enough to pursue in court.

"That group of people gets a minimum payment, maybe $5,000 each,"
he said. "And those claimants would never make it through the front
door to a lawyer doing individual cases."

Class actions also provide more anonymity, supporters say. Higgins
said he sent funded checkbooks to class members in the Johns
Hopkins settlement, rather than a check, which would have
identified why they were getting the money.

In the USC settlement, the special master would decide how much
each class member would get by evaluating claim forms or, in the
most extreme cases, bringing in a "team of experts," including a
forensic psychologist, to hear a victim's story, should she want to
tell it.

Sharp, of Sharp Law in Prairie Village, Kansas, said a class action
was better for victims in the OSU case who are men unlikely to come
forward on their own.

"Sexual abuse is one of the least reported crimes and civil wrongs,
and even worse among men than women," he wrote in his email. "We
knew that many men would not come forward. The many men that we
represent have told us that they know many others who have not."

Individual Cases: 'Strongest Legal Weapon'
But lawyers who have specialized in sexual abuse cases for years
insist that class actions aren't appropriate. There is little
commonality that would provide class certification because the
alleged injuries, and thus damages, differ as to each individual,
as does the liability against the institution and individual
defendants who knew about the abuse.

"It really does a disservice to the abuse victims who are not
numbers, but individuals, who have suffered some of the most
horrific things a child could suffer," said Michael Pfau, a partner
at Seattle's Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala, who represents 200 sexual
abuse victims planning to sue Rockefeller. "It's important to take
back the control they lost and be treated like individuals, not
like numbers. And, in a class action, you are treated like a
number."

Lawyers also oppose class actions because they provide far fewer
dollars to sexual abuse victims than do individual cases. In the
MSU case, for instance, individual payouts averaged $1.3
million—a fact noted by Manly, who plans to recommend that his
clients who have sexual abuse claims against USC opt out of its
class action settlement. The maximum payout to an individual class
member in the USC settlement would be $250,000, but most would get
far less.

"$250,000 doesn't pay for the therapy you'll need over your
lifetime," he said.

Sexual abuse victims also are not like class members looking for
reimbursement over a mislabeled product. There are sensitivities
involved.

"Sometimes, the institutional betrayal piece is even more damaging
than the abuse itself because of a loss of trust of people who are
supposed to look out for you," said Adele Kimmel, senior attorney
at Public Justice, who filed a case against OSU on behalf of 39
plaintiffs. "They find it harder to trust people in the future.
Lawyers who represent sexual assault survivors really have to be
extremely sensitive to do the best they can in the process of
representing, so they're not re-traumatizing them."

And many states are passing new laws that would eviscerate a major
defense for universities by extending or changing the statute of
limitations on sexual abuse claims. OSU, for instance, has brought
motions to dismiss both Public Justice's case and a separate class
action as time-barred, but the May report prompted Ohio Gov. Mike
DeWine to call for a legislative overhaul of the state's statutes
of limitation.

Pfau said he plans to file individual sexual abuse lawsuits against
Rockefeller in August, when a new statute of limitations law in New
York becomes effective.

What's most important, Pfau said, is that sexual abuses victims
want to be heard. And class actions, he said, take away that
opportunity.

"The abuse victim has the right to a jury trial," he said. "When
they become unwittingly part of a class, they literally lose their
strongest legal weapon and right."

Not all lawyers squabble over the procedural differences. Sharp, in
the OSU class action, said there is room for both kinds of cases.
U.S. District Judge Michael Watson of the Southern District of Ohio
has consolidated his class action with Public Justice's case, along
with another lawsuit brought in May on behalf of five plaintiffs,
for the sole purpose of focusing on mediation talks on June 15.

"All roads lead to Rome," said Ilann Maazel, of New York's Emery
Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, another lawyer in the Public Justice
case. "The goal is to hold the university accountable and have
multiple cases seeking this very important goal." [GN]


[*] SCOTUS Limits on Class Actions Favorable for Businesses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Pearlman, writing for Forbes, reports that businesses around
the country have been expending exceptional sums defending against
and settling sprawling employment-based class and collective
actions. These cases run the gamut from claims of gender and race
discrimination in pay and promotion decisions to myriad types of
wage-and-hour claims -- some of which involve hypertechnical issues
-- to claims of compliance failures with respect to statutes such
as the Fair Credit Reporting Act. And funds paid to settlement
class members, class representatives and plaintiffs' lawyers can
impact the bottom line. Will the U.S. Supreme Court's recent
rulings on arbitration agreements, coupled with a landmark ruling
from 2011, stem the tide?

In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a class action is "an
exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on
behalf of the individual named parties only." Califano v. Yamasaki.
The Court reiterated that pronouncement in 2011 in Walmart Stores,
Inc. v. Dukes, where it torpedoed a nationwide gender
discrimination class action brought on behalf of approximately 1.5
million female employees. In 2018, the Court issued another
game-changer against class action plaintiffs in Epic Systems v.
Lewis, where it upheld the effectiveness of arbitration agreements
containing class action waivers. And in April of this year, the
Court went even further in Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, ruling that
courts cannot compel class-wide arbitration in the absence of such
a requirement in an applicable contractual agreement.

Peeling back a layer of the onion, these decisions may very well
expose the Court's recognition that the proliferation of class and
collective actions should be controlled and limited, as such
devices are not always appropriate due to differences between
putative class members, and because they may have lopsided and even
annihilating effects on businesses.

With that context in mind, the following summarizes these three
rulings.

