CAR_Public/190709.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 9, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 136

                            Headlines

A. O. SMITH: Kuznicki Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
A.O. SMITH: Bernstein Notes of July 29 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
AEROTEK INC: Court Denies Arbitration in Echevarria Suit
ALASKA AIRLINES: Court Denies Dismissal of Clarkson USERRA Suit
ALLPOINTS COURIER: Miles et al. Seek OT Pay for Drivers

ALLSTATE FIRE: Court Denies Dismissal of Stockdale Insurance Suit
ALPHA TEAM: Court Amends Complaints in Drummer Suit
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Kahn Swick Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Pawar Law Woos Investors to Class Action Suit

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts Investors to Class Suit
APPLE INC: iOS Developer Fees Targeted by Class Action Suit
ARACO ENTEPRISES: Vasquez Sues over Employment Law Violations
ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Wolfe Balks at Merger Deal with Elanco
ASCENA RETAIL: Bronstein Notes of Aug. 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline

ASCENA RETAIL: Vincent Wong Notes of Aug. 6 Plaintiff Deadline
AUTOREMIND, INC: Shelowitz Wins Ruling vs. 'Rogue' Reseller
BEAZER HOMES: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
BEAZER HOMES: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
BETHESDA SOFTWORKS: A. Meyer Suit Remanded to Superior Court

BIRD RIDES: Trautwein Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
CAIRO, GA: May Face Class Action Over Old Water Bill Charges
CARRIAGE CEMETERY: Bid to Remand Barajas Wage & Hour Suit Denied
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Gainey Mckenna First to File Class Action Suit
CIOX HEALTH: Best Suit Moved to Southern District of Illinois

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Kuznicki Law Notifies of Class Action Suit
COUNTY OF BUCKS: $67M Punitive Damages Verdict in Class Suit
CSL PLASMA: Brandt's BIPA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
DART TRANSIT: Byars Seeks Minimum Wage for Truck Drivers

DINO PALMIERI SALONS: Torres et al. Sue over Wage Theft, Fraud
DYNAGAS LNG: Zhang Investor Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
EAGLE FORUM: Court Dismisses Interpleader Claims in Schlafly Suit
ELECTRICITY MAINE: Summary Ruling in Customers' Suit Affirmed
EQT CORP: Kahn Swick Notes of Aug. 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline

EQUITY BANCSHARES: Kuznicki Law Alerts to Class Action Suit
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Plaintiff Deadline
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Announces Class Suit
FEDEX CORP: Hagens Alerts Investors to Securities Class Action
FEDEX CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 26 Deadline

FEDEX CORP: Pawar Law Group Announces Securities Class Action
FERRARA CANDY: Littlejohn Settlement Has Final Court Approval
FLINT, MI: Water Action Attorneys Detail Progress of Civil Cases
FRED'S INC.: Lifshitz & Miller Files Class Action Lawsuit
FRONTLINE ASSET: Court Denies Class Certification Bid as Moot

FUSION CONNECT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
GENERAL MILLS: Sued in California for Misrepresenting Cereals
GENERAL MOTORS: Ray Sues over Defective Transmissions
GOOGLE INC: French Consumer Group Launches Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Potential Class Suit Slams Access to Patient Data

H&R BLOCK: Griffith Suit Transferred to Western Dist. of Missouri
HECLA MINING: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 23 Plaintiff Deadline
HENRY COUNTY JAIL: Class Suit Over Overcrowding Certified
HOME DEPOT: SCOTUS Ruling Limits Ability to Remove Class Actions
INSPIRE ENERGY: Birchler Seeks Overtime Pay for Sales Reps

INTERSECT ENT: Bernstein Notes of July 15 Plaintiff Deadline
INTERSECT ENT: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of July 15 Deadline
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS: Dixon Calls Debt Collection "Unlawful"
JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Plaintiff Deadline
JUUL LABS: Alabama College Students File E-Cigarette Class Action

KENTUCKY: Court Junks Objection to Dismissal of C. Class Suit
KIPLINGER WASHINGTON: Discloses Personal Reading Info, Strano Says
LIBERTY NATIONAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss in Goostree Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Certification of Classes and Sub-Classes Sought
LIVENT CORP: Hagens Berman Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline

LUIGI'S BRIGHTON: Sicajau Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
LYFT INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
LYFT INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
LYFT, INC: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts to July 16 Plaintiff Deadline
MACY'S INC.: Hit With Class Suit Over Criminal History Checks

MCSS REST: Court Certifies 4 Employee Classes
MDL 2873: Smith vs. 3M Company over AFFF Products Consolidated
MDL 2879: Simon Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated
MDL 2887: Connary Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
METRO BANK: Vincent Wong Notifies of July 29 Plaintiff Deadline

MOMO INC: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit
MOMO INC: Vincent Wong Notes of July 15 Plaintiff Deadline
MONSANTO COMPANY: Allison Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Benton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Brasfield Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Bryan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Caminiti Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Cannings Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: McCall Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Melton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Metcalf Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Orrs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Payne Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Scruggs Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Terhune et al Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.

NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF EMPLOYEES: HII Files Motion to Quash Subpoena
NATURE MEDIC: Skadowski and Shin Drop Fraud Lawsuit
NATURE MEDIC: Skadowski Seeks $250,000 in Personal Injury Suit
NAVISTAR: Seeks Prelim. Approval of EGR Class Action Settlement

NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of Diabetic Students
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Liens
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Nagan Seeks to Certify Class
PAGLIACCI PIZZA: Wash App. Affirms Arbitration Denial in Burnett
PLANTRONICS INC: Court Denies Prelim Approval of Shin Settlement

PRICESMART INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
PRICESMART, INC: Kuznicki Law Notifies of Class Action Suit
PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT: Opulento et al. Allege Civil Rights Violations
PYXUS INT'L: Vincent Wong Notes of Aug. 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Kuznicki Law Notifies of Class Action Suit

RGS FINANCIAL: Asks Court to Deny Tataru's Class Certification Bid
SAN DIEGO, CA: Workers File Class Suit Over Asbestos Contamination
SCREENING REPORTS: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Brown Says
SF MARKET: Removes Smock Suit to Central District of California
SIXTIES SCOOP: Individual Payment Applications Due Aug. 30

SOUTHFIELD, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Oron 2015 Suit
ST. LOUIS, MO: Dixon Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Missouri
STEVENS SECURITY: Court Certifies Classes of Security Guards
SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Kehoe Notes of Aug. 26 Plaintiff Deadline
SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Kahn Swick Notes of Aug 20 Plaintiff Deadline
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Plaintiff Deadline
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Fire Class Action Could Come Down to Ownership
WELLS FARGO: Agrees to Pay $385MM to Settle Car Loan Lawsuit

WILL COUNTY, IL: Lee Seeks to Certify Strip Searched Inmates Class
WORLD PLUSH: Torres Seeks Overtime Pay, Minimum Wage
ZF TRW: Court Amends Case Deadline in T. Copley Suit
ZUORA, INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Alerts to Aug. 13 Plaintiff Deadline
ZUORA, INC: Kuznicki Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit

[*] Actuarial Equivalence Key Phrase in Defined Benefit Plan Cases
[] 9th Circ. Affirms Approval of Settlement vs. Large Automakers
[] Attorney Tim Miles Recognized as Distinguished Lawyer

                            *********

A. O. SMITH: Kuznicki Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in
these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff
and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

A. O. Smith Corporation (AOS)

Investors Affected : July 26, 2016 - May 16, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in A
O Smith Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) A.O. Smith had undisclosed business connections
and entanglements with UTP through which it funneled up to 75% of
its China product sales; (b) A.O. Smith had used UTP to engage in
channel stuffing by artificially inflating inventories purportedly
sold through distributors that were not based on consumer demand,
thereby approximately doubling the normal level of inventory at
such distributors; (c) A.O. Smith had used its UTP relationship to
artificially inflate the sales figures it reported to investors by
as much as 8% and to conceal worsening sales trends that the
Company was experiencing in China; (d) A.O. Smith's sales growth
had been primarily in lower margin products as its higher priced
products were being undercut by competition in "second-tier"
Chinese cities, causing the Company to experience significant
margin pressures; (e) A.O. Smith had increased its cash reserves in
China to over $530 million in furtherance of its channel stuffing
and sales manipulation scheme, encumbering the Company's ability to
repatriate the cash or use it for capital expenditures; and (f) as
a result of (a)-(e) above, A.O. Smith's business, operations, and
prospects were significantly worse than publicly represented and
the Company was poised for sales and earnings declines in China,
its most important international market.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/a-o-smith-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=2112&from=1

Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (ASNA)

Investors Affected : September 16, 2015 - June 8, 2017

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/ascena-retail-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=2112&from=1

Zuora, Inc. (ZUO)

Investors Affected : April 12, 2018 - May 30, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Zuora, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company would focus on implementing RevPro
for new customers ahead of the deadline to comply with accounting
standard ASC 606; (2) as a result, the Company lacked adequate
resources to integrate RevPro with the core business; (3) the
Company would focus on RevPro integration a year after the
acquisition closed; (4) delays in integrating RevPro would
materially impact the business; (5) the market for RevPro was
limited to customers seeking to implement new accounting standards
such as ASC 606; (6) after the deadline for ASC 606 compliance
passed, demand for RevPro was reasonably likely to decline; 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.

Contact:

         Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
         Kuznicki Law PLLC
         445 Central Avenue, Suite 334
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516
         Phone: (347) 696-1134
         Cell: (347) 690-0692
         Fax: (347) 348-0967
         Email: dk@kclasslaw.com
[GN]




A.O. SMITH: Bernstein Notes of July 29 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that approximately four weeks remain to make a
motion to serve as lead plaintiff in a securities class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of A.O. Smith Corporation (NYSE:AOS) between July 26,
2016 and May 16, 2019, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit, which alleges claims under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, seeks to recover A.O. Smith shareholders' investment
losses.

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

According to the lawsuit, which is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, throughout
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 fell 6%.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the A.O. Smith class
action, you must move the court no later than July 29, 2019. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. 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:

         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]



AEROTEK INC: Court Denies Arbitration in Echevarria Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order denying Defendant's
Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration in the case captioned JAIME
ECHEVARRIA, Plaintiff, v. AEROTEK, INC., a Maryland corporation,
Defendant. Case No. 16-cv-04041-BLF. (N.D. Cal.).

After approximately one week of employment by Aerotek, a temporary
staffing agency, Echevarria filed this lawsuit in the Santa Clara
County Superior Court, asserting putative class claims on behalf of
Aerotek's current and former temporary services employees for
violations of state labor laws and unfair competition laws.
Echevarria also asserted a representative claim under California's
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Aerotek contends that, under the parties' arbitration agreement as
viewed in light of Epic, Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 834 F.3d 975
(9th Cir. 2016), holding that arbitration agreements which preclude
class or collective actions are enforceable. Echevarria's
representative PAGA claim must be dismissed and any individual PAGA
claim must be arbitrated.

Before Echevarria began his employment with Aerotek, he
electronically signed a Mutual Arbitration Agreement providing
that:

Except (i) as expressly set forth in the section, Claims Not
Covered by this Agreement, all disputes, claims, complaints, or
controversies (Claims) that I may have against Aerotek, Inc and/or
any of its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors,
employees, agents, and/or any of its clients or customers
(collectively and individually the Company), or that the Company
may have against me, including contract claims; tort claims;
discrimination and/or harassment claims; retaliation claims; claims
for wages, compensation, penalties or restitution; and any other
claim under any federal, state, or local statute, constitution,
regulation, rule, ordinance, or common law, arising out of and/or
directly or indirectly related to my application for employment
with the Company, and/or my employment with the Company, and/or the
terms and conditions of my employment with the Company, and/or
termination of my employment with the Company (collectively Covered
Claims), are subject to confidential arbitration pursuant to the
terms of this Agreement and will be resolved by Arbitration and NOT
by a court or jury. The parties hereby forever waive and give up
the right to have a judge or a jury decide any Covered Claims.

There is no dispute that Echevarria electronically signed the
arbitration agreement or that, if enforced, the agreement's express
waiver of representative actions would bar his representative PAGA
claim. The question presented by Aerotek's motion is whether the
waiver is enforceable in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision in
Sakkab v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., Inc., 803 F.3d 425 (9th Cir.
2015), holding that an arbitration agreement's waiver of
representative actions is not enforceable to bar PAGA claims.

This Court concludes that Epic did not abrogate Sakkab, and
therefore that Aerotek has not demonstrated grounds for dismissal
of Echevarria's representative PAGA claim.

In Sakkab, the Ninth Circuit considered whether the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts the California rule announced in
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal.4th
348(2014), under which waivers of representative PAGA claims are
unenforceable.  After examining the history and purpose of the FAA,
as well as the United States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), the Ninth Circuit
concluded that the Iskanian rule is not preempted by the FAA.
Sakkab, 803 F.3d at 429.

The Sakkab court noted that the FAA was enacted in response to
widespread judicial hostility to arbitration agreements. Section 2
of the FAA provides that a written arbitration provision in any
contract involving commerce shall be valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity
for the revocation of any contract.

Epic neither overrules Sakkab expressly nor undercuts its reasoning
in such a way as to render the two cases irreconcilable.  In Epic,
the Supreme Court held that the National Labor Relations Act does
not bar the enforcement of class action waivers or collective
action waivers in arbitration agreements between employers and
employees. Epic did not address the issues before the Sakkab court
related to the arbitrability of a claim for civil penalties brought
on behalf of the government or the enforceability of an agreement
barring such a claim in any forum.

Aerotek asserts that Epic nonetheless undercuts Sakkab because of
its emphasis on individual proceedings as traditional and important
aspects of arbitration, and its recognition that permitting a party
to demand class proceedings would be a fundamental' change to the
traditional arbitration process. Aerotek argues that the Supreme
Court's expansion on its FAA jurisprudence in Epic, combined with
recent changes in California law rendering PAGA litigation more
complicated, mandate reconsideration of the Ninth Circuit's opinion
in Sakkab. While this Court agrees that the aspects of Epic
highlighted by Aerotek may foreshadow a reversal of Sakkab were the
Supreme Court to take up the interplay between the FAA and Iskanian
at some future date, the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in
on whether the FAA preempts Iskanian on many occasions; each time
it denied certiorari.  

Having read Epic and Sakkab carefully, and having considered the
parties' arguments, the Court concludes that Sakkab remains good
law and therefore that Aerotek's motion to dismiss Echevarria's
representative PAGA claim and compel arbitration of any individual
PAGA claim must be DENIED.

Accordingly, Aerotek's Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and
Dismiss Representative Claim is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3yrphfy from Leagle.com.

Jaime Echevarria, as an individual and on behalf of all ohers
similarly entitled, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen Michelle
Agnew -- kagnew@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, APC &
Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group,
P.C.

Aerotek, Inc., a Maryland corporation, Defendant, represented by
Kevin Dennis Sullivan -- ksullivan@ebglaw.com -- Epstein Becker &
Green, P.C. & Michael Stuart Kun -- mkun@ebglaw.com  -- Epstein
Becker & Green, P.C.

Dang Lam, Interested Party, represented by Brett Donald Szmanda --
Brett@szmandalaw.com -- Szmanda Law Group, P.C.


ALASKA AIRLINES: Court Denies Dismissal of Clarkson USERRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in
the case captioned CASEY CLARKSON, Plaintiff, v. ALASKA AIRLINES,
INC., HORIZON AIR INDUSTRIES, INC., and ALASKA AIRLINES
PENSION/BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Defendants. No.
2:19-CV-0005-TOR. (E.D. Wash.)

Plaintiff Casey Clarkson initiated this class action against
Defendants Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Alaska) and Horizon Air
Industries, Inc. (Horizon) under the Uniformed Services Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). The allegations raised in
Plaintiff's Complaint revolve around one central issue the
reemployment position and benefits a service member is entitled
when returning to a civilian job following periods of short-term
military leave. Plaintiff asserts that Horizon and Alaska have
adopted and applied certain policies to service member pilots who
take short-term military leave that violate USERRA's requirements
and protections.

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff asserts the following four claims
against Horizon and Alaska:
(1) Horizon violated sections 4312 and 4313 of USERRA by failing to
reemploy the Plaintiff in the proper position following his
short-term military leave (Count I) (2) Horizon violated section
4316(a) of USERRA by failing to reemploy Plaintiff with the proper
seniority and related rights and benefits following his short-term
military leave (Count II) (3) Horizon violated section 4316(c) of
USERRA by demoting Plaintiff to the inferior position of Reserve
Line holder following his short-term military leave (Count III)
and(4) Horizon and Alaska violated section 4316(b) of USERRA by
failing to pay Plaintiff wages during periods of short-term
military leave (Count IV).

Position of Reemployment under Sections 4312 and 4313 of USERRA

In Count I of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Horizon
violated sections 4312 and 4313 of USERRA by failing to reemploy
him in the proper position following periods of short-term military
leave. Specifically, Plaintiff claims Horizon violated USERRA by
reemploying him in the inferior Reserve Line holder position rather
than the superior Regular Line holder position.

The Defendants urge the Court to dismiss Count I because the
Plaintiff has failed to allege that Horizon reemployed the
Plaintiff in the inferior Reserve Line position, as required to
state a claim under sections 4312 and 4313.  

Sections 4312 and 4313 of USERRA define a returning
service-member's reemployment rights after military service.
Particularly relevant here, section 4313 establishes the general
rule that an employee returning from military service "is entitled
to reemployment in the position that he or she would have attained
with reasonable certainty if not for the absence due to uniformed
service."

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff confirms that he was demoted from
Regular Line holder to Reserve Line holder in August 2017 because
he failed to meet the 70hour requirement to maintain Regular Line
holder status in July 2017.  However, as Defendants correctly point
out, Plaintiff's Complaint does not establish Plaintiff's
reemployment position when he initially returned to work in July
2017.

In fact, the Plaintiff does not specify the exact date of his
reemployment with Horizon nor confirm his reemployment position and
status on that date. Without these facts, the Court is simply
unable to evaluate Plaintiff's claim under either the escalator
principle or the reasonable certainty test. Thus, the Court finds
that Plaintiff's allegations in Count I regarding his position of
employment are of the type wholly inadequate under Twombly and
Iqbal.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), leave to amend a
party's pleading should be freely given when justice so requires,
because the purpose of the rule is "to facilitate decision on the
merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities.

Here, the Court grants the Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint
to clarify the allegations in Count I regarding his position of
employment. Specifically, the Plaintiff must identify (1) the exact
date of his reemployment with Horizon in July 2017, and (2) his
exact reemployment position and status on that date, i.e., whether
he was reemployed as a Regular Line holder or Reserve line holder.

Seniority-Based Rights and Benefits Under Section 4316(a) of
USERRA

In Count II of the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Horizon
violated section 4316(a) of USERRA by failing to treat his military
leave of absence "as continuous employment in computing the number
of hours of credit [he] had for the purposes of determining the
employee's position following a period of military leave.

According to the Plaintiff, by failing to treat military service as
continued employment, Horizon denied the Plaintiff the rights and
benefits he was entitled to upon reemployment, "including the
seniority or position of Regular Line holder, the opportunity or
privilege to select their positions or work schedules, and other
privileges of employment." The Defendants move to dismiss Count II
on the ground that Section 4316(a) only applies to seniority-based
benefits and daily service credit beyond 2.45 hours is not a
seniority-based benefit on its face.

Section 4316(a) of USERRA provides that, when an employee returns
to employment after a military service absence, he is entitled to
the seniority and other rights and benefits determined by seniority
that the person had on the date of the commencement of service in
the uniformed services plus the additional seniority and rights and
benefits that such person would have attained if the person had
remained continuously employed.

Here, Count II of the Plaintiff's Complaint turns on whether
Regular Line holder status, and the rights and benefits attached to
such status, constitutes "seniority and other rights and benefits
determined by seniority under section 4316(a)." The Defendants
maintain that Regular Line holder status does not qualify as a
benefit under section 4316(a) because a seniority-based benefit
under section 4316(a) cannot be a form of short-term compensation
for services rendered. Plaintiff responds that the rights and
benefits at issue do not constitute a compensation for work
performed but instead involve a credit while on leave.

The Court finds that it cannot decide this seniority issue on the
pleadings alone. Rather, the allegations raised in Count II concern
a factual dispute that requires the Court to consider evidence
outside of Plaintiff's Complaint.   Accordingly, the Court denies
Defendants' motion as it relates to Count II because the Court
requires evidence outside the Plaintiff's Complaint to make a
determination on this issue.

Discharge Without Cause Under Section 4316(a) of USERRA

In Count III of the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Horizon
violated section 4316(c) of USERRA by demoting him, without cause,
to the inferior position of Reserve Line holder within 180 days of
his reemployment.  

The Defendants move to dismiss this claim on two grounds: (1) the
Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff took military leave of
more than 30 days, as required for USERRA's discharge provision to
apply and (2) Plaintiff fails to allege that he was discharged
without cause.

Under section 4316(c), a veteran who serves over 30 days in the
military and is reemployed under USERRA shall not be discharged
from such employment, except for cause within 180 days after the
date of reemployment.  Accordingly, because Plaintiff took leave
for a period of military service extending from June 8, 2017,
through July 8, 2017, a period consisting of 31 days, he likely
satisfied section 4316(c)'s 30-day requirement, contrary to
Defendants' contentions.

Regarding the Defendants' alternative argument for dismissal of
this claim, the Court finds that the issue of whether the
Plaintiff's demotion constitutes "discharge" under section 4316(c),
and whether his demotion was for cause, cannot be decided on the
pleadings alone.  Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants'
motion to dismiss insofar as it relates to Count III because the
Court requires evidence outside the Plaintiff's Complaint to make a
determination on this claim.

Payment of Wages During Military Leave Under Section 4316(b) of
USERRA

Finally, in Count IV of the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that
both Horizon and Alaska violated section 4316(b) of USERRA by
failing to pay employees their regular wages or salaries when they
take short-term military leave, while continuing to pay employees
their wages or salaries when they take other comparable forms of
non-military leave such as jury duty, bereavement leave, and sick
leave.

The Defendants move the Court to dismiss this claim because USERRA
does not require, in Section 4316(b) or otherwise, that a civilian
employer pay employees' wages for periods of military service.

Section 4316(b) of USERRA provides that an employee who is absent
from a position of employment by reason of service in the uniformed
services shall be entitled to such other rights and benefits not
determined by seniority as are generally provided by the employer
of the person to employees having similar seniority, status, and
pay who are on furlough or leave of absence under a contract,
agreement, policy, practice, or plan in effect at the commencement
of such service or established while such person performs such
service.

Again, the Court concludes that it is unable to decide this issue
on the pleadings alone. At minimum, in evaluating the allegations
in Count IV, the Court would be required to consider what other
similarly situated employees" of Horizon and Alaska are guaranteed
by employment contract, agreement, policy, practice, or plan in
effect at the employee's workplace, which would require the Court
to review evidence extraneous to the pleadings. Plaintiff's
Complaint does not provide sufficient evidence for the Court to
make a comparability determination on the wage issue at this time.
Rather, these arguments would be more appropriately considered on a
motion for summary judgment so the Court can consider relevant
evidence outside the pleadings. Accordingly, the Court denies
Defendants' motion insofar as it relates to Count IV because the
Court requires evidence outside Plaintiff's Complaint to make a
determination on this issue.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy8llaaz from Leagle.com.

Casey Clarkson, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Z. Crotty, Crotty
& Son Law Firm PLLC, 905 W. Riverside Avenue, Ste. 404, Spoken Wa
99201, Peter Romer-Friedman, Outten & Golden LLP, 601 Massachusetts
Avenue NW, Suite 200W, Washington, DC 20001, pro hac vice, Robert
Joseph Barton -- jbarton@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, pro
hac vice, Thomas G. Jarrard, Law Office of Thomas G Jarrard, 1020
North Washington StreetSpokane, WA 99201-2237 & Vincent Cheng --
vincent@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice.

Alaska Airlines Inc, Horizon Air Industries Inc & Alaska Airlines
Pension/Benefits Administrative Committee, Defendants, represented
by Kathryn Sarah Rosen -- katierosen@dwt.com -- Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP, M. Tristan Morales -- tmorales@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, pro hac vice & Mark W. Robertson -- mrobertson@omm.com
-- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice.


ALLPOINTS COURIER: Miles et al. Seek OT Pay for Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Allpoints Courier
Service, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law
(WPCL), and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 (PMWA). The
case is captioned WARREN MILES, CHRISTOPHER GREEN, and CHRISTOPHER
WALLACE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ALLPOINTS COURIER SERVICE, INC. Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-02652-CFK (E.D. Pa., June 18, 2019). Plaintiff Warren Miles
is a former employee who drove delivery trucks for Allpoints
Courier Service, Inc. at their King of Prussia, Pennsylvania
location. Miles accuses Allpoints Courier Service, Inc. for
unlawful payroll deductions, for failure to compensate its drivers
for indispensable work performed before clocking in, and for
falsification of employees' timecards.

Allpoints Courier Service, Inc. contracts with Amazon.com to
deliver products from Amazon.com's warehouses to the location of
Amazon.com's customers. It is a "last-mile" delivery service. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Scott K. Johnson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ERIC A. SHORE, P.C.
     Two Penn Center, Suite 1240
     1500 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Telephone: (267) 546-0124
     Facsimile: (215) 944-6124
     E-mail: scottj@ericshore.com


ALLSTATE FIRE: Court Denies Dismissal of Stockdale Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued an Opinion denying Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned KAYLA STOCKDALE, Plaintiff, v.
ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Civil
Action No. 19-845. (E.D. Pa.).

The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint for
failure to state a claim, or else dismiss the putative class action
claims to the extent they are time-barred by Pennsylvania's
four-year statute of limitations for contract claims.

While riding as a passenger in the vehicle covered by the Stockdale
Policy, another driver, Ronald Pagliei, collided with Plaintiff's
vehicle. She suffered severe and permanent injuries as a result of
the accident, and sought recovery for those injuries. Plaintiff
first made a claim against Pagliei. With the approval of Defendant,
she settled that claim for $100,000, the limit of liability
coverage under Pagliei's policy. Plaintiff also made a claim for
underinsured motorist coverage under the Stockdale Policy.
Defendant approved the claim and provided her with $25,000, the
limit of underinsured motorist coverage under the Stockdale
Policy.

The Defendant denied the Plaintiff's claim for underinsured
motorist benefits based on the household exclusion in the Sanders
Policy, an exclusion the Gallagher. In Gallagher v. GEICO Indemnity
Co., 201 A.3d 131 (Pa. 2019), a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision
that held a particular insurance exclusion, called the household
exclusion, violated the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicular Financial
Responsibility Law (MVFRL).

The Defendant does not argue that this case is factually distinct
from Gallagher is some material way. The only issue, then, is
whether Gallagher's holding should be applied here, a case brought
after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued Gallagher, concerning
events that predate that decision.

Recently, however, rare exceptions to this general rule have been
permitted.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has explained that an
exception may be appropriate where there is a substantial question
that persons formerly advantaged by the old rule will be unfairly
prejudiced by the new rule.  

The gravamen of this dispute, then, is whether Gallagher warrants
an exception to the general retroactive/prospective rule.

The Plaintiff argues that no exception is required, and the rule
announced in Gallagher should be applied here.

The Defendant, on the other hand, argues that this is one of the
rare instances where an exception is appropriate. Specifically, the
Defendant argues Gallagher should be given purely prospective
effect only, that is, Gallagher should not apply to cases, such as
this, where the operative facts predate the pronouncement of the
decision.

Here, while Gallagher announced a new rule of law, nothing about
the decision requires an exception to the general rule of
prospective and retroactive application.

New Rule

As previously stated, the threshold test for whether to depart from
the general retroactive/prospective rule is whether the decision
establishes a new principle of law.
To answer that question, a brief history of the household
exclusion's pre-Gallagher treatment under Pennsylvania law is
required. To start, in both Eichelman v. Nationwide Insurance Co.,
711 A.2d 1006 (Pa. 1998) and Prudential Property & Casualty
Insurance Co. v. Colbert, 813 A.2d 747(Pa. 2002), the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court held that the household exclusion did not violate the
underlying public policy of the MVFRL. But in both Eichelman and
Colbert, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was not presented with the
exact question of whether the household exclusion violated Section
1738 of the MVFRL by acting as a de facto waiver the decisions
spoke in terms of the public policy of the MVFRL generally.  

However, in Erie Ins. Exchange v. Baker, 972 A.2d 507 (Pa. 2008),
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was specifically called on to decide
whether the so-called household exclusion in a motor vehicle
insurance policy is valid and enforceable to preclude the payment
of underinsured motorist benefits. The novel argument presented to
the court was that the household exclusion violates the Motor
Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), specifically the
provisions regarding stacking contained in Section 1738, because
the household exclusion is a disguised waiver which skirts the
express waiver requirements of the MVFRL.

Across two opinions, a majority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
rejected the argument, finding that the household exclusion did not
violate the waiver requirement of Section 1738 of the MVFRL.

In Gallagher, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court switched
courses, and struck down the household exclusion as unenforceable.
Far from the first pronouncement on the substance of a statutory
provision, the Gallagher Court revisited the precise question
addressed by Baker whether the household exclusion violated Section
1738, by acting as a de facto waiver of stacked coverage but
provided an altogether different answer. Accordingly, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Gallagher announced a new rule of
law.

The Plaintiff argues that Gallagher did not announce a new rule of
law because, as a plurality opinion, Baker did not constitute
binding precedent.  But, the question of whether a decision from
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced a new rule of law is not
co-extensive with the question of whether, in reaching that
decision, the Court was bound by a prior decision.   

In re L.J. illustrates this point. There, the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court addressed the precedential force of a pronouncement contained
in a footnote from an earlier decision. The Court concluded that
the footnote's pronouncement was not binding precedent, but found
it prudent to determine whether this decision should be afforded
retrospective or prospective application, because lower courts had
relied upon the announcement in the past.  

Thus, even where an opinion of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
modifies or limits or alters a prior, non-precedential decision,
that opinion announces a new rule of law. Accordingly, the Court
concludes that Gallagher announced a new rule of law, such that an
examination of retroactive or prospective application is
necessary.

Retroactivity Analysis

Next, the Court must determine what effect to give the rule
announced in Gallagher. The touchstone of this inquiry is whether
there is a substantial question that persons formerly advantaged by
the old rule will be unfairly prejudiced" by application of the new
rule. In making that determination, courts consider (1) the purpose
to be served by the new rule, (2) the extent of the reliance on the
old rule, and (3) the effect on the administration of justice.

Here, the balance of factors weighs against departing from the
general retroactive/prospective rule -- that is, the factors weight
against applying Gallagher purely prospectively.

First, the purpose of the Gallagher rule would be undermined by
limiting its application. The Gallagher Court held that the
household exclusion operated as a pretext to avoid stacking, which
violated the clear mandates of the waiver provisions of the MVFRL
and rendered the exclusion invalid and unenforceable. There is no
indication that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court intended such an
outcome; rather, the Gallagher Court held generally that "these
exclusions are unenforceable as a matter of law, without any caveat
or reservation.

Second, although insurers may have relied on decisions upholding
the household exclusion when drafting insurance agreements, that
reliance does not justify selective prospectivity. The Pennsylvania
Supreme Court in Gallagher stated as much: while recognizing that
this decision may disrupt the insurance industry's current
practices, the Gallagher Court nevertheless invalidated the
household exclusion, explaining the Court is confident that the
industry can and will employ its considerable resources to minimize
the impact of our holding.

Finally, the administration of justice cautions strongly against
departing from the general rule of retroactive/prospective rule.
Applying Gallagher purely prospectively would impose an
administrative burden on the courts, which would have to engage in
difficult line-drawing exercises without clear guidance from the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court such as determining whether Gallagher
governed cases concerning contracts entered into prior to the
decision's pronouncement, but concerning facts that postdate the
decision.  

This case illustrates that concern. There is no meaningful
distinction between Plaintiff and the petitioner in Gallagher: both
purchased automotive insurance that contained household exclusions;
at the time of their respective accidents, Pennsylvania law
recognized the validity of the exclusion; and, both had their
stacked claim denied on the basis of that exclusion.  

Thus, the Court predicts that, as is generally the case, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court would apply Gallagher both retroactively
and prospectively, and Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
claim will be denied accordingly.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6qu3888 from Leagle.com.

KAYLA STOCKDALE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY
SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES C. HAGGERTY --
jhaggerty@hgsklawyers.com -- HAGGERTY GOLDBERG SCHLEIFER &
KUPERSMITH PC, JONATHAN SHUB -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- KOHN SWIFT &
GRAF PC & SCOTT B. COOPER, SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER P.C., 209 State
Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101

ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
represented by MARK J. LEVIN -- LEVINMJ@BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD
SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL & ELANOR A. MULHERN --
MULHERNE@BALLARDSPAHR.COM -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP.


ALPHA TEAM: Court Amends Complaints in Drummer Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order granting joint motion for leave to file a first amended
complaint and to set new scheduling order dates in the case
captioned QUINTON DRUMMER, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. ALPHA TEAM
CONSTRUCTION, et al., Defendant(s). Case No. 2:18-cv-01251-RFB-NJK.
(D. Nev.).

The Plaintiffs brought this collective and class action pursuant to
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, alleging that the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Nevada
Constitution in failing to pay the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees for all hours worked, including overtime.  

Based on this new information, the Plaintiff and Defendant Beltran
ask the Court to grant leave to amend the complaint and to set a
new scheduling order. Plaintiff and Defendant Beltran submit that
Plaintiff was previously unable to identify all the appropriate
defendants, but has since discovered that Advanced Storage
Products, also known as J.C.M. Industries, is a proper defendant in
this case.  

The deadline to amend the pleadings expired on December 9, 2018.
Hence, the joint motion is governed by the good cause standard
outlined in Rule 16. Here, Plaintiff did not obtain the relevant
information concerning employment documentation until May 13, 2019.
  

Accordingly, the Court finds that, in the circumstances of this
case, Plaintiff has been diligent, and that good cause exists for
the amendment. Having determined that the good cause requirement
has been satisfied, the Court turns to the consideration of Rule 15
as to whether leave to amend should be granted. In light of the
extreme liberality of Rule 15, the Court finds that amendment is
proper in this case.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxh8kvfu from Leagle.com.

Quinton Drummer, Steffan Webb & Demontray Stallworth, Plaintiffs,
represented by Bradley Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro,
Schulman & Rabkin, 3556 East Russell Road, Second Floor, Las Vegas,
NV 89120, Charles Robert Ash, IV -- crash@sommerspc.com -- Sommers
Schwartz, P.C., pro hac vice, Daniel Bravo, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro,
Schulman, & Rabkin, LLP, 3556 East Russell Road, Second Floor, Las
Vegas, NV 89120, Kevin J. Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com --
Sommers Schwartz PC, pro hac vice & Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin,
Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP. 3556 East Russell Road, Second
Floor, Las Vegas, NV 89120

BG Construction Services, LLC, Defendant, pro se.

Hector Beltran, Defendant, pro se.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights
law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of investors that acquired Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (NYSE:
BUD) American Depository Shares ("ADS") between March 1, 2018 and
Oct. 24, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Anheuser-Busch
investors have until August 20, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com.

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, the Company's ADS price fell $7.71, or more than 9%,
to close at $74.54 on October 25, 2018, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) 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.

Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/GPM_LLP.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190626005858/en/

If you purchased shares of Anheuser-Busch during the Class Period
you may move the Court no later than August 20, 2019 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff.  To be a member of the
Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class.  If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters please contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
         1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
         Los Angeles, California 90067
         Phone: 310-201-9150
                    888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                shareholders@glancylaw.com
[GN]



ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Kahn Swick Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until August 20, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch InBev
SA/NV (NYSE: BUD), if they purchased the Company's American
Depositary Shares ("ADS") between March 1, 2018 and October 24,
2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  This action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

What You May Do

If you purchased ADS of Anheuser-Busch and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right
to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-bud/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by August 20, 2019.

About the Lawsuit

Anheuser-Busch and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

On October 25, 2018, the Company disclosed its Q3 and 9 months 2018
results, revealing that it had slashed dividends by 50% to
"accelerate deleveraging toward our optimal capital structure of
around a 2x net debt to EBITDA ratio" contradicting prior positive
statements made by the Company regarding its deleveraging outlook
and financial condition.

On this news, the price of Anheuser-Busch's ADS declined
approximately 9.5%.

The case is City of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement
System v. Anheuser-Busch Inbev, 19-cv-5854.

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163  
         Phone: 1-877-515-1850
         Web site:  http://www.ksfcounsel.com/
         E-mail: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]




ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Pawar Law Woos Investors to Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (NYSE: BUD) from March 1, 2018 through
October 24, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Anheuser-Busch investors under the federal
securities laws.

To express your interest in the class action, go to
http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/anheuser-busch-inbev-sa-nv/or call
Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email
info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) defendants' cost cutting measures had largely run their
course; (2) the devaluation of key emerging market currencies and
input cost inflation was having a material adverse effect on
Anheuser-Busch's margins, EBITDA and profitability; (3)
Anheuser-Busch had been experiencing less than expected growth and
profits in certain key markets; (4) Anheuser-Busch was not going to
be able to maintain its then current dividend and still meet its
deleveraging targets; (5) Anheuser-Busch was at risk of having its
credit ratings downgraded; (6) as a result, 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) the liquidity and working capital disclosures in filings
Anheuser-Busch made with the SEC were materially false and
misleading; (8) the risk factor disclosures in filings
Anheuser-Busch made with the SEC were materially false and
misleading; (9) the representations about Anheuser-Busch's
disclosure controls in filings the Company made with the SEC were
materially false and misleading; (10) the certifications issued by
Defendants Carlos Brito and Felipe Dutra regarding Anheuser-Busch's
disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting
were materially false and misleading; and (11) based on the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about Anheuser-Busch's then-current business operations
and future financial prospects. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 20,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

No class has been certified.  Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one.  You may hire
counsel of your choice.  You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class.  Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         Vik Pawar, Esq.  
         Pawar Law Group  
         20 Vesey Street, Suite 1210  
         New York, NY 10007  
         Phone: (917) 261-2277
         Toll Free: 888-589-9804
         Fax: (212) 571-0938  
         Email: info@pawarlawgroup.com
[GN]



ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Wolf Haldenstein Alerts Investors to Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
investors that purchased the American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's")
of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV ("Anheuser-Busch" or the "Company")
(NYSE: BUD) from March 1, 2018 through October 24, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased the ADR's of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV are
urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or
(800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action on our website www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of Anheuser-Busch InBev
SA/NV, you may, no later than August 20, 2019, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV.

Follow the firm and learn about newly filed cases on Twitter and
Facebook.

According to the filed complaint defendants throughout the Class
Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:

    * defendants' cost cutting measures had largely run their
course;


    * the devaluation of key emerging market currencies and input
cost inflation was having a material adverse effect on
Anheuser-Busch's margins, EBITDA and profitability;

    * Anheuser-Busch had been experiencing less than expected
growth and profits in certain key markets;

    * Anheuser-Busch was not going to be able to maintain its then
current dividend and still meet its deleveraging targets;

    * Anheuser-Busch was at risk of having its credit ratings
downgraded;

    * as a result, 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;

    * the liquidity and working capital disclosures in filings
Anheuser-Busch made with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") were materially false and misleading;

    * the risk factor disclosures in filings Anheuser-Busch made
with the SEC were materially false and misleading;

    * the representations about Anheuser-Busch's disclosure
controls in filings the Company made with the SEC were materially
false and misleading;

    * the certifications issued by Defendants Carlos Brito and
Felipe Dutra regarding Anheuser-Busch's disclosure controls and
internal controls over financial reporting were materially false
and misleading; and

    * based on the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis
for their positive statements about Anheuser-Busch's then-current
business operations and future financial prospects.

On Oct. 25, 2018, the Company cut its dividend by 50% to
"accelerate deleveraging toward [its] optimal capital structure of
around 2x net debt to EBIDTA 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, the Company's ADR price fell $7.71, or more than 9%,
to close at $74.54 on October 25, 2018.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case please contact:

         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone
         Director of Case and Financial Analysis       
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Phone: (800) 575-0735
                (212) 545-4774
         Website: www.whafh.com.
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                kcooper@whafh.com
                classmember@whafh.com
[GN]



APPLE INC: iOS Developer Fees Targeted by Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mikey Campbell, writing for AppleInsider, reports that an iOS
developer on June 28, 2019, lodged a class action complaint against
Apple over alleged antitrust violations, claiming the company
abuses its monopoly power of the iOS market to set price minimums,
charge app makers a $99 annual developer fee and levy an effective
30% tax on sales.

Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, the suit alleges Apple's anticompetitive practices
involve the acquisition of a monopoly in the iOS app market,
refusal to allow third-parties to distribute digital content and
foisting pricing requirements and "taxes" on developers.

Plaintiff Barry Sermons, who seeks class status on behalf of app
developers, claims Apple's conduct has "caused developers to incur
inflated fees, costs, and pricing for each app and in-app product"
developed for iOS and "harmed competition by reducing competitors'
ability to compete and incentive to innovate."

Sermons developed and markets seven for-pay apps including Morigo,
Unity North Atlanta, Mielle Organics, dmvfta, Bovanti,
sportsandspine and The Film Black Friday. He also created reVOLVER
Podcast, which is no longer available on the App Store but carries
on as an Android app and a popular podcasting network under the
reVolver Podcasts banner.

According to the complaint, Apple is flouting antitrust laws with
an ostensible 100% monopoly over iOS app distribution, a share won
by not allowing iPhone and iPad users to download software through
third-parties. Leveraging this alleged monopoly, Apple charges
developers a "profit-reducing" 30% commission on each paid sale,
including in-app purchases.

"There is no good, pro-competitive, otherwise justified reason.
Rather, this unnatural price stability is a sure sign of Apple's
unlawful acquisition of monopoly power and the abuse of that market
power," the complaint reads.

Further, Apple charges developers a $99 annual fee for the right to
sell products on the App Store. The company in 2017 updated its App
Store Guidelines to reflect a change regarding code bases and
templates that effectively requires developers to create a new
$99-per-year account for each client app.

Finally, the suit targets Apple's pricing constraints, which
dictate app makers sell their wares at no less than 99 cents and at
higher price points ending in $.99.

The suit seeks to restrict Apple from further participating in the
alleged anticompetitive behavior and award damages and court fees
to the class.

Today's lawsuit is nearly identical to another class action filed
earlier this month that takes issue with Apple's 30% cut of sales,
annual fee and pricing mandates. Both actions site violation of the
Sherman Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.
[GN]




ARACO ENTEPRISES: Vasquez Sues over Employment Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
An employment-related class action complaint has been filed against
Araco Enterprises LLC, dba Athens Environmental Services. The case
is captioned GERSON LOPEZ VASQUEZ AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Case No. 19STCV21450 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., June 18, 2019). Gerson Lopez Vasquez, an individual
and on behalf of others similarly situated, alleges employment law
violations of Araco Enterprises LLC.

Based in Sun Valley, California, Araco Enterprises LLC is a waste
collection and recycling company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Glugoski, Esq.
     RIGHETTI LAW FIRM
     456 Montgomery St #1400
     San Francisco, CA
     Telephone: (415) 983-0900 (Local)
                (800) 447-5549 (Toll Free)
     Facsimile: (415) 397-9005


ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: Wolfe Balks at Merger Deal with Elanco
------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA A. WOLFE, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ARATANA THERAPEUTICS, INC., CRAIG A.
BARBAROSH, DAVID L. BRINKLEY, IRVINE O. HOCKADAY, JR., MERILEE
RAINES, LOWELL W. ROBINSON, ROBERT P. ROCHE, JR., CRAIG A. TOOMAN,
JOHN W. VANDER VORT, and WENDY L. YARNO, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01125-UNA (D. Del., June 18, 2019), seeks to enjoin a
stockholder vote on a proposed transaction wherein Aratana will be
acquired by Elanco Animal Health Incorporated's wholly owned
subsidiary Elanco Athens Inc.

On April 26, 2019, Aratana issued a press release announcing it had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Elanco dated
April 26, 2019 to sell Aratana to Elanco. Under the terms of the
Merger Agreement, each Aratana stockholder will be entitled to
receive for each share of Aratana common stock held: (a) 0.1481
shares of Elanco common stock; and (b) one contingent value right
(CVR) representing the right to receive $0.25 in cash per share if
products containing Aratana's drug, capromorelin, achieve certain
sales milestones before the end of 2021. Upon consummation of the
Proposed Transaction, Elanco stockholders are expected to own
approximately 98% of the company, and Aratana stockholders are
expected to own approximately 2%.  On June 17, 2019, Aratana filed
a Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A (Proxy Statement) with
the SEC.

According to the complaint, the Proxy Statement, which recommends
that Aratana stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information
concerning, among other things: (i) Aratana's and Elanco's
financial projections; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion
provided by the Company's financial advisor, Barclays Capital Inc.;
(iii) the background process leading to the Proposed Transaction;
and (iv) Company insiders' potential conflicts of interest. The
failure to adequately disclose such material information
constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as Aratana stockholders need such information in order to make
a fully informed decision whether to vote in favor of the Proposed
Transaction or seek appraisal.  In short, unless remedied,
Aratana's public stockholders will be forced to make a voting or
appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction without full
disclosure of all material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction being provided to them, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST & JOYCE, LLC
          901 N. Market St., Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          Kelly K. Moran, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

               - and -

          Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
          885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com

ASCENA RETAIL: Bronstein Notes of Aug. 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Ascena Retail Group, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ASNA) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Ascena securities
between September 16, 2015 through June 8, 2017, both dates
inclusive. Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/asna.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

If you suffered a loss in Ascenayou have until August 6, 2019 to
request that the Court appoint you 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. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
you serve as a lead plaintiff.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/asna or you may 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]



ASCENA RETAIL: Vincent Wong Notes of Aug. 6 Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Metro Bank PLC (OTCMKTS: MBNKF)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019
Class Period: March 6, 2018 and May 1, 2019

Get additional information about MBNKF:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/metro-bank-plc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Momo Inc. (NASDAQ: MOMO)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 15, 2019
Class Period: April 21, 2014 and April 29, 2019

Get additional information about MOMO:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/momo-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (NASDAQGS: ASNA)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 6, 2019
Class Period: September 16, 2015 and June 8, 2017

Get additional information about ASNA:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ascena-retail-group-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Pyxus International, Inc.  (NYSE: PYX)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 6, 2019
Class Period: on behalf of stockholders who purchased Pyxus (f/k/a
Alliance One International, Inc. (AOI)) securities between June 7,
2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive.

Get additional information about PYX:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/pyxus-international-inc-f-k-a-alliance-one-international-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Phone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]



AUTOREMIND, INC: Shelowitz Wins Ruling vs. 'Rogue' Reseller
-----------------------------------------------------------
In a righteous victory for Shelowitz Law Group (SLG) client,
AutoRemind, Inc., a New York City-based pioneer in patient
messaging and reminder software, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia dismissed all claims and rejected the
Plaintiff's plea for early discovery in a Class Action brought
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et
seq. (the "TCPA").

The lawsuit was triggered by a rogue Florida reseller's
unauthorized transmission of an unsolicited fax mentioning
AutoRemind's name and product offering. The TCPA prohibits
transmission of unsolicited faxes and phone calls. The Plaintiff
alleged: (i) that the rogue reseller was AutoRemind's agent; (ii)
that AutoRemind violated the TCPA because AutoRemind's name and
product appeared on the rogue reseller's unauthorized fax; and
(iii) that the rogue reseller's unauthorized fax transmission
created jurisdiction over AutoRemind in Georgia - where AutoRemind
otherwise lacked any significant business contacts.

In a mortal blow to the Plaintiff's case against AutoRemind, the
Court embraced SLG's position that there was no agency relationship
between AutoRemind and the rogue reseller insofar as AutoRemind
neither "supervised or controlled" the reseller. In highlighting
the risks of adopting the Plaintiff's argument, the Court echoed
SLG's argument that "allowing this type of agreement to constitute
an agency relationship would be analogous to concluding that Best
Buy is Microsoft's agent and can legally bind Microsoft simply by
reselling Microsoft's products. Agency requires more than this." As
such, the Court found that AutoRemind did not commit any tortious
act in or out of Georgia and that there was no personal
jurisdiction over AutoRemind in Georgia.

According to Mitch Shelowitz, lead defense counsel for AutoRemind,
"This case is a wakeup call to every company that relies on
resellers to promote their products and services. No company should
engage resellers or distributors without written agreements that
expressly disclaim an agency relationship. Furthermore, in light of
the significant consequences from violations of the TCPA, every
company should implement a TCPA compliance program that resellers
and distributors are required to follow."

View source version on accesswire.com:
https://www.accesswire.com/550120/Shelowitz-Law-Group-SLG-Wins-Stunning-Dismissal-of-TCPA-Class-Action-for-Software-Client-Autoremind-Inc

The case is captioned, Ward Family Chiropractor LLC, et al. v.
AutoRemind Inc., et al., 4:18-cv-251-TCB (N.D. Ga. June 18, 2019).


For more information please contact:

         Mitchell C. Shelowitz,
         Managing Partner
         Shelowitz Law Group
         Phone: 212-655-9384
         E-mail: mitch@shelgroup.com
[GN]




BEAZER HOMES: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Beazer Homes USA, Inc. (NYSE: BZH) securities
between August 1, 2014 and May 2, 2019 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until August 5, 2019 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint 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:  (i) Beazer Homes' California
assets classified as land held for future development were
deteriorating in value or improperly valuated; (ii) the foregoing
created a foreseeable risk of an eventual substantial impairment
that would negatively impact the profitability of the Company; and
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Beazer Homes 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, 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]


BEAZER HOMES: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Beazer Homes
USA, Inc. (NYSE: BZH) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between August 1, 2014
and May 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the firm before August 5, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Beazer's assets classified as land held
for future development in California were deteriorating in value
and in some cases overvalued. The improper valuation created a risk
of considerable impairment that would damage the Company's
profitability. 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 Beazer,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East
         Suite 404, Los Angeles
         CA 90067
         Phone:
            Office: 310-301-3335
            Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


BETHESDA SOFTWORKS: A. Meyer Suit Remanded to Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in
the case captioned ALEX MEYER, Plaintiff, v. BETHESDA SOFTWORKS,
LLC, Defendant. Case No. 19-cv-00820-RS. (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff's motion to remand has been submitted for decision
without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b).

The Plaintiff filed this putative class action in Alameda County
Superior Court, seeking to represent consumers who purchased a
video game and related items from defendant Bethesda Softworks, LLC
known as Fallout 76 Power Armor Edition. According to the
complaint, the video game bundle contained a premium version of the
video game, a wearable T-5b Power Armor Helmet with an operational
headlamp, voice modulator, and a storage bag; a glow-in-the-dark
FALLOUT® 76 map; and twenty four physical game pieces.

Based on the alleged misrepresentation as to the material of the
duffle bag, plaintiff advances three claims for relief: negligent
misrepresentation, violation of California's False Advertising Law
(FAL), and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).


Bethesda Softworks removed the action to this court alleging
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).  

Bethesda contends removal was proper because the complaint could be
read to seek rescission of the sales, and multiplying the
approximately $200 unit sales price by the number of sales would
satisfy the jurisdictional minimum, even assuming not all class
members would elect to rescind. Bethesda further argues that
regardless of how the complaint should be read, plaintiff may not
defeat removal jurisdiction by arguing he will forgo recovery
beyond the statutory minimum Plaintiff is not merely stipulating he
will not pursue recovery exceeding $5 million.

Rather, he argues he has not pleaded, and will not plead, a claim
for rescission that would result in a refund to putative class
members of the whole purchase price. Moreover, plaintiff
persuasively argues the facts would not support a claim for
rescission resulting in a refund to putative class members of the
entire purchase price. Even assuming there is some theoretical
possibility a purchaser could and would wish to seek to return the
Fallout 76 Power Armor Edition for a full refund based on the fact
that storage/duffle bag was made of nylon rather than canvas, there
is no reason to believe the class claim should be interpreted as
including such relief, or that the opt out provisions applicable
should a class be certified are insufficient to address any such
issue.
  
It is far from clear the claims plaintiff advances are likely to
have merit. Even assuming they might, however, plaintiff should not
be prejudiced by his choice not to stretch even further and seek
rescission of the full purchase prices, based on whatever small
difference in value there might be in one minor accessory included
in the bundle as delivered, compared to the bundle as allegedly
promised.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion to remand to Alameda County
Superior Court is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y9qxodup from Leagle.com.

Alex Meyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Nathan Cherniak --
ari.cherniak@gmail.com -- HammondLaw, PC, Julian Ari Hammond
-jhammond@hammondlawpc.com -- HammondLaw, P.C. & Polina Brandler --
pbrandler@hammondlawpc.com -- Hammondlaw P.C.

Bethesda Softworks, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Alan Jay Weil -- aweil@kbkfirm.com -- Kendall Brill
& Kelly LLP, Nicholas Domenic Petrella --
nicholas.petrella@finnegan.com -- Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett and Dunner, LLP, Anna Balishina Naydonov --
anna.naydonov@finnegan.com -- Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett
and Dunner LLP, pro hac vice, Margaret A. Esquenet --
margaret.esquenet@finnegan.com -- Finnegan Henderson Farabow
Garrett and Dunner LLP, pro hac vice & Shauna E. Woods --
swoods@kbkfirm.com -- Kendall Brill & Kelly.


BIRD RIDES: Trautwein Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
------------------------------------------------
Mary Beth Trautwein, on behalf of other aggrieved employees and
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act, has filed a class
action complaint against Bird Rides, Inc. for alleged violations of
the California Labor Code. The case is captioned MARY BETH
TRAUTWEIN, an individual, on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant
to the Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff v. BIRD RIDES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-100, Defendant, Case No.
19SMCV01109 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 18, 2019).

Trautwein was employed by Bird as a charger and a mechanic
beginning on April 4, 2018. However, Trautwein was misclassified as
an independent contractor in Bird's Charger Services Agreement. The
agreement allegedly contains numerous misrepresentations regarding
the nature of Bird's relationship to its chargers and mechanics,
including statement that says Bird Charger Services are ancillary
to Bird's core rental services. In her complaint, Trautwein alleges
that failed to pay them minimum wage and overtime and that Bird
also failed to pay final wages within the time required by
statute.

Bird Rides Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Delaware and registered as a foreign
corporation with the state of California. The company is engaged in
the business of providing dockless scooters to pedestrians in
various cities in California, including in Los Angeles County.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan D. Miller, Esq.
     Alison M. Bernal, Esq.
     NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
     33 W. Mission Street, Suite 201
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Telephone: (805) 963-2345
     E-mail: jonathan@nshmlaw.com
             alison@nshmlaw.com

             - and -

     Christopher B. Snow, Esq.
     Shaunda L. McNeill, Esq.
     CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS
     201 South Main Street, 13th Floor
     Salt Lake City, UT 84111
     Telephone: (801) 322-2516
     E-mail: cbs@clydesnow.com
             slm@clydesnow.com

             - and -

     Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
     Michael Liskow, Esq.
     THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
     85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
     Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
     Telephone: (845) 483-7100
     Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
     E-mail: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com


CAIRO, GA: May Face Class Action Over Old Water Bill Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Yabor, writing for Union-Recorder, reports that Cairo city
officials soon may be facing a class-action lawsuit regarding
utilities bill late fees, which were apparently incorrectly
assessed, if customers are not refunded.

Cindy Williams, former president of the Grady County branch of the
NAACP, urged the city council to come up with a plan to compensate
residents who have incurred what she calls "erroneous charges" as
soon as possible.

"I see legal intervention as a last resort," she said. "We expect
to see some movement in a positive direction soon, or a
class-action suit is imminent."

In practice, the city collects a 10 percent late fee on utilities
bills 10 days after the bill date.

However, for several decades the code ordinances stated that late
fees should be applied in relation to the due date, not the bill
date.

Williams initially brought the issue to the city council's
attention in February, and on May 28 she deflected criticism that
there wouldn't be a problem if customers paid their bills on time.

"He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone," she said.
"Even after your stone is cast, you will still have an issue that
is not going away."

Using utilities bills dating back as far as 1987, City Manager
Chris Addleton has noted that Cairo's longtime billing policy has
mentioned only the bill date in relation to the application of
penalties.

Addleton believes that when the city's ordinances were consolidated
by the Municipal Code Corporation in 1984 they may have mistakenly
incorporated a 1975 water and sewer ordinance as a part of the
utilities ordinance and confused the language regarding billing and
due dates.

Research into the city's billing practices dating back to August
1947 show that penalties were only attached to the bill date until
the water and sewer ordinance was updated in 1975, first
introducing language referencing the due date.

A revision to the code of ordinances was made in September 2018 to
eliminate the apparent conflict.

At a city council meeting in April, Addleton explained that the
billing policy had been revised in August 1991 and only referenced
the bill date, but the change was never entered into the code of
ordinances.

The city manager said the question before the council is whether
the minutes of the 1991 meeting can override the language in the
code of ordinances.

Citing the city's code of ordinances, Addleton noted that the
governing body has the authority to fix the rates and conditions of
utilities services by "proper motion or resolution entered in its
minutes," which should have made the language in the 1991 minutes
an active policy regardless of whether it was entered into the code
of ordinances, a view shared by Council member Jimmy Douglas.

But in Williams' view, the minutes do not override the language
stated in the code of ordinances

"The city ordinance is the law by which local city policy is based
upon," she said. "This issue is not whether an error has been made,
but how to correct the error that was made."

City attorney Thomas Lehman offered to speak with the Georgia
Municipal Association to determine how to resolve the dispute
between policy as set forth in minutes and ordinances and return to
the council with a response.

Williams stated that while she has had productive conversations
with both Addleton and Mayor Booker Gainor, she was disappointed
that the council had not reached a consensus on how to proceed with
the issue.

"I have been patiently waiting to give the council time to come up
with a viable and reasonable solution to make amends to the
taxpaying citizens of Cairo who have been wrongly charged," she
said.

Williams suggested that the council members either do what she says
is the right thing soon or face consequences in the next election.

As an example, Williams said that she recently decided to step down
from her role in the local NAACP due to work obligations.

"If you, the members of this council, cannot do what is in the best
interest of your constituencies, then I urge you to do the same,"
she said. [GN]


CARRIAGE CEMETERY: Bid to Remand Barajas Wage & Hour Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand in
the case captioned YOSHIRA BARAJAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CARRIAGE
CEMETERY SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., et al., Defendants. Case No.
19-cv-02035-EMC. (N. D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs allege that they were jointly employed by Carriage
Cemetery Services of California, Inc. (CCSI), CFSI Carriage Funeral
Services of California, Inc. (CFSI); and Carriage Services, Inc.
(CSI).  Plaintiffs have asserted the following causes of action:

   (1) Failure to pay minimum wages

   (2) Failure to pay overtime

   (3) Breach of contract, (alleging, inter alia, that Defendants
failed to pay wages and commissions earned by Plaintiffs under the
terms of the employment and commission agreement)

   (4) Fraud (intentional misrepresentation), (alleging, inter
alia, that the Defendants [fraudulently] induced the Plaintiffs to
continue performing their same hourly job duties under 'commission
only' compensation with the promise of being placed back at hourly
rates)

   (5) Fraud (false promise), (alleging, inter alia, the same as
above).

Violation of California Labor Code Section 2751, (alleging that the
Defendants violated the statute which requires that whenever an
employer enters into a contract of employment with an employee, the
employer must provide a written contract to the employee if the
employee's payment involves commissions for services rendered in
California), (seeking PAGA penalties for the violation of Section
2751), (7) Violation of California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200.

Subsequently, CCSI and CFSI removed the case to federal court. They
maintained that removal was removal was proper because of (1)
diversity jurisdiction (once the citizenship of fraudulently joined
defendants was ignored) and (2) jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA).

Diversity Jurisdiction - Citizenship

Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) is the diversity jurisdiction
statute. It provides that the district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between citizens of
different States.

The Defendants argue that the citizenship of CCSI and CFSI should
be ignored because they were fraudulently joined to the lawsuit.
According to Defendants, CCSI and CFSI were fraudulently joined
because, during the relevant period, both companies have had no
employees and, without any employees, they necessarily could not
have engaged in any conduct that would qualify them as employers,
let alone joint employers.  

A defendant has the burden of proving diversity jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence. However, where fraudulent joinder at
issue, a higher standard of proof applies. More specifically,
fraudulent joinder must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
A defendant can establish fraudulent joinder by showing the
inability of the plaintiff to establish a cause of action against
the non-diverse party in state court that is, that the nondiverse
defendant "joined in the action cannot be liable on any theory."

In the instant case, the Court finds that Defendants have
sufficiently established fraudulent joinder the high burden of
proof. The Defendants have offered two declarations in which the
declarants testify that, during the relevant period, CCSI and CFSI
have no employees (in California or elsewhere) and have not been
involved in employment-related decisions. Defendants have also
submitted a stipulation from a different Uschold v. CSI, No.
C-17-4424 JSW (EDL). The plaintiffs in the Uschold case and
Plaintiffs in the instant case are represented by the same counsel
(the Benjamin Law Group). The Uschold plaintiffs initially sued
CCSI and CFSI. In October 2017, the Uschold plaintiffs stipulated
to replacing the incorrectly named Defendants CCSI and CFSI with
the correct Defendant, CSI.

The Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence that substantively
rebuts the Defendants' evidence. The Plaintiffs argue that the fact
that a perhaps ill-advised stipulation occurred in a different suit
to minimize motion practice and get on with the case does not
establish fraudulent joinder in the present suit. By itself, the
stipulation might not be enough. But here the Court is being
presented both with the Elliott and Ngo declarations, plus the
stipulation in Uschold. At the hearing, Plaintiffs argued that the
deposition of P. Elliott in the Uschold case indicates that CCSI
and CFSI do have employees or have a role in employment-related
decisions.

Because the Defendants have sufficiently established fraudulent
joinder, the Court disregards the citizenship of both CCSI and
CFSI; accordingly, there is complete diversity between Plaintiffs
and the remaining defendant CSI.

Diversity Jurisdiction - Amount in Controversy

For diversity jurisdiction to obtain, the amount in controversy
must exceed $75,000.
The Defendants contend that it is facially apparent from the FAC
that Ms. Barajas's damages exceed $75,000.

The Defendants' calculations with respect to Ms. Barajas's damages
are contained in their notice of removal:

The Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Barajas resigned from CSI in
mid-2018, after being unpaid for over a year and half despite
working 70-80 hours per week. Conservatively calculating Ms.
Barajas' claim for minimum wage and overtime solely for that
alleged 18-month period at the California state minimum wage of
$10.50 for 2017 and $11.00 in 2018, yields relief sought of
$110,230. This amount in controversy was calculated as follows:

   * In 2017, minimum wage for the first 40 hours per week equals
$21,840 (52 weeks x $10.50 x 40 hours). Incorporating liquidated
damages, the alleged minimum-wage damage becomes $43,680. For the
same 2017 period, Ms. Barajas' allegedly unpaid overtime wage would
amount to $28,655 (52 weeks x (($10.50 x 1.5) x 35 hours)).

   * For the six-month period in 2018, at minimum wage for the
first 40 hours per week equals $11,440 (26 weeks x $11.00 x 40
hours). Incorporating liquidated damages, the alleged minimum-wage
damage increases to $22,880. For the same six-month period in 2018,
Ms. Barajas' allegedly unpaid overtime wage would amount to $15,015
(26 weeks x ($11.00 x 1.5) x 35 hours)).

In her reply brief, the Plaintiffs criticizes the Defendants'
calculations related to her time as a commission-only employee. The
Plaintiffs basically have three criticisms, none of which is
compelling:

   (1) The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants' calculations are
not reasonable because the issue is what she was owed as a
commission-only employee (e.g., her base rate of pay) and
Defendants' calculations treat her as if she were an hourly
employee. But as reflected in the FAC, the Plaintiffs' theory (or
at least one theory) is that the Defendants should have continued
to pay Ms. Barajas as an hourly employee (and even promised to
return her to that status once she made enough sales on commission,
because her job duties stayed the same.

   (2) The Plaintiffs argue next that the Defendants assume a 100%
violation rate for every month of the 18-month calculation period.
This assumption, however, was based on the allegations in the FAC,
alleging that, as a commission-only sales person, Ms. Barajas was
not paid at all unless she made a sale and that Ms. Barajas worked
7 days a week and an average of 70-80 hours per week but she was
not compensated for any hours worked, alleging that, in mid-2018,
Ms. Barajas was forced to resign after being unpaid for over a year
and a half despite working 70-80 hours per week.

Accordingly, for Ms. Barajas, the Defendants have proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000.

Accordingly, the motion to remand is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6fulxop from Leagle.com.

Yoshira Barajas, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Henry Grant, individually and on behalf of others
simlarly situated, Nachae Williams, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated & Buriel Denise Williams Davis,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Allyssa Briana Villanueva --
allyssa@benjaminlawgroup.com -- Banjamin Law Group, P.C. & Na'il
Benjamin -- nbenjamin@BenjaminLawGroup.com -- Benjamin Law Group,
P.C.

Carriage Cemetery Services of California, Inc., Carriage Funeral
Services of California, Inc. & Carriage Services, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Andrew L. Chang -- aching@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy &
Bacon L.L.P. & Jason Matthew Richardson -- jmrichardson@shb.com --
Shook Hardy & Bacon.


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Gainey Mckenna First to File Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces 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 all transactions in CBL securities that occurred between
April 29, 2016 and March 26, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Gainey McKenna & Egleston's lawsuit seeks to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges 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 Defendants completely
ignored their disclosure obligation, motivated by a desire to avoid
bad publicity surrounding their dishonest nature and their
dishonest conduct.  When the truth was revealed, CBL shares
materially declined in price, injuring Plaintiff and the other
members of the proposed Class.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of CBL
during the Class Period should contact Gainey McKenna & Egleston
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:

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



CIOX HEALTH: Best Suit Moved to Southern District of Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Alice Best individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Ciox Health, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 19-L-173, was removed from the Court of St.
Clair County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois (East St. Louis) on June 27, 2019. The
Southern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-zcv-00698-SMY-RJD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Staci M. Yandle.

Ciox Health is a healthcare information management company with
headquarters in Alpharetta, Georgia.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Daniel R. Seidman, Esq.
          SEIDMAN MARGULIS ET AL
          110 West Main St., Suite 110
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Telephone: (618) 235-7622
          E-mail: dseidman@seidmanlaw.net

Attorneys for Ciox Health, LLC:

          Jena M. Valdetero, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON, ET AL.
          161 North Clark Street, Suite 4300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 602-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 602-5050
          E-mail: jena.valdetero@bclplaw.com

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on May 29 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee, captioned Padilla v.
Community Health Systems, Inc. et al., on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Community Health
Systems, Inc. (NYSE: CYH ) ("Community Health" or the "Company")
securities between February 20, 2017 and February 27, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from May 29,
2019, the date of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff in this action.

On February 27, 2018, the Company announced that its fourth quarter
2017 net operating revenues totaled $3.059 billion and were
adversely impacted by a $591 million increase in contractual
allowances and provision for bad debts. On this news, the Company's
share price fell $1.06 per share, more than 17%, to close at $5.12
per share on February 28, 2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company had understated its contractual
allowances; (2) that the Company had understated its provision for
bad debts; (3) that, as a result, the Company had overstated its
net operating revenue; (4) that, as a result, the Company had
understated its net loss; 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.

If you purchased Community Health securities during the Class
Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date
of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
[GN]


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Kuznicki Law Notifies of Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in
these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff
and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQGS: PSMT)
Investors Affected: October 26, 2017 - October 25, 2018

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
PriceSmart, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose 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) that
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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/pricesmart-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Equity Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ: EQBK)
Investors Affected: May 11, 2018 - April 22, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Equity Bancshares, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
assess credit risk; (2) as a result, certain of the Company's loans
posed an increased risk of loss; (3) as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain
substandard loans; and (4) 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/equity-bancshares-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Community Health Systems, Inc. (NYSE: CYH)
Investors Affected: February 20, 2017 - February 27, 2018

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Community Health Systems, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/community-health-systems-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Ra Medical Systems, Inc. (NYSE: RMED)
Investors Affected: stockholders that purchased Ra Medical
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's September
2018 initial public offering.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Ra Medical Systems, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/ra-medical-systems-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Contact:

         Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
         Kuznicki Law PLLC
         445 Central Avenue, Suite 334
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516
         Phone: (347) 696-1134
         Cell: (347) 690-0692
         Fax: (347) 348-0967
         Email: dk@kclasslaw.com
[GN]



COUNTY OF BUCKS: $67M Punitive Damages Verdict in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio Law.com said that in U.S. Dist. Court E.D. Pa. Case
No. 12-06867, Bucks County could be on the hook for up to $67
million in punitive damages after a federal jury found it violated
the Criminal History Records Information Act by publishing the
criminal records of 67,000 people on the web.

The class action lawsuit filed against the county secured $1,000 in
punitive damages for each of the 67,000 plaintiffs sent to county
jail from 1938 to 2013.  The jury held that Bucks County ran afoul
of the CHRIA by making the names retrievable through an "inmate
lookup tool" through the county's "Offender Management System" from
2011 to 2013.

The case was initiated by plaintiff Daryoush Taha, who was arrested
in 1998 by Bensalem police on charges of harassment, disorderly
conduct and resisting arrest. According to his court papers, the
charges were dropped and his record was expunged.

However, in 2011 the information surrounding his arrest became
publicly available through the search tool, and contained
everything from his physical attributes and the charges he faced to
his marital status and housing information.

Taha's lawyer, Theodore Schaer of Zarwin Baum DeVito Kaplan Schaer
Toddy, indicated in a statement issued that the case would be
informative in shaping privacy policies at the municipal level.

"Residents have the right to expect local governments to follow the
law and protect their privacy," Schaer said. "This case establishes
a new precedent in the disclosure of information by local
governments."

The class members alleged that prison officials willfully
disregarded the rights of the plaintiffs in three ways:

"First, the training received by the persons responsible for
implementing the ILT instructed them that the information being
disseminated to the public on the ILT was CHRI in violation of the
substantive provision of the act," the plaintiffs' pretrial
memorandum said.

"Second, Bucks was reckless in failing to take certain basic
precautions before implementing the ILT, such as reviewing the
authoritative Pennsylvania Attorney General's Handbook on CHRIA,
which defined CHRI as the type of information made public on the
ILT; calling the Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Law Enforcement
Assistance Network hotline to resolve ‘any doubt as to the
propriety of information to be released'; and seeking legal advice
from the Bucks County solicitor, or any attorney," court papers
continued.

"Third, the dissemination on the internet of CHRI directly violated
Bucks general policy concerning maintaining confidentiality of
commitment records, and warnings from the Office of the District
Attorney of Bucks County regarding publication of mugshots. Bucks
understood that the purpose of the CHRIA was to ensure the
confidentiality of CHRI, and that disseminating this information to
the public could destroy reputations, stigmatize individuals and
violate an individual's right to privacy."

In its court papers, the county denied it willfully violated the
act, arguing that corrections officials saw the implementation of
the look-up tool as reasonable.

"Thus, the county did not implement the tool with reckless
disregard or indifference, and as a result, plaintiff cannot
demonstrate that the county willfully violated CHRIA," court papers
said.

In a statement, the Bucks County commissioners called the verdict
"extremely disappointing."

Plaintiffs Counsel is Theodore Schaer, Zarwin Baum DeVito Kaplan
Schaer Toddy; Jonathan Shub, Robert J. LaRocca, Zahra R. Dean and
Aarthi Manohar, Kohn Swift & Graf; Alan Denenberg of Abramson &
Denenberg.  Defense Counsel: Frank Chernak, Brett Waldron and Erin
Clarke, Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads and Burt Rublin of
Ballard Spahr.
[GN]




CSL PLASMA: Brandt's BIPA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, JAMIE BRANDT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. CSL PLASMA INC., Defendant, Case
No. 19L375 (Filed on May 16, 2019), was transferred from the
Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County,
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. In this complaint, Plaintiff Jamie Brandt alleges the
Defendant of unlawful collection, use, and storage of Plaintiff's
and the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric
data in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act. This personal injury lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Nancy
J. Rosenstengel.

CSL Plasma Inc. is a Delaware corporation with multiple business
locations in Illinois, including in St. Clair County, Illinois. The
company operates a division of CSL Behring, a plasma protein
biotherapies company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
     Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
     PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
     818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
     St. Louis, MO 63104
     Telephone: (314) 833-4825
     E-mail: bwisepwcklegal.com
             plesko@pwcklegal.com


DART TRANSIT: Byars Seeks Minimum Wage for Truck Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Dart Transit
Company and Mainstream Transportation, Inc. for alleged violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, for breach of contract and for
unjust enrichment. The case is captioned KIMBERLY BYARS, an
individual appearing on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. DART TRANSIT COMPANY, a Minnesota
Corporation; MAINSTREAM TRANSPORTATION, INC., a Minnesota
Corporation; and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00541
(M.D. Tenn., June 28, 2019).

Plaintiff Kimberly Byars brings this action on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated employees who drove trucks for
Dart and/or Mainstream who were misclassified as independent
contractors. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks for declaratory judgment,
monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and
civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as
a result of Defendants' failure to pay the minimum wage for all
hours that Plaintiff and all others similarly situated worked
during their employment with Defendants. Plaintiff also seeks to
recover unpaid compensation owed pursuant to contracts to perform
work for Defendants as a result of Defendants' breach of those
contracts.

Headquartered in Eagan, Minnesota, Dart operates as a freight and
transportation services company. It also offers logistic and
brokerage services to shippers, and warehouse facilities to
customers, as well as freight moving services by rail. Mainstream
is a division and affiliate of Dart and provides services at many
of Dart's intermodal ramps. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

     Taras Kick, Esq.
     Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
     THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
     815 Moraga Drive
     Los Angeles, CA 90049
     Telephone: (310) 395-2988
     Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
     E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com
             Daniel@kicklawfirm.com


DINO PALMIERI SALONS: Torres et al. Sue over Wage Theft, Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Dino Palmieri and
Dino Palmieri Salons, Inc. for alleged violations of Ohio law and
the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is captioned DAHIANNA TORRES
ET AL. vs. DINO PALMIERI SALONS INC. ET AL., Case No. 1749367 (Ohio
Com. Pleas, June 27, 2019). In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendants have engaged in a scheme to unlawfully pay
their employees less than they are entitled to under the employees'
contract with Defendants, federal and state laws. Accordingly, this
class action seeks to remedy wage theft in the form of violations
of Ohio Revised Code Sections 4111.03 and 4111.14; recover damages
for breach of contract; recover for prompt pay violations; and
pursue fraud claims, on behalf of the class of Ohio employees
represented by Plaintiffs.

Dino Palmieri Salons Inc. is an Ohio Corporation with its principal
place of business at 5201 Richmond Road, Bedford Heights, Ohio.
Dino Palmieri is a sole owner and President of Dino Palmieri Salons
Inc. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Marianne B. Stockett, Esq.
     Brian C. Lee, Esq.
     REMINGER CO., LPA
     101 West Prospect Avenue, Suite 1400
     Cleveland, OH 44115
     Telephone: (216) 687-1311
     Facsimile: (216) 687-1841
     E-mail: mstockett@reminger.com
             blee@reminger.com
      
             and

     Patrick Kasson, Esq.
     REMINGER CO., LPA
     200 South Civic Center #800
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Telephone: (614) 228-1311
     Facsimile: (614) 232-2410
     E-mail: pkasson@reminger.com


DYNAGAS LNG: Zhang Investor Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces the filing of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Dynagas LNG Partners
LP (NYSE: DLNG) from February 16, 2018 through March 21, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Dynagas investors under the federal securities laws.

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. If you wish to join the litigation follow this
https://tinyurl.com/yxf8grnw or to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or
Spencer Lee toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com and slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Dynagas entered into new contracts which were not
favorable to Dynagas as they provided the Company with lower spot
charter rates which significantly reduced revenue than previous
contracts with; (2) the distribution rate would not be sustainable
in the long term because the fixed revenue from long-term
contracts; and (3) as a result, Dynagas' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

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

Contact:

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


EAGLE FORUM: Court Dismisses Interpleader Claims in Schlafly Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the
case captioned ANDREW L. SCHLAFLY, on behalf of himself
individually and on behalf of all other members of Eagle Forum, a
non-profit membership corporation, Plaintiff, v. EAGLE FORUM, et
al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 17-2522 (ES) (SCM). (D.N.J.).

Styled as a statutory interpleader action, this suit was brought by
Plaintiff Andrew Schlafly (Andrew), individually and on behalf of
all other members of Defendant Eagle Forum, against Defendants
Edward Martin, John Schlafly, Eagle Trust Fund (ETF), Eagle Forum
Education and Legal Defense Fund (EFELDF), Estate of Phyllis
Schlafly (Estate)  (Eagle Trust Defendants) and Defendant Eagle
Forum (Defendants). Plaintiff and Defendants allege competing
claims to collect proceeds on two life insurance policies
(Policies) held by the late Phyllis Schlafly.

Andrew asserts six claims on behalf of himself and all Eagle Forum
members against Eagle Forum. The claims fall into two categories.

Counts I and VI (the Interpleader Claims): Count I in Interpleader
for a Constructive Trust. Andrew seeks to direct the insurance
proceeds to the benefit of the class of Eagle Forum members into a
constructive trust because the members of Eagle Forum, not Eagle
Forum itself, are the rightful beneficiaries of the Policies.

Count VI for Declaratory Judgment. Andrew reasserts his right to
the entire proceeds deposited with the Court, that no Defendant has
any right to any of the entire deposited funds, and that the funds
be disbursed to him to be held in trust on behalf of a class
defined as all members of Eagle Forum as of the date of Phyllis
Schlafly's death.  

Counts II through V (the New Claims): Count II for Civil Conspiracy
to Misappropriate Funds. Andrew seeks removal of the current Eagle
Forum Board members based on their undisclosed side deal to
dissipate proceeds on the Policies for their own benefit and
interests, which is all part of an attempt to gain control of Eagle
Forum.   

Count III for Conversion. Andrew seeks an order that disburses the
proceeds of the Policies via constructive trust to pay Eagle
Forum's lawful debts in a process set by the Court and compels all
Defendants to interplead and settle among themselves their
respective rights to the deposited proceeds.   

Count IV for Breach of Contract. Andrew contends Eagle Forum broke
its bylaws when denying members their ability to vote in an
election in 2017 for the At-Large Director position and eliminated
a requirement to comply with Robert's Rules of Order. Andrew asks
the Court remove the current Eagle Forum Board members for their
foregoing violations of the bylaws and for an order invalidating
all actions based on such bylaws violations.  

Count V for Unjust Enrichment. Andrew again wants the proceeds of
the Policies held in trust, diverted from Eagle Forum and several
Board members, because they took benefits without justification,
such as holding lavish conferences at great expense to the
membership of Eagle Forum.

Andrew's Interpleader Claims

Eagle Forum moves to dismiss Andrew's Interpleader Claims on two
main fronts.

First, Eagle Forum argues it is the sole beneficiary and owner of
the Policies because the language in the Policies is clear,
unambiguous, and entitles Eagle Forum to the proceeds on the
Policies.  

Second, Eagle Forum avers the members of Eagle Forum have no
ownership over, nor a right to control, a corporation's property.
Andrew responds that members of Eagle Forum, not Eagle Forum
itself, are the primary beneficiaries of the Policies. That is
because the named beneficiary on the Policies is not Defendant
Eagle Forum as an Illinois membership corporation having its
address in Alton, Illinois. Instead, the named beneficiary is a
generic association name Eagle Forum' with a Missouri address
listed in one portion of the applications, 7800 Bonhomme Avenue,
Clayton, Missouri, as used by members but not by the Illinois
corporate entity Defendant Eagle Forum. Andrew then argues
extrinsic evidence is needed to identify whom that named
beneficiary on the Policies actually is, Eagle Forum.

The test in reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is whether, under any plausible reading
of the pleadings, the plaintiff would be entitled to relief. A
court must accept all plausible allegations in the complaint as
true and credit all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.


The plain language of the John Hancock and Lincoln National
Policies are subject to one interpretation only: that Eagle Forum,
not its membership, is the owner and primary beneficiary on the
Policies. Even if Eagle Forum never conducted business at the
address listed on the Policies, 7800 Bonhomme Avenue, Clayton,
Missouri, the inclusion of that address on the insurance
application documents creates no ambiguity. Directly below the 7800
Bonhomme Avenue address on the John Hancock Policy is Eagle Forum's
employer identification number
  
Eagle Forum's motion to dismiss Andrew's Interpleader Claims is
GRANTED.

Andrew's New Claims

Eagle Forum argues this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
Eagle Forum as to the New Claims. In particular, the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction because Eagle Forum is an Illinois
corporation that is not at home in New Jersey. (Id. at 5-6). And
even if Eagle Forum does business in New Jersey through sending
publications and providing services to members there, the
allegations forming the New Claims arose outside New Jersey.   

Alternatively, Eagle Forum argues (i) the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction on the conversion and unjust enrichment claims
(Counts III and V) because those claims rest on hypothetical future
facts and contingencies, (id. at 12), and (ii) Andrew cannot
adequately plead a claim for civil conspiracy (Count II) because he
failed to allege the claim against more than one defendant.

As to personal jurisdiction, when the court does not hold an
evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff need
only establish a prima facie case and the plaintiff is entitled to
have its allegations taken as true and all factual disputes drawn
in its favor. If the plaintiff meets his burden, then it shifts to
the defendant who must present a compelling case that jurisdiction
would be unreasonable.  

The Court can have personal jurisdiction over a non-resident
defendant in three ways here. The first two involve exercising
general or specific jurisdiction. For general jurisdiction, the
paradigm forum is the individual's domicile; for a corporation, it
is an equivalent place, one in which the corporation is fairly
regarded as at home. Specific jurisdiction arises when the claim is
related to or arises out of a defendant's contacts with the forum.
Put differently, there must be an affiliation between the forum and
the underlying controversy, principally, an activity or occurrence
that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the
State's regulation.

A third way in an interpleader action is if a federal statute
authorizes nationwide service of process, and the federal and state
claims derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, the district
court may assert personal jurisdiction over the parties to the
related state law claims even if personal jurisdiction is not
otherwise available.

Andrew cannot show how this Court has personal jurisdiction over
Eagle Forum regarding the New Claims. First, this Court lacks
general jurisdiction because Eagle Forum is incorporated, and has
its principal place of business, in Illinois.
   
Second, this Court lacks specific jurisdiction since no activities
or actions giving rise to the New Claims occurred in New Jersey.
Even if Eagle Forum has at least one member in New Jersey (Andrew),
sends letters to persons in New Jersey, and promotes its active
presence in New Jersey on its website, those allegations are
insufficient to establish Eagle Forum expressly aimed its conduct
at New Jersey. As relevant here, the Complaint and Policies'
application documents reflect actions that took place in Illinois
and Missouri, not New Jersey.

Third, Andrew cannot use the federal interpleader statute's
nationwide service of process provision to create personal
jurisdiction for all claims he believes he has against Eagle Forum.
The New Claims share no common nucleus of operative facts in
resolving who can collect on the Policies. The Court thus lacks
personal jurisdiction over Eagle Forum as to the New Claims.

Accordingly, Eagle Forum's motion to dismiss Andrew's New Claims is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yysy6885 from Leagle.com.

ANDREW L. SCHLAFLY, on behalf of himself individually and on behalf
of all other members of Eagle Forum, a non-profit membership
corporation, Plaintiff, pro se.

Eagle Forum, Defendant, represented by EDWARD THOMAS BUTKOVITZ --
ebutkovitz@kleinbard.com -- KLEINBARD LLC.

Edward R. Martin, Jr., John F. Schlafly, Estate of Phyllis M.
Schlafly, Eagle Trust Fund & Eagle Forum Education and Legal
Defense Fund, Defendants, represented by MARK R. SCIROCCO, LAW
OFFICE OF ROBERT A. SCIROCCO, 98 Route 46Budd Lake, NJ 07828- 1010

Eagle Forum, Third Party Defendant, represented by EDWARD THOMAS
BUTKOVITZ, KLEINBARD LLC.

The Phyllis Schlafly Irrevocable Trust, Third Party Defendant,
represented by GARY K. WOLINETZ, GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS,
LLP, 99 Wood Avenue SouthIselin, NJ 08830


ELECTRICITY MAINE: Summary Ruling in Customers' Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v.
ELECTRICITY MAINE, LLC; EMILE CLAVET; KEVIN DEAN; SPARK HOLDCO,
LLC; PROVIDER POWER, LLC; KATHERINE VEILEUX AND JENNIFER CHON,
individually and behalf of all other similarly situated parties,
Defendants, Appellees. No. 18-1968. (1st Cir.).

The named plaintiffs were two of Electricity Maine's customers,
Jennifer Chon and Katherine Veilleux. They sought to represent a
class of nearly 200,000 of the company's customers. The complaint
alleged that Electricity Maine had engaged in misconduct that
resulted in customers receiving higher bills than Electricity Maine
had represented that they would be. The complaint sought class-wide
damages totaling approximately $35 million for a variety of Maine
state common law claims, as well as for claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the
Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act,

The Court must affirm the judgments below if there is no genuine
issue of material fact in dispute and the District Court's
conclusions are correct as a matter of law.

Under Maine law, if the allegations in the underlying action are
within the risk insured against and there is any potential basis
for recovery, the insurer must defend the insured regardless of the
actual facts on which the insured's ultimate liability may be
based.

The Policy defines an occurrence to be an accident, including
continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general
harmful conditions. The Policy does not define what constitutes an
accident, but the Maine Law Court  has explained that an accident
is commonly understood to mean an event that takes place without
one's forethought or expectation an undesigned, sudden and
unexpected event.

The complaint in the underlying action sets forth a number of
claims for intentional torts, but also includes a claim for
negligence and a claim for negligent misrepresentation. The
negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims would appear to
seek recovery for the kind of conduct that fits comfortably within
the definition of an accident, as these claims require proof only
of events that take place without one's forethought or
expectation.

To blunt the force of this precedent, Zurich relies on two Law
Court cases, Allocca v. York Ins. Co. of Maine, 169 A.3d 938 (Me.
2017) and Vermont Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ben-Ami, 193 A.3d 178 (Me.
2018), that were decided after Travelers and Lavoie. But, neither
Allocca nor Ben-Ami involved complaints that, like the complaint at
issue here, expressly allege claims for negligence or negligent
misrepresentation alongside claims for intentional torts.
  
Zurich also attempts to distinguish Travelers and Lavoie from the
present case on the ground that, unlike in those cases, the facts
alleged in the complaint here make it impossible to sustain the
fiction that Electricity Maine was negligent' and expected no harm
to befall its customers. Zurich is right that the portion of the
complaint that sets forth the RICO claims, alleges that Electricity
Maine promised its customers rates that were lower than those
offered by the public utilities, raised those rates unexpectedly
after the first year of the customers' contracts, notified its
customers about the rate increases through emails that were sent to
the customers' spam folders, and required that customers pay a $100
fee if they wanted to leave these more expensive contracts. And,
Zurich is also right that this portion of the complaint does allege
that the company engaged in that conduct intentionally, just as one
would expect, given that RICO claims seek recovery for intentional
torts.

Zurich does point to precedents in which various courts, including
our own, have, in construing Maine law, concluded that a particular
complaint in an underlying suit failed to set forth factual
allegations of a type that could trigger an insurer's duty to
defend its insured against claims that had been set forth in that
complaint.   

But, none of the complaints in those cases pled claims for both
intentional and unintentional torts and incorporated by reference
facts that pertained to the former to support the latter in the way
that the complaint at issue here does. Thus, none of those
precedents undermines our conclusion that this complaint is fairly
read to set forth at least in a broad, conclusory fashion,factual
allegations of negligent conduct by Electricity Maine.

Accordingly, none of those precedents supplies a basis for
concluding that this complaint fails to allege facts that fall
within the risk insured by the Policy, at least insofar as that
risk is defined by the Policy's definition of an occurrence.

Zurich separately contends that the Policy's definition of bodily
injury does not encompass the allegations of misconduct by
Electricity Maine contained in the complaint at issue. Thus, the
company contends, for this reason as well, that the complaint fails
to contain factual allegations that fall within the risk insured.

Electricity Maine acknowledges that the complaint does not allege
that its conduct caused bodily injury. The company contends,
however, that Harlor makes clear that the complaint need not do so
to trigger Zurich's duty to defend. The Court agrees.

In Harlor, as in this case, the underlying complaint did not allege
bodily injury. Harlor, 150 A.3d at 800. Nevertheless, the Law Court
held that the insurer in that case had a duty to defend under the
policy at issue, because the tortious conduct alleged in the
complaint in the underlying action could have resulted in bodily
harm due to emotional distress.

Zurich contends that the Policy expressly defines bodily injury to
encompass mental injury, shock, or fright resulting from bodily
injury. Zurich then goes on to argue that, in consequence, the
Policy's definition of bodily injury is best read, impliedly, to
exclude from its scope bodily injury that is caused by emotional
distress. And, Zurich contends, this definition of bodily injury
differs from the definition of bodily injury used in the policy
that was at issue in either Harlor or York, such that neither
precedent supports Electricity Maine's position here.

But, while the Policy's definition of bodily injury states that it
includes mental injury, shock, or fright resulting from bodily
injury, the definition does not state that it excludes coverage for
bodily injury caused by those markers of emotional distress. Thus,
because Maine law requires us to construe ambiguous policy language
in favor of the insured, the Court rejects Zurich's restrictive
construction of the Policy.  

Zurich has one last argument for why, Harlor notwithstanding, the
inclusion of the negligent misrepresentation and negligence claims
provides no basis for concluding that the complaint sets forth
factual allegations that fall within the risk insured, at least
insofar as the Policy's definition of bodily injury establishes the
risk that Zurich has agreed to insure. Zurich points out that a
claim for negligent misrepresentation cannot give rise to damages
for emotional distress under Maine law and thus that the negligent
misrepresentation claim here cannot be treated as one that seeks
damages even potentially for bodily injury that arises from such
emotional distress. Zurich further contends that the putatively
stand-alone negligence claim is in fact just a mirror of the claim
that Electricity Maine committed the tort of negligent
misrepresentation.

Accordingly, Zurich argues that, even though damages for emotional
distress often may be recovered for a negligence claim, the
negligence claim that is set forth in the complaint at issue here
cannot.

The Court affirms the District Court's decisions granting summary
judgment in favor of Electricity Maine.

A full-text copy of the First Circuit's June 17, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y48y22zm from Leagle.com.

John S. Whitman, Esq. -- jwhitman@rwlb.com -- with whom Richardson,
Whitman, Large, & Badger were on brief for appellant.

Timothy E. Steigelman, 84 Marginal Way, Suite 600, Portland, ME
04101-2480 with whom Melissa A. Hewey, 84 Marginal Way, Suite 600,
Portland, ME 04101-2480 and Drummond Woodsum were on brief for
appellees.


EQT CORP: Kahn Swick Notes of Aug. 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until August 26, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against EQT Corporation (NYSE:
EQT), if they purchased the Company's shares between June 19, 2017
and October 24, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The action,
pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, also asserts claims under ss14(a) of the
Exchange Act, on behalf of Rice Energy Inc. shareholders who held
Rice shares on 9/25/17, and under ss11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 as related to this acquisition.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of EQT and would like to discuss your legal
rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may,
without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner
Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-eqt/ to learn more. If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this action, you must petition
the Court by August 26, 2019.

About the Lawsuit

EQT and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On October 25, 2018, the Company disclosed poor Q3 results due to
an increase in total costs and a $300M increase in estimated
capital expenditures for well development, and as a result, was
reducing its full-year 2018 forecast.

On this news, the price of EQT shares declined by 13%, damaging
investors.

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
         New Orleans, LA 70163  
         Phone: 1-877-515-1850
         Website:  www.ksfcounsel.com.     
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]



EQUITY BANCSHARES: Kuznicki Law Alerts to Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in
these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff
and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQGS: PSMT)
Investors Affected: October 26, 2017 - October 25, 2018

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
PriceSmart, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose 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) that
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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/pricesmart-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Equity Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ: EQBK)
Investors Affected: May 11, 2018 - April 22, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Equity Bancshares, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
assess credit risk; (2) as a result, certain of the Company's loans
posed an increased risk of loss; (3) as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain
substandard loans; and (4) 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/equity-bancshares-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Community Health Systems, Inc. (NYSE: CYH)
Investors Affected: February 20, 2017 - February 27, 2018

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Community Health Systems, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/community-health-systems-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Ra Medical Systems, Inc. (NYSE: RMED)
Investors Affected: stockholders that purchased Ra Medical
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's September
2018 initial public offering.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Ra Medical Systems, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/ra-medical-systems-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Contact:

         Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
         Kuznicki Law PLLC
         445 Central Avenue, Suite 334
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516
         Phone: (347) 696-1134
         Cell: (347) 690-0692
         Fax: (347) 348-0967
         Email: dk@kclasslaw.com
[GN]



EROS INTERNATIONAL: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Plaintiff 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. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Lyft, Inc. (LYFT)
Class Period: pursuant or traceable to the Company's Offering and
Registration Statement issued in relation to the March 28, 2019
IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lyft-inc-loss-form?wire=3

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.

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

Jumia Technologies AG (JMIA)
Class Period: Purchasers of American Depositary Shares between
April 12, 2019 and May 9, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 15, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/jumia-technologies-ag-loss-form?wire=3


Allegations: Jumia Technologies AG made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Jumia had
materially overstated its active customers and active merchants;
(b) Jumia's representations about its orders, order cancellations,
undelivered orders and returned orders lacked a sufficient factual
basis and materially overstated the Company's sales; (c) Jumia
failed to sufficiently disclose related party transactions; and (d)
Jumia's financial statements were presented in violation of
applicable accounting standards.

To learn more about the Jumia Technologies AG class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Eros International Plc (EROS)
Class Period: July 28, 2017 - June 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/eros-international-plc-loss-form?wire=3


Allegations: During the class period, Eros International Plc made
materially 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 ("EIML"), 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.

To learn more about the Eros International Plc class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (TEVA)
Class Period: on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Teva American Depositary Shares ("ADS") between
August 4, 2017 and May 10, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/teva-pharmaceutical-industries-ltd-loss-form?wire=3


Allegations: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. made materially
false and/or misleading statements throughout the class period
and/or failed to disclose that: (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.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]



EROS INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Announces Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Eros International plc (NYSE:  EROS) and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for or the District of New Jersery, and indexed under
19-cv-14445, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Eros securities from July 28, 2017 through June 5,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Eros securities during the
class period, you have until August 20, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Eros, together with its subsidiaries, including its majority-owned
subsidiary Eros International Media Limited ("EIML"), co-produces,
acquires, and distributes Indian films in various formats
worldwide. The Company distributes its film content through various
distribution channels, including theaters, television syndication,
internet channels, and physical formats comprising DVDs and video
compact discs (VCDs). Further, it operates as a music publisher for
third party owned music rights. Eros has rights for approximately
3,000 films in its library.

The complaint 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:  (i) Eros's Indian subsidiary,
EIML, was experiencing ongoing delays and default in debt servicing
due to slowdown in collection from debtors; (ii) because of this,
Eros's financial position was weaker than what the Company
disclosed; (iii) the foregoing conduct foreseeably would result in
a credit downgrade for the Company's subsidiary; and (iv) as a
result, Eros's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On June 5, 2019, CARE Ratings ("CARE"), India's second largest
credit ratings agency, downgraded EIML's credit rating for its
long-term loan facilities to "D" or default from BBB-, a
significant downgrade of several notches in credit grades.

In a public statement, CARE explained: "As per the management, the
delays/default in debt servicing is on account of slowdown in
collection from debtors leading to cash flow issues in the
company[.]"

It was reported that CARE interacted with EIML's bankers. The
defaults/delays included both principal repayments and interest
payments. In some cases, delays extended to more than 30 days for
servicing interest on cash credit and packing credit, and a delay
of more than 30 days in payment of bills.

On June 6, 2019, Eros issued a press release admitting that EIML
was late on two loan interest payments for April and May 2019.

On this news, Eros's stock price fell $3.59 per share, or over 49%,
to close at $3.71 per share on June 6, 2019, damaging investors.

The next day, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research
published an article entitled "Eros International: On-The-Ground
Research, Employee Interviews, and Private Company Documents Expose
Egregious Accounting Irregularities," explaining the reason for the
downgrade of EIML.  The article stated, among other things, that "a
significant portion of Eros's receivables don't exist" and that
they have documented "multiple undisclosed related-party
transactions that appear designed to hide receivables."

On this news, Eros's stock price fell another $0.41 per share, or
over 11%, to close at $3.30 per share on June 7, 2019, damaging
investors.

Contact:

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Phone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
[GN]




FEDEX CORP: Hagens Alerts Investors to Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, with nine offices in eight cities
around the country and eighty attorneys, alerts investors in FedEx
Corporation (NYSE: FDX) to the securities class action, Rhode
Island Laborers' Pension Fund v. FedEx Corporation et al, No.
1:19cv05990, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired FedEx securities between
September 19, 2017 and December 18, 2018 (the "Class Period") and
suffered losses you do not need to sign up to be included in the
putative class of investors.

If you suffered significant losses (in excess of $50,000), you may
qualify to be a lead plaintiff – one who selects and oversees the
attorneys prosecuting the case.  If you wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later
than August 26, 2019 (the "Lead Plaintiff Deadline").  Contact
Hagens Berman immediately for more information about the case and
being a lead plaintiff:

https://www.hbsslaw.com/hagens-berman-investor-fraud-center/fedex-corporation-nyse-fdx

or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation,
by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing

FDX@hbsslaw.com.

According to the complaint, Defendants misled investors by
downplaying the significance of a massive cyberattack on FedEx's
acquired TNT Express N.V. business.  More specifically, according
to the complaint, Defendants misrepresented and concealed that (1)
TNT's customers permanently took their business to competitors
after the cyberattack, (2) TNT experienced an increased shift
toward lower-margin freight services, and (3) the significant costs
and timeframe to successfully integrate and restore TNT's
business.

"We're focused on investors' losses and the extent to which
Defendants may have misled investors about TNT's deteriorating
business," said Hagens Berman partner Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding
FedEx should consider their options to help in the lawsuit or take
advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new program,
whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards
totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the
SEC.  For more information contact:

       Reed Kathrein, Esq.
       Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
       Phone: 510-725-3000
       Website: www.hbsslaw.com       
       Email: reed@hbsslaw.com
              FDX@hbsslaw.com
[GN]




FEDEX CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 26 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]



FEDEX CORP: Pawar Law Group Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of FedEx
Corporation (NYSE: FDX) from September 19, 2017 through December
18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for FedEx investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the FedEx class action, go to
http://pawarlawgroup.com/cases/fedex-corporation/or call Vik
Pawar, Esq. toll-free at 888-589-9804 or email
info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) TNT Express N.V.'s ("TNT") overall package volume growth
was slowing as TNT's large customers permanently took their
business to competitors after its June 2017 cyberattack (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. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 26,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

No class has been certified.  Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one.  You may hire
counsel of your choice.  You may also do nothing at this time and
be an absent member of the class.  Your ability to share in any
future recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         Vik Pawar, Esq.  
         Pawar Law Group  
         20 Vesey Street, Suite 1210  
         New York, NY 10007  
         Phone: (917) 261-2277
         Toll Free: 888-589-9804
         Fax: (212) 571-0938  
         Email: info@pawarlawgroup.com
[GN]



FERRARA CANDY: Littlejohn Settlement Has Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California issued a Judgment and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion
for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement in the case
captioned JESSICA LITTLEJOHN, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. FERRARA
CANDY COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant. Case No.
3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG. (S.D. Cal.).

The Defendant manufactures, markets and sells in the United States
a variety of sweet and tart flavored candy products at issue in
this Settlement. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's labeling
and marketing of SweeTARTS® Products is false and misleading.

Plaintiff Jessica Littlejohn filed this Action against Defendant
Ferrara Candy Company, bringing claims for fraud by omission,
negligent misrepresentation, violations of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, (CLRA), violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), violations of California's False Advertising
Law  (FAL) and Breach of Express and Implied Warranties relating to
various SweeTARTS candy products.  After arm's-length settlement
discussions, the Parties have entered into a Settlement Agreement
(Agreement), which, if approved, would resolve this putative class
action. Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion
for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement and Plaintiff's
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Incentive Award for the Class
Representative.

Findings and Conclusions

Definition of the Class and Class Members. The Court's Preliminary
Approval Order defines the Class, which is comprised of the Class
Members, as follows:

     All United States consumers who purchased SweeTARTS(R)
Products, including those listed below, for household or personal
use and not for resale, from January 1, 2012 until the Class is
certified (the Class Period): SweeTARTS Original,  SweeTARTS Mini
Chewy, SweeTARTS Giant Chewy, SweeTARTS Chews, SweeTARTS Extreme
Sour Chewy, SweeTARTS Chewy Sours, SweeTARTS Sour Gummies,
SweeTARTS Gummies, SweeTARTS Whipped & Tangy, SweeTARTS Cherry
Punch Soft & Chewy Ropes, SweeTARTS Tangy Strawberry Soft & Chewy
Ropes, SweeTARTS Jelly Beans.  

The Court affirms its certification of the Class, as set forth in
the Preliminary Approval Order. All Class Members are subject to
this Final Approval Order and the Final Judgment to be entered by
the Clerk of Court in accordance herewith.

Class Certifications (Rule 23)

Numerosity

The Defendant's sales in the United States number in the hundreds
of thousands annually. For the purposes of this Settlement, no
party or objector contests numerosity. The Court finds that the
Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all class claims is
impracticable.  

Commonality

The Court finds that there are questions of law and fact common to
the Class, as to whether Defendant made false or deceptive
marketing claims about its Products. All Class Members allege the
same injury: loss of money spent purchasing the allegedly
deceptive-labeled Products. All Class Members were exposed to the
same or substantially similar contested labeling claims of the
Products. Resolution of the common questions about whether
Defendant's labeling claims were deceptive would resolve questions
relevant to all of the claims in one stroke.

Accordingly, the Court affirms its prior ruling under Rule
23(a)(2).

Typicality

The Court finds that the Plaintiff's claims are reasonably
co-extensive with those of the other Class Members so as to meet
Rule 23(a)(3)'s requirements. Typicality is a permissive standard
under which representative claims are typical if they are
reasonably co-extensive with those of absent class members; they
need not be substantially identical. The Class does not lack
typicality. The Court therefore affirms its prior order, finding
that the Plaintiff's claims are reasonably coextensive with those
of the Class.

Adequacy of Class Representative

Having considered the factors set forth in Rule 23(g)(1), the Court
finds that the Plaintiff is an adequate class representative and
Class Counsel are adequate to represent the Class. Class Counsel
has fully and competently prosecuted all causes of action, claims,
theories of liability, and remedies reasonably available to the
Class Members. The Court hereby affirms its appointment of the Law
Offices of Ronald A. Marron, APLC as Class Counsel.

The Court also affirms its appointment of Jessica Littlejohn as the
Class Representative, finding that she possesses no interests
adverse to the Class and is adequate to represent the Class.

Rule 23(b) Has Been Satisfied

For the purposes of this Settlement, the Parties contend that the
elements of Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) have been met. The Court
finds that Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds that
apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief is
appropriate respecting the class as a whole, Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(2); and that questions of law and fact as to whether a
reasonable consumer would find the Products' packaging deceptive
predominate over individual questions.

The Plaintiff alleges a common injury on behalf of the Class,
specifically the loss of the purchase price of the Products, and
the Products' respective packaging was standard across the United
States. The Court also finds that resolution on a class-wide basis
is superior for purposes of judicial efficiency and to provide a
forum for absent Class members, who are unlikely to bring
individual suits to recover. The Court therefore affirms its prior
ruling that the Class satisfies Rule 23(b)(3). The Court also
affirms its prior ruling that the Class satisfies Rule 23(b)(2).
The primary relief in this claim was injunctive relief in the form
of labeling changes to the Products' labels.

The Settlement. The Court finds that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Class, in light of the complexity,
expense, and likely duration of the litigation (including appellate
proceedings), and the risks involved in establishing liability,
damages, and in maintaining the action as a class action, through
trial and appeal. The Settlement is the result of arm's-length
negotiation and there is no evidence of collusion or other
conflicts of interest between Plaintiff, Class Counsel and the
Class.  

Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses. The Court orders that
Class Counsel is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses incurred in connection with the action and in
reaching this Settlement in the amount of $272,000, to be paid at
the time and in the manner provided in the Settlement Agreement.
The fee award sought in the present case is reasonable when judged
by the standards of this circuit. Defendant has agreed to pay Class
Counsel $275,000, which represents the costs of notice to the
class, the Class Representative's incentive award, and Class
Counsel's lodestar plus a modest 1.489 multiplier, well within the
range Courts have allowed in the Ninth Circuit.

Based on the declaration of Class Counsel submitted in support of
the Fee Motion, the Court finds that Class Counsel have incurred
out-of-pocket litigation expenses (paid and un-reimbursed, or
currently due) in the amount of $36,000.02 that said expenses were
of a nature typically billed to fee-paying clients, and that said
expenses are recoverable or were reasonable and necessary to the
prosecution of this action in light of the extent of proceedings
both on and off the Court's docket, the complexity of the legal and
factual issues in the case, the amount at stake in this litigation,
and the vigorous efforts of counsel for all Parties herein. The
Court finds these expenses are reasonable in this case, and shall
be included as part of the $272,000 awarded to Class Counsel, to be
paid by Defendant in the time and manner provided in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Court finds no evidence of collusion. Likewise, the Objectors
have raised no valid concerns regarding the adequacy of the relief
the Settlement provides, taking into account the weaknesses in
Plaintiff's case along with the strengths of Defendant's defenses
and the obstacles to class-wide recovery. Further, Defendant's
agreement to modify the Products' label and packaging, which
adequately addresses the very claims raised in Plaintiff's
Complaint, provides value to the Class.

The Court has found that the Notice was fair, reasonable, and
adequate, and provided the best practicable notice to the class in
compliance with all applicable laws. The fact that the chosen
Notice Administrator could effectuate notice in a manner widely
approved for classes such as this one, where names of individual
class members are unknown, for a cost less than other more
expensive administrators, is a benefit to the Class, and not
objectionable. The Notice in this case also included statutory
newspaper publication within the State of California pursuant to
California Civil Code Section 1781.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxrg4bm9 from Leagle.com.

Jessica Littlejohn, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Lilach
Halperin, Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, PLC, Michael Houchin,
Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron & Ronald Marron, Law Office of
Ronald Marron, 651 Arroyo DriveSan Diego, CA 92103

Ferrara Candy Company, Defendant, represented by Neal A. Potischman
-- neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP &
Kelley B. Harrington -- kelley.harrington@davispolk.com -- Davis
Polk & Wardell.


FLINT, MI: Water Action Attorneys Detail Progress of Civil Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Worth-Nelson, writing for East Village Magazine, reports that
leading a call and response of "We won!  They lost!" with a crowd
of 100 vocal Flint residents at UAW Local 659, Flint Water Class
Action attorney, Michael Pitt, Esq. -- mpitt@pittlawpc.com --
asserted that the numerous water crisis civil cases chugging
through the courts are heading in the right direction.

"All avenues of escape have been cut off,"  Pitt said of the
arguments and unsuccessful attempts at dismissals by defendants
from the State of Michigan, the EPA, and several engineering
contractors including Veolia and Lockwood, Andrews and Newnam
(LAN).  "We have won every challenge that we have been faced with,
and now the state is in a pickle."

The choices are down to this, Pitt said, "Either settle the case or
go to trial."

Pitt is one of two attorneys appointed as "interim co-leads" to
oversee the civil cases by U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan
Judge Judith Levy.  Levy, based in Ann Arbor, has consolidated and
is overseeing ten related Flint water crisis class action
lawsuits.

Two dozen attorneys filled two rows at the front of the
audience–some wearing black and white "Flint is Still Broken"
teeshirts from the Democracy Defense League. Introducing them,
moderator Flint attorney Trachelle Young said they were a "dream
team" for Flint.

"We're here because  we spoke up," she said, waking the world up to
"a shock to the conscience" that was the pattern of "all kinds of
bad actors" in the Flint debacle.

One attorney  said the water crisis-related cases number in "the
hundreds."

"You walk into a case conference," said civil rights attorney Julie
Hurwitz, Esq. "and there are a hundred people there–and all of
them are lawyers."

Pitt urged the audience to withhold judgement from newly elected
state Attorney General, Dana Nessel, Esq.-- miag@michigan.gov --
who has been lambasted locally for dismissing all pending
prosecution cases against water crisis actors.

"Nessel inherited a mess,"  Pitt said, noting that the state had
paid legal fees for both the defendants and the costs of the
prosecution–something he said never should have happened. He said
when the cases are reopened, as Nessel has promised, the defendants
should pay their own legal fees as they should have all along.

Ted Leopold, with Pitt a co-counsel appointed under Judge Levy,
said "I see your teeshirts, I hear you say that Flint is still
broken, but in high volume, I hear you say Flint Strong."

"We could talk about how Flint is still broken, with its pipes, its
illnesses, its bad water, but what is not broken is your spirit,
your individualism, and making sure that what happened to you will
never happen again."

"We have won in every aspect of this litigation,"  Leopold said,
repeating Pitt's themes,  "And we won because justice always wins
in the end."

In addition to litigation processes,  a current avenue being
pursued is a settlement, he said–"to see if there are ways that
can formulate a win-win for everybody."

"We are only concerned about one win — that is the win for you
and the citizens here in Flint," Leopold said, adding, "We have to
remember everybody here in Flint was harmed.

"We are going to assure as part of any settlement that everybody is
treated equally, with parity,"  he said.  "There will be full
parity in any settlement that is discussed."

He said two mediators have been appointed to work on potential
settlements:  Pam Hartwood, a retired judge; and former U.S.
Senator Carl Levin–an announcement that brought positive murmurs
from the crowd.

He said both are highly respected, and that in particular, Levin
"is working for you to get a full measure of justice, with complete
parity, and everybody in Flint will recover–it's the right thing
to do–." He emphasized every Flint resident might eventually
benefit from a settlement.

Not all residents in the audience were in support of the settlement
proposal, nor convinced by the promises of justice offered by the
legal team.

"We're not going to trust anybody until we see what they produce,"
longtime activist Claire McClinton said after the event.

"We appreciate the attorneys and the support they're giving us
navigating the court system, we appreciate the scientists, the
Christian community, the charitable community doing the job the
government should be doing, and we appreciate our representatives
speaking out in the hearings.

"But in the final analysis,"  she asserted,  "We the people will
decide when justice is done.  None of these support groups will
tell us.  We will say when justice is served.  We're the ones
making that decision."

Asked how they would know, McClinton said, "We will know" — just
like, she said, the workers during the Sit-down Strike eventually
knew when they had won.

Speaking  earlier to the crowd from the podium, McClinton said, "We
still have a toxic water problem, but more than that, we still have
a democracy problem" triggered by the succession of emergency
managers, one of whom was running the city when it switched from
Detroit water to Flint River water in 2014.

Nonetheless, McClinton said, surveying the crowd and praising the
efforts of the grassroots protestors, those who caused Flint's
problems "messed with the wrong city."

A succession of residents during the public comments portion of the
event reported ongoing physical problems and urged the attorneys to
negotiate for full lifetime health care for Flint residents.

"We should be funded for the rest of our lives,"  activist Art
Woodson said.  "They poisoned us.  [Former governor] Snyder and his
culprits are as bad as the terrorists. Can you promise us that you
will negotiate on the medical part? "

He noted many resources had been directed to children and the
elderly, but that those "in the middle" often have been left out.

Pitt replied that Judge Levy is "tireless and brilliant" and "has
to find a way to be equitable."

Reflecting on how much time already has elapsed, Woodson said, "I
don't believe in handshakes — we need something in writing."
Pitt assured him that was part of the process.

Jeremy Orr, Esq. from the National Resource Defense Council
representing a crucial $97 million pipeline replacement settlement,
faced a series of complaints–one from local activist Quincy
Murphy about the end of bottled water supply for the city.  Orr
said though the bottled water deliveries stopped during
implementation of the NRDC settlement, it was not part of the
agreement.   Kettering professor Laura Sullivan criticized the
system of notifying and carrying out replacements, citing
misleading mailings seeming to require "opt-in" for the work.

Orr stated there was no opt-in required and said the materials were
being reworked to be more effective.

He urged her and others to contact the Flint Water Class Action
office at flintwaterclassaction.com.  The team also has a Flint
office on Robert T. Longway open 9-5 a.m. Monday and Thursday
weekly.
[GN]

FRED'S INC.: Lifshitz & Miller Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz & Miller announces that on June 27, 2019, it filed a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its client who
purchased shares of Fred's Inc. (FRED) between December 20, 2016
and June 28, 2017 (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Lifshitz & Miller.  If you are a Fred's investor, and would like
additional information about our investigation and complaint,
please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua
Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516) 493-9780 or e-mail at
info@jlclasslaw.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

The complaint alleges that Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.
("Walgreens"), the Company and certain of their respective officers
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, the level of regulatory risk faced by the
original and revised mergers pursuant to which Walgreens would
acquire Rite Aid Corp. ("Rite Aid") (the "Original Merger").
Walgreens and Rite Aid had entered into an agreement with Fred's to
sell 865 Rite Aid stores for $950 million in an all-cash
transaction in order to complete the Original Merger (the "Fred's
Asset Purchase Agreement"). On January 30, 2017, Rite Aid and
Walgreens announced that they had entered into a new merger
agreement (the "Revised Merger").  On June 29, 2017, Rite Aid and
Walgreens announced that they had terminated the Revised Merger.
Following the termination of the Revised Merger, Walgreens
terminated the Fred's Asset Purchase Agreement.

Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
concerning the level of regulatory risk faced by the Original
Merger and the Revised Merger which would ultimately cause the
termination of the Fred's Asset Purchase Agreement. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements: (i) downplaying
or disputing contrary reports from journalists signaling regulatory
turbulence in closing the Original Merger, as well as, the Revised
Merger; and (ii) representing that inside knowledge of the FTC gave
confidence that the deal would close.

On this news, Fred's stock price dropped $2.78 per share or over
22.8% from $12.20 per share to close at $9.41 per share on June 29,
2017. The Company's stock price continued to fall over the
following months, closing at $6.60 per share on September 27,
2017.

Investors have until August 27, 2019 to file a motion, with the
court, for appointment as a lead plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Contact:

         Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
         Lifshitz & Miller LLP
         821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
         Garden City, New York 11530
         Phone:  516-493-9780
         Facsimile: 516-280-7376
         Email: info@jlclasslaw.com
[GN]




FRONTLINE ASSET: Court Denies Class Certification Bid as Moot
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, SAMUEL WILLIAMS, pleading on his own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES, and VELOCITY
INVESTMENTS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03119-JD (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jan E. DuBois entered an order on June 25,
2019, denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

As Class Action Reporter previously reported, the case parties have
jointly move the Court for an order certifying the case to proceed
as a class action and granting preliminary approval of their class
settlement agreement.  Specifically, the Parties jointly move the
Court to certify this class:

     All consumers with a Pennsylvania address that have received
     collection letters sent by FAS on behalf of Velocity
     concerning debts incurred for primarily personal, household,
     or family purposes during a period beginning one year prior
     to the filing of this complaint that a) fails to provide a
     partial payment disclosure, b) fails to disclose that the
     consumer cannot be sued on the debt, and c) falsely
     threatens the accrual of interest.

The Plaintiff filed this class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act alleging that the Defendants
violated
the FDCPA by sending consumers written collection communications
which offered settlements of debts without disclosing the debt was
beyond the statute of limitations and, thereby, implying that the
debt was legally enforceable.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          Elizabeth Apostola, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          1373 Broad Street, Suite 203-C
          Clifton, NJ 07013
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
                  ea@zemellawllc.com

Defendants Frontline Asset Strategies and Velocity Investments LLC
are represented by:

          Peter G. Siachos, Esq.
          GORDON & REES
          18 Columbia Turnpike, Suite 200
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-2500
          E-mail: psiachos@grsm.com

FUSION CONNECT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that it has
filed a federal securities class action with an expanded class
period in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors that acquired Fusion
Connect, Inc. ("Fusion" or the "Company") (OTC: FSNNQ) securities
between May 11, 2018 and April 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action is captioned Grand Slam Capital Master Fund,
Ltd. v. Rosen et al.; No. 1:19-cv-05362.

Investors who purchased shares of Fusion Connect,  Inc.  are  urged
to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800)
575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information
concerning the action on our website www.whafh.com

The  complaint  alleges that Defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:

Fusion Connect's earnings for the quarters ended June 30, 2018 and
September 30, 2018 were overstated due to the insufficient
precision in the process by which certain of its Birch
Communications Holdings, Inc. subsidiaries capitalized costs; and
as a result, Fusion Connect's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times

On March 13, 2019, the Company announced that its earnings call for
the fourth quarter and full year of 2018 would be postponed.

Then, on April 2, 2019, the Company disclosed certain accounting
errors related to the 2018 acquisition of Birch Communications
Holdings, Inc. and stated that previously issued financial
statements should no longer be relied upon. Fusion also relayed
that additional accounting errors would further delay the filing of
its 2018 Form 10-K.

On this news, shares of Fusion fell $0.98 per share, or over 81%,
to close at $0.22 on April 3, 2019.

Subsequent to the end of the class period, Fusion filed for
bankruptcy protection, filing voluntary petitions under Chapter 11
in the Southern District of New York on June 3, 2019.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP  has extensive experience
in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative
litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across
the country.  The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and
expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation
has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed
it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and
consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately
contact:

         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone
         Director of Case and Financial Analysis       
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Phone: (800) 575-0735
                    (212) 545-4774
         Website: www.whafh.com.
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                kcooper@whafh.com
                classmember@whafh.com [GN]


GENERAL MILLS: Sued in California for Misrepresenting Cereals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a customer
is suing General Mills, alleging the cereals produced by GM were
misrepresented.

Ruben Harper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint May 23 in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against General Mills
Inc., General Mills Sales Inc., and Does 1-10, alleging fraud,
misrepresentation, unfair trade practices, breach of express
warranties and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, General Mills has made a number of
representations alleging that its cereals contain 100% real cocoa.
The suit, however, states these cereals are made with alkalized
cocoa, which is a processed form of cocoa and lacking many of the
health benefits of real cocoa. Harper also alleges the defendant
says its products contain no preservatives when, in fact, they do.


The plaintiff alleges that had he known that the ingredient was not
real cocoa and that the cereal contained preservatives, he would
not have purchased it.

Harper seeks trial by jury, statutory, compensatory, treble and
punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief, attorney fees,
expenses and costs of suit. He is represented by attorneys Matthew
Righetti and John Glugoski of Righetti Glugoski PC in San
Francisco,. and by Reuben D. Nathan of Nathan & Associates APC in
Newport Beach.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number 3:19-CV-02865 [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: Ray Sues over Defective Transmissions
-----------------------------------------------------
LOUIS RAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-11808-DML-SDD (E.D. Mich., June 18, 2019), alleges
that GM willfully failed to disclose and actively concealed that
the Defective Transmissions are unsafe, and otherwise engaged in
activities with a tendency or capacity to deceive.

Motor vehicles rely on a transmission to translate the power
generated by the engine into usable and controllable rotation of
the vehicle's wheels by shifting through a series of gear ratios.
When a transmission functions properly, a vehicle behaves as
expected, allowing the driver to predictably and reliably control
the speed and acceleration of the vehicle via manipulation of the
gas pedal. Additionally, a properly functioning transmission allows
the vehicle to drive smoothly when shifting. When a transmission
does not function properly, drivers and passengers are subjected to
dangerous conditions, including a vehicle that hesitates, shakes,
shudders, bucks, kicks, jerks, or harshly engages or shifts.

Between 2015 and 2019, millions of cars, body-on-frame trucks, and
unibody sport utility vehicles ("SUVs") designed, manufactured,
marketed, distributed, warranted, and sold by General Motors, LLC
were assembled with either of two GM-manufactured eight-speed
transmissions: model 8L90 or 8L45 (the "Defective
Transmission(s)"). Neither of the Defective Transmissions functions
properly or safely.

The Class Vehicles have a common defect. They were sold with a
Defective Transmission that, among other things, hesitates, shakes,
shudder, bucks, kicks, jerks, harshly engages, or shifts when the
automatic transmission changes gears. These issues (collectively
the "Transmission Defect") occur whether a Class Vehicle is
accelerating or decelerating, while staying in a single gear, or
when not actively shifting gears.

The Transmission Defect can cause unsafe conditions, including but
not limited to: suddenly and violently lurching forward, loss of
forward propulsion, and unpredictable and unreliable acceleration.
These conditions present a safety risk by severely affecting the
driver's ability to predict and control the vehicle's speed,
acceleration, and deceleration. Furthermore, the Transmission
Defect is related to internal issues within the transmission and/or
torque converter causing friction surfaces, hydraulic systems, and
gears to not function properly, and results in the circulation of
metal shavings through the transmission. This friction causes
damage to the transmission and/or torque converter, eventually
leading to failure requiring the replacement of various components
such as the torque converter, valve body, and/or the entire
transmission.

Despite knowing since prior to 2015 that its vehicles were equipped
with Defective Transmissions that contain a defect in design,
manufacturing, materials and/or workmanship that causes unsafe
conditions while driving, GM failed to warn consumers about the
Transmission Defect through advertisements, on its website,
and/or through communications from its authorized dealers before or
at the time of purchase. Despite many opportunities and methods to
do so, GM failed to disclose the Transmission Defect. Had GM
properly disclosed the Transmission Defect, Plaintiffs and members
of the Classes would not have purchased or leased the Class
Vehicles or would not have purchased or leased them at the prices
they paid.

GM marketed and advertised these vehicles as safe and reliable, all
the while knowing that the Transmission Defect was inherent in each
of the Class Vehicles at the time of sale or lease and with
knowledge that the Class Vehicles are unfit for their ordinary use.
GM has unreasonably delayed implementing a fix to this known
Transmission Defect. The Class Vehicles with the Transmission
Defect present an unreasonable safety risk to Plaintiff, members of
the Classes and the public, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff 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
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  wk@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
          Natalie Lesser, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  mtroutner@ktmc.com
                  nlesser@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 S. Sixth St., Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

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

GOOGLE INC: French Consumer Group Launches Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
AsiaOne reports that a French consumer rights group said on June
26, 2019, that it has launched a class action lawsuit against US
tech giant Google for violating the EU's strict data privacy laws.

The UFC-Que Choisir group said in a statement that the goal of its
class action in Paris is to "end the insidious exploitation of
users' personal data, particularly those using Android devices with
a Google account, and compensate them for up to €1,000
(S$1,540)".

"This compensation claim is a first in France as well as Europe,"
UFC-Que Choisir president Alain Bazot told AFP.

"If the judge rules in favour, there are potentially 28 million
Android users in France that could be entitled to compensation," he
added.

The class action comes after the Internet behemoth suffered two
recent blows in France.

In January, France's CNIL data watchdog slapped Google with a
record €50 million fine for failing to meet the EU's tough
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into force in
May last year.

Then in February, the Paris district level court ordered Google to
remove "abusive" clauses from the service conditions it requires
consumers to accept.

UFC-Que Choisir on June 26 accused Google of "drowning consumers in
endless confidentiality rules" and "maintaining a veritable
obstacle course" when it comes to users' geolocation.

"It's a real invasion of privacy," said Bazot, adding that "even
when you do not use Google's services, your phone geolocates you
340 times a day!"

The consumer group said it had tried to reach an amicable agreement
but had been unsuccessful, so launched the class action suit in
Paris against Google Ireland, the Internet giant's European hub,
and Google LLC.

Bazot did not expect a quick outcome, saying the procedure could
take seven to eight years, or more.
[GN]



GOOGLE INC: Potential Class Suit Slams Access to Patient Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Vincent, writing for The Verge, reports that Google is being
sued in a potential class-action lawsuit which accuses the tech
giant of inappropriately accessing sensitive medical records
belonging to hundreds of thousands of hospital patients.

The lawsuit, filed on June 26, is the latest example of how tech
giants' forays into the trillion-dollar healthcare industry are
being met by concerns over privacy.

In recent years, companies including Microsoft, Apple, and Google
have all pitched their services to medical institutions, promising
that they can help organize medical data and use this information
to develop new AI diagnostic tools. But these plans are often met
with resistance from privacy advocates, who say that this data will
give tech giants an unprecedented view into the lives of their
customers.

The lawsuit in question, which was first reported by The New York
Times, is concerned with a deal made in 2017 between Google and the
University of Chicago Medical Center (also a defendant). Google was
given access to patient records from the University of Chicago
Medicine between 2009 and 2016, which it said it would use to
develop new AI tools.

In a blog post at the time, Google said it was ready to start
"accurately predicting medical events — such as whether patients
will be hospitalized, how long they will stay, and whether their
health is deteriorating." The company also noted it would use
"de-identified medical records" from Chicago that would be
"stripped of any personally identifiable information."

THE RECORDS INCLUDED THE DATES OF PATIENTS' STAY WHICH COULD HELP
IDENTIFY THEM

The June 26 lawsuit claims that the company failed to do this. "In
reality, these records were not sufficiently anonymized and put the
patients' privacy at grave risk," it says.

Crucially, the lawsuit says Google received records of when \
patients were admitted and discharged from the medical center, a
potential violation of the federal health data privacy regulation
known as HIPAA. This information, says the suit, could be combined
with location data collected by Google's Android mobile OS to
reveal individual patients' identities.

The rest of the information covered in the records is detailed. It
includes individuals' height, weight, and vital signs; whether they
suffer from diseases like cancer or AIDS; and records of recent of
recent medical procedures, including transplants and and
abortions.

The suit says the University of Chicago Medical Center also failed
in its duties. "[T]he University did not notify its patients, let
alone obtain their express consent, before turning over their
confidential medical records to Google for its own commercial
gain."

In the UK, Google's DeepMind subsidiary made "inexcusable" errors
while handling patient data, used to create its assistant Streams
app.

The lawsuit notably is similar to complaints made against Google's
AI subsidiary DeepMind in the UK. There, DeepMind made a deal in
2015 to access patient records from the UK's National Health
Service (NHS), which it used to develop an app for doctors and
nurses. An investigation by the UK's data watchdog found that the
deal "failed to comply with data protection law," and that DeepMind
made "inexcusable" errors while handling the data.

DeepMind later rewrote its contracts with the NHS and established
new independent advisory boards to scrutinize its activities. These
boards were shut down when the DeepMind department concerned,
DeepMind Health, was absorbed into Google.

Google and the University of Chicago Medical Center both deny the
accusations laid out in the lawsuit.

A spokesperson for Google told the New York Times: "We believe our
health care research could help save lives in the future, which is
why we take privacy seriously and follow all relevant rules and
regulations in our handling of health." A spokesperson for the
University of Chicago also told the Times that the claims were
"without merit."

Lawsuits such as these are often launched with the intent of
attracting more plaintiffs. The lawsuit currently focuses on a
single complaint by Matt Dinerstein, who was admitted to the
Chicago University Medical Center in 2015.
[GN]



H&R BLOCK: Griffith Suit Transferred to Western Dist. of Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, COLLEEN GRIFFITH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. H&R BLOCK, INC., and
H&R BLOCK TAX SERVICES LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07520
(Filed Nov. 13, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) on June 18,
2019. The Western District of Missouri Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:19-cv-00470-ODS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. District Judge Ortrie D. Smith.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and the
proposed class of all other similarly-situated current and former
H&R Block employees against Defendants for H&R Block's
anti-competitive policy enforced on both its franchised and
company-owned tax offices that prevented any H&R Block franchise
from hiring or soliciting current employees of any other H&R Block
franchise or company-owned tax office, and prevented H&R Block
company-owned tax offices from hiring or soliciting current
employees of H&R Block franchises (the "No-Poach Clause").

The Plaintiff alleges that this no-hiring and no-solicitation
agreement was an illegal conspiracy between H&R Block and its
franchises in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
section 1 and seeks treble damages and injunctive relief, demanding
a trial of jury of all issues so triable.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Mark Richard Miller, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, No. 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: mrm@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          April Dawn Lambert, Esq.
          Daniel Evan Rubenstein, Esq.
          RADICE LAW FIRM
          475 Wall Street
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (312) 339-7140
          E-mail: alambert@radicelawfirm.com
                  drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Paul VIncent Shehadi, Esq.
          MCELDREW YOUNG
          123 S. Broad St., Suite 2250
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 367-5151
          E-mail: paul@mceldrewyoung.com

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Michael I. Rothstein, Esq.
          Timothy A. Hudson, Esq.
          Uriel B. Abt, Esq.
          TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN, LLC
          The Rookery Building
          209 South LaSalle Street, Seventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 762-9450
          E-mail: rothstein@tdrlawfirm.com
                  thudson@tdrlawfirm.com
                  uabt@tdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stacey R. Gilman, Esq.
          BERKOWITZ OLIVER LLP-KCMO
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 561-7007
          Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
          E-mail: sgilman@berkowitzoliver.com

HECLA MINING: Bragar Eagel Notes of July 23 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]



HENRY COUNTY JAIL: Class Suit Over Overcrowding Certified
---------------------------------------------------------
Dave Stafford, writing for Indiana Lawyer, reports that current and
former inmates at the Henry County Jail in McDonough, Georgia, will
proceed as a class in a federal lawsuit broadly alleging
overcrowded, unconstitutional and inhumane conditions at the
facility in New Castle.

Indiana Southern District Senior Judge Sarah Evans Barker on June
25 granted a motion for class certification on behalf of more than
100 current inmates, as well as lead plaintiff Adam Bell, who no
longer is detained in the jail but was housed there at the time the
case was filed. Barker rejected Henry County's argument that
because Bell was no longer jailed, he lacked standing to properly
represent the class.

"This argument is unavailing, however, because it is the
uncertainty about the length of incarceration, not the maximum
length of incarceration, that controls," Barker wrote in her order
certifying a class in Adam Bell v. Sheriff of Henry County, et al.,
1:19-cv-00557.

Among other allegations, Bell alleges the jail:

    * Was originally designed to house 76 prisoners, but over the
years the county expanded jail space and added a third bunk to
existing double bunk beds in many cells, expanding capacity to 116
beds. The suit claims these additional bunks never received
required authorization from the Department of Correction's chief
jail inspector. In its response to the complaint, Henry County
acknowledges the additions, but officials "deny that said jail
inspection report is an accurate statement of the facts..."

    * Is deemed overcrowded 100 percent of the time by the DOC's
chief jail inspector. Henry County likewise disputes the statements
in the report and disputes that the facility is "overcrowded in
terms of having more inmates than permanent beds.. ."

    * Has made some inmates, including Bell, sleep on cellblock
floors and near cell toilets due to overcrowding. Defendants deny
that allegation.

    * Has housed inmates in offices and in an indoor recreation
area due to overcrowding, despite these areas having no toilets or
showers. Henry County denies this in its response.

    * Is chronically understaffed, unable to adequately monitor
prisoners, cellblock inspections do not occur, and that as a result
of tensions due to these conditions, "assaults between prisoners
are frequent, aggravated by the overcrowded conditions."

Bell states in his complaint that he was housed for about four
weeks in the jail's E-Block on a triple bunk cell for an alleged
violation of home detention rules after a criminal conviction. At
the time he filed the complaint, he alleged there were four people
in the cell and, "For the first two weeks he was the fourth person
in the cell and was on the floor on just a mattress. … The cell
block is extremely dirty."

Henry County denies these claims, as well as Bell's allegation that
the cellblock at the time his suit was filed was locked down
overnight; that overcrowding in the unit made exercising
impossible; and, that overcrowding and lack of recreation and
supervision "causes continuous tension and dangerous conditions in
the block."

Bell also alleges, and the county denies, that he and other
prisoners were denied grievance forms by jail staff and also that
they were told grievances would only be processed if they were
filed on jail grievance forms.

The complaint also cites the report of a consultant hired by the
county to look into conditions at the jail, which concluded that
overcrowding "does not permit the jail to safely house inmates or
provide for certain needs. … The current physical plant does not
lend itself to the separations required to safely house inmates."
Henry County admits that language is included in the report it paid
for, but replied in March that officials "deny that the language
… accurately describes the current conditions" in the jail.

Bell is represented in this litigation by the American Civil
Liberties Union of Indiana and New Castle attorney Joel E. Harvey,
Esq.-- jharvey@hcclaw.com--. Henry County is represented by the
Indianapolis law firm of Stephenson Morow & Semler.

A bench trial before Barker is scheduled for Dec. 14 in the
Indianapolis Division of the Southern District of Indiana.[GN]



HOME DEPOT: SCOTUS Ruling Limits Ability to Remove Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Mann, writing for SCOTUS Blog, reports that the May 28
decision in Home Depot USA v. Jackson offers an unusual outcome: a
holding by the justices that limits the ability of defendants in
large class actions to remove those cases to federal court. The
lineup is also unusual, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for
the majority, over a dissent by four of the justices usually
regarded as conservative: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices
Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

The case involves litigation that started with an action by
Citibank to collect a credit-card debt from respondent George
Jackson. The debt arose out of a purchase at Home Depot, with which
Jackson was not satisfied. The defendant (Jackson) responded to
Citibank's action by filing a class action against Home Depot and a
variety of other entities. Those entities attempted to remove the
case to federal court, relying on two closely related statutes that
permit the "defendant" in a suit in state court to "remove" the
case to federal court.  The question before the justices was
whether Home Depot qualifies as a "defendant" under those statutes
even though it was not the defendant named in Citibank's original
complaint. The majority holds that Home Depot is not a "defendant,"
and thus that it cannot remove the case to federal court.

Thomas starts by considering the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1441.  Thomas acknowledges that Home Depot's reading of the
statute -- which treats Home Depot as a defendant because it was
sued in a civil proceeding -- is "plausible." He does not, though,
"think it is the best one," because statutory phrases like the
reference here to a "defendant" cannot, as the court has so often
emphasized, "be construed in a vacuum." The relevant context is
that the statute refers not broadly to defendants of "claims," but
specifically to the defendant in a "civil action." Because Section
1441 extends only to cases over which the federal courts would have
had jurisdiction, federal courts in removal cases traditionally
have assessed their jurisdiction over an action by "evaluat[ing]
whether that action could have been brought originally in federal
court." And because that action "is the action as defined by the
plaintiff's complaint, 'the defendant' to that action is the
defendant to that complaint, not a party named in a counterclaim."

Thomas notes that a reading limiting "defendant" to the parties
named in the original complaint draws support from specific removal
provisions (not at issue here) in which "Congress has clearly
extended the reach of the statute to include parties other than the
original defendant." Because Section 1441, "by contrast, limits
removal to 'the defendant or the defendants' in a 'civil action,"
it would be odd to read Section 1441 as permitting removal by
parties like Home Depot.

Thomas also relies on the court's earlier decision in Shamrock Oil
v. Sheets, in which the court considered a suit in which the
original defendant had filed a counterclaim against the original
plaintiff.  When the original plaintiff attempted to remove the
matter, arguing that its position as a defendant on the
counterclaim brought it within the removal statute, the court
refused to permit removal. Thomas reads Shamrock as providing
strong support for the decision here: "If a counterclaim defendant
who was the original plaintiff is not one of 'the defendants,' we
see no textual reason to reach a different conclusion for a
counterclaim defendant who was not originally part of the
lawsuit."

Having explained why Home Depot is not a "defendant" under Section
1441, Thomas turns to Section 1453, a special removal provision
included in the Class Action Fairness Act, designed to provide a
federal forum for large class actions filed in state court. That
statute, among other things, permits removal by "any defendant" to
a "class action." Home Depot argues that the reference to a "class
action" rather than a "civil action" extends the provision beyond
the traditional bounds of Section 1441 to reach any party sued in a
large state-court class action.

Thomas disagrees, explaining that the references in Section 1453 to
"any defendant" "simply clarify that certain limitations on removal
that might otherwise apply do not limit removal under Section
1453(b)." The first provision states that a class action "may be
removed . . . without regard to whether any defendant is a citizen
of the [forum] State." For Thomas, that passage affords "no
indication that th[e] language does anything more than alter the
general rule that a civil action may not be removed on the basis of
diversity [if any defendant resides in the forum state]." In the
same way, Section 1453(b) also states that removal is appropriate
"by any defendant without the consent of all defendants." That
passage "simply amends the rule [in Section 1446] that 'all
defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in .
. . removal of the action." For Thomas, this provides nothing to
"indicate that a counterclaim defendant can remove." In sum, for
the court neither of those provisions "alters [the statute's]
limitation on who can remove, which suggests that Congress intended
to leave that limit in place."

Alito's spirited dissent (more than twice as long as Thomas's
opinion for the court) vehemently criticizes the majority for
validating a "tactic" that defendants can use to prevent removal of
class litigation from state court, a result that the dissenters see
as inconsistent with the intent of the Class Action Fairness Act.
For the majority, though, "that result is a consequence of the
statute Congress wrote. Of 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."

[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute
to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in
this case. The author of this post is not affiliated with the
firm.] [GN]


INSPIRE ENERGY: Birchler Seeks Overtime Pay for Sales Reps
----------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY BIRCHLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs INSPIRE ENERGY HOLDINGS, LLC; PREMIUM
ADVERTISING, INC. d/b/a INNOX INCORPORATED; ALBERT GRAMLICK,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 19-0784 (Mass. Super., June
18, 2019), seeks seeks lost wages, treble damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and all other relief under the Massachusetts Wage
Act, the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law, and the Massachusetts
Independent Contractor Statute.

During the three years preceding the filing date of the complaint,
Innox engaged the services of more than 40 different sales
representatives in Massachusetts.

Each day that Plaintiff and other sales representati ves engaged in
marketing and sales for Innox, at the beginning of every shift,
they would report to Innox’s office for meetings, trainings, or
other administrative matters. Innox did not pay Plaintiff and the
other sales representatives the wages owed to. Innox did not pay
Plaintiff or other sales representatives an hourly rate equal to
minimum wage for all of the hours that they performed services for
it. Innox did also not pay Plaintiff or other sales representatives
an hourly rate equal to one and one half times their regular hourly
rate for all of the hours that they worked in excess of 40 during a
workweek for it, the lawsuit says.

Inspire is in the business of selling electricity to people and
businesses in multiple states, including Massachusetts.[BN]

The plaintiff is represented by:

          Brook S. Lone, Esq.
          FAIR WORK. PC.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: 617 261 3261
          Facsimile: 617 488 2261
          E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com

INTERSECT ENT: Bernstein Notes of July 15 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors that approximately two weeks remain to make
a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff in a class action pending
against Intersect ENT, Inc. (XENT) on behalf of those who purchased
XENT securities between August 1, 2018 and May 6, 2019, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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 wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Intersect
ENT class action, you must move the court no later than July 15,
2019.

The complaint, which was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, alleges claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  According to the lawsuit,
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (1) Intersect
ENT lacked adequate reimbursement representatives to ensure
physicians had access to the Company's "SINUVA" sinus implant; (2)
Intersect ENT's sales force would focus on ensuring reimbursement;
(3) Intersect ENT's sales representatives were less focused on
driving sales; (4) physicians were less likely to adopt Intersect
ENT's SINUVA due to transaction costs associated with seeking
reimbursement; (5) the Company would increase staffing to address
these issues; and (6) 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

On May 6, 2019, the Company disclosed a first quarter 2019 loss of
$10.8 million and lowered guidance for the remainder of 2019. The
Company also reported that Lisa Earnhardt, Intersect ENT's Chief
Executive Officer of 11 years, had resigned. On this news,
Intersect ENT's share price fell $8.05, or more than 25%, to close
at $25.10 per share on May 7, 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
         E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
                 Bigin@bernlieb.com
[GN]



INTERSECT ENT: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of July 15 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]



JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS: Dixon Calls Debt Collection "Unlawful"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed by Earl Dixon against
Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC for alleged violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Act. The case is captioned DIXON v. JEFFERSON
CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-02457-JMS-DML (S.D.
Ind., June 18, 2019). This consumer credit-related lawsuit is
assigned to Hon. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC provides debt collection and
bankruptcy collection services. The company purchases and services
consumer bankruptcy accounts. [BN]  

The Plaintiff is represented by:
    
      Duran Keller, Esq.
      KELLER LAW LLP
      8 N Third St, STE 403
      Lafayette, IN 47901
      Telephone: (765) 444-9202
      E-mail: duran@kellerlawllp.com


JUMIA TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Plaintiff 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. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Lyft, Inc. (LYFT)
Class Period: pursuant or traceable to the Company's Offering and
Registration Statement issued in relation to the March 28, 2019
IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lyft-inc-loss-form?wire=3

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.

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

Jumia Technologies AG (JMIA)
Class Period: Purchasers of American Depositary Shares between
April 12, 2019 and May 9, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 15, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/jumia-technologies-ag-loss-form?wire=3


Allegations: Jumia Technologies AG made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Jumia had
materially overstated its active customers and active merchants;
(b) Jumia's representations about its orders, order cancellations,
undelivered orders and returned orders lacked a sufficient factual
basis and materially overstated the Company's sales; (c) Jumia
failed to sufficiently disclose related party transactions; and (d)
Jumia's financial statements were presented in violation of
applicable accounting standards.

To learn more about the Jumia Technologies AG class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Eros International Plc (EROS)
Class Period: July 28, 2017 - June 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/eros-international-plc-loss-form?wire=3


Allegations: During the class period, Eros International Plc made
materially 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 ("EIML"), 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.

To learn more about the Eros International Plc class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (TEVA)
Class Period: on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Teva American Depositary Shares ("ADS") between
August 4, 2017 and May 10, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/teva-pharmaceutical-industries-ltd-loss-form?wire=3


Allegations: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. made materially
false and/or misleading statements throughout the class period
and/or failed to disclose that: (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.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]



JUUL LABS: Alabama College Students File E-Cigarette Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Taylor, writing for Tuscaloosanews.com, reports that a
class action lawsuit claims the country's largest producers of
e-cigarettes concealed health risks and marketed to children.

Lawyers for two Alabama college students filed the suit against
Juul Labs Inc., Altria Group and Phillip Morris. University of
Alabama student Elizabeth Ann Swearingen and Auburn student John
Thomas Via Peavy both became addicted to Juul products without
knowing they contained nicotine, according to the lawsuit.

The class action seeks to represent adults and minors in Alabama
and across the United States who have used a Juul e-cigarette.

"Mimicking on Big Tobacco's past marketing practices, defendants
prey on youth to recruit replacement smokers for financial gain,"
attorney Robert G. Methvin Jr. of Birmingham firm Methvin, Terrell,
Yancey, Stephens & Miller PC wrote in the complaint.

Nearly identical complaints against Juul Labs Inc., Altria Group
and Phillip Morris have been filed across the country. The suits
have been filed on behalf of minors and adults in states including
Florida, California, New York and Pennsylvania.

Altria is one of the largest producers of tobacco products
worldwide. The corporation owns Marlboro producer Phillip Morris
and recently acquired a 35 percent stake in Juul, which launched in
2015.

According to the lawsuit, the two college students preferred Juul's
mango flavor, which critics have said is marketed to young users
who prefer a fruity taste over traditional tobacco. Swearingen, 19,
is a former cross-country athlete, the attorneys said, who now has
trouble breathing while performing simple tasks. Peavy, also 19,
claims similar problems including severe chest congestion and
decreased appetite.

A suit filed in Florida in April says an addicted 15-year-old user
now suffers from nicotine-induced seizures. Juul was launched in
2015 and now controls nearly three-quarters of the $3.7 billion
retail market for e-cigarettes.

The lawsuit was filed a week after North Carolina's attorney
general sued the company, asking a court to limit which flavors it
can sell and ensure underage teenagers can't buy Juul products. The
Massachusetts attorney general announced in 2018 that state
officials are investigating the company's marketing, but the suit
filed in traditionally tobacco-friendly North Carolina is the first
legal action taken by a state attorney general.

E-cigarettes are electronic devices that heat a liquid containing
high levels of nicotine to produce an aerosol, or mix of small
particles in the air. Juul devices are shaped like a USB drive and
can be charged by a computer.

Attorneys in the Alabama lawsuit claim Juul fraudulently concealed
important safety information on how addictive e-cigarettes are,
saying the device delivers up to 36 percent more nicotine than a
puff from a traditional cigarette. The company copied old tobacco
company's methods of marketing to youth, the lawsuit says, with a
heavy social media presence and advertisements depicting "cool,"
"carefree," and "stylish" imagery aimed at non-smoking teenagers.

The lawsuit includes claims of fraud, liability, negligence and
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act. A U.S. District Judge issued an opinion in 2006 holding
tobacco companies liable for violating RICO by covering up health
risks associated with smoking and marketing to children.

U.S. District Judge Scott Coogler will preside over the case, filed
May 22 in the Northern District of Alabama's western division.

Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams issued an advisory on the
increasing use of e-cigarettes among young people late last year,
calling the trend an epidemic.

Juul responded, posting a message on Twitter saying the company
shared the Surgeon General's goal of preventing youth from using
nicotine.

"We cannot fulfill our mission to provide the world's one billion
adult smokers with a true alternative to combustible cigarettes if
youth use continues unabated," the Tweet read.

Juul's plan for deterring youth use, according to the company
website, includes deactivating Facebook and Instagram accounts for
marketing, suspending the sale and distribution of nontobacco and
nonmenthol JuuL pods to more than 90,000 retail stores and
requiring online consumers to be at least 21 to purchase its
product.

Experts say that although using e-cigarettes appears less harmful
over the long run than smoking regular cigarettes, that doesn't
mean they're safe -- particularly for youth, young adults, pregnant
women or adults who do not currently use tobacco products. [GN]


KENTUCKY: Court Junks Objection to Dismissal of C. Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky, Southern Division, London, issued an Opinion denying
Class’ Motion to Object Case Dismissal in the case captioned
CHRISTOPHER R. CLASS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF KENTUCKY, et al.,
Defendants. No. 6:18-cv-323-REW. (E.D. Ky.).

Pro se Plaintiff Christopher Class challenged Kentucky's imposition
of state taxes on his federal employment income.  

The Court, on sua sponte review, dismissed Class's complaint for
lack of jurisdiction and entered judgment in favor of the
Defendants. Class now objects to the dismissal pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
Section 702. However, given Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court
will construe the filing as a motion to alter or amend under Rule
59(e).  

The Sixth Circuit narrowly defines appropriate circumstances for
Rule 59(e) relief. A movant must show: (1) a clear error of law;
(2) newly discovered evidence (3) an intervening change in
controlling law or (4) a need to prevent manifest injustice.

He contends the Court erred: (1) in assuming that Class failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies (2) by minimizing the amount in
controversy (3) in assuming that Class could not successfully prove
his claims before a jury (4) and by finding the parties lacked
complete diversity.  

The Plaintiff, again and as a foundational flaw of the entire case,
failed to address the most relevant federal statute: 28 U.S.C.
Section 1341. Class failed to show any error in the Court's
application of the Tax Injunction Act. This deficiency renders
Class's pending attack on the Court's judgment entirely
ineffective.  

Class's only current claim bearing any resemblance to a dispute
regarding TIA application is his exhaustion allegation. However,
availability, not exhaustion of remedies is the relevant question
for TIA purposes. Class did not and does not here challenge the
speed or efficiency of Kentucky's remedial scheme.

Because the motion provides no reason to call the Court's prior
dismissal into question, the Court denies Class' Motion to Object
case dismissal.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y62h8bve from
Leagle.com.

Christopher R. Class, Federal/Millitary Employee; and on behalf of
a class of people of similar circumstances, Plaintiff, pro se.

State of Kentucky, Tax Agency & Attorney General Andy Beshear,
Defendants, represented by Steven Travis Mayo, Commonwealth of
Kentucky.


KIPLINGER WASHINGTON: Discloses Personal Reading Info