Walmart

Dukes was a 5-4 ruling preventing the certification of a proposed
class of a breathtaking ~1.5 million women alleging gender
discrimination. (Justice Scalia delivered the opinion.)
Approximately 3,400 stores were at issue, with 41 regions and
between 40 and 53 separate departments per store and 80 to 500
staff positions. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to
establish "commonality" (under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)(2)), and that their claims for backpay could not be certified
for class treatment either (under Rule 23(b)(2)). This decision
reversed a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which
affirmed class treatment for females who are employed at Walmart
stores around the nation.

The Court focused on whether the plaintiffs demonstrated a common
policy of gender discrimination. The plaintiffs alleged there was a
common corporate culture that included sexual stereotypes, and a
company policy that gave local managers discretion in making
employment decisions. With respect to the latter, local store
managers could increase the wages of hourly employees (within
limits) with only limited corporate oversight. And as for salaried
employees, such as store managers and their deputies, higher
corporate authorities have discretion to set their pay within
pre-established ranges. The Court concluded it would be impossible
to say that a review of all of the class members claims' for relief
would produce a common answer or resolution. The Court further
concluded that the policy of allowing discretion by local
supervisors was not sufficient evidence to raise an inference of
discrimination. Notably, the Court said that without some "glue"
holding together the alleged reasons for those decisions, it will
be impossible to say that examination of all the class members'
claims will produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination
question. The Court also rejected plaintiffs' experts' opinions,
and was not persuaded by plaintiffs' anecdotal evidence.

The Court also concluded that claims for monetary relief could not
be certified under the rule at issue unless the monetary relief is
not incidental to the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.
And in ruling against the plaintiffs, the Court explained that
certification under the rule at issue is unavailable when each
class member would be entitled to an individualized award of
monetary damages.

It appears that rulings to the contrary could have opened up the
floodgates to massive class actions where there was a lack of
genuine "glue" holding the purported class members together, thus
presenting the specter of enormous financial risks to businesses.

Epic Systems

In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held an employer can require employees
to arbitrate disputes individually and waive their right to pursue
or participate in class or collective actions. (The opinion was
penned by Justice Gorsuch.) The decision resolved multiple cases
where employees signed arbitration agreements containing
class-action waivers yet sought to pursue wage-and-hour claims as
class or collective actions.

The Court heavily relied on the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA),
noting that Congress instructed federal courts to enforce
arbitration agreements according to their terms, including terms
providing for individualized proceedings. The Court also rejected
an argument that class action waivers violate employees' rights to
act collectively, noting that the National Labor Relations Act does
not mention class or collective action procedures, nor does it
express approval or disapproval of arbitration.

The Court did, however, acknowledge an exception to the FAA
permitting arbitration agreements to be invalidated upon grounds
that exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
Plaintiffs' attorneys can be expected to rely on arguments that
such agreements are, for example, unconscionable.

Lamps Plus

In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the FAA precludes courts
from compelling class arbitration when agreement is ambiguous as to
the availability of such arbitration. (Chief Justice Roberts wrote
the decision.) According to the Court, the FAA requires an
affirmative contractual basis to compel class arbitration, and a
state law contract principle could not be applied if it is
inconsistent with FAA principles.

In this case, the plaintiff's employment agreement contained an
arbitration provision that made no mention of class proceedings,
and the employer moved to compel arbitration on an individual
basis. The Ninth Circuit ruled that an ambiguity in the parties'
arbitration agreement as to class arbitration should be construed
against the drafter (here, the employer).

But the Supreme Court ruled that the FAA bars courts from inferring
consent to participate in class arbitration in the absence of an
affirmative contractual basis for concluding the party agreed to do
so. The Court reitreated reasoning from a 5-3 decision in 2010,
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., that the FAA bars
courts from inferring consent to participate in class arbitration
absent an affirmative contractual basis for concluding that the
party agreed to do so. (Justice Alito delivered the decision.)

The Court also explained that the parties to an arbitration
agreement can authorize arbitrators to resolve issues such as
whether the parties have a valid arbitration agreement and whether
a specific dispute is covered by it.

Implications

Companies can be expected to continue to capitalize on Epic Systems
by expanding their use of arbitration agreements, and, pursuant to
Lamps Plus, may avoid the use of terms in arbitration agreements
allowing for class arbitration in order to avoid class actions in
the arbitration context. By and large, those rulings may very well
limit the number of class actions that get filed. That would be a
favorable result for employers because, among other reasons,
arbitration can avoid the risk of runaway juries. There is a
possibility, though, that some plaintiffs' counsel may respond by
filing scores of individual arbitrations. That would be a costly
reaction, but it has happened in some instances.

It should be noted, though, that there's currently a question and
debate over whether those rulings have in fact resulted in fewer
filings of class and collective actions and more filings of
arbitration demands. But Epic Systems wasn't issued all that long
ago, so we'll probably need more data to develop definitive
answers. And the lack of an increase in arbitration demands in the
wake of Epic Systems may not be all that telling given that it's
known that single-plaintiff demands in various cases may not
generate very enticing recoveries and, again, class arbitration
might not be available as a result of Lamps Plus.

In short, the hurdles the SCOTUS recently erected to class and
collective actions -- both in the context of civil actions and
arbitration -- and the shadow it cast over massive proposed class
actions in the Wal-Mart case may provide employers with much-needed
limits on the potentially enormous risks attendant to class and
collective actions. [GN]



                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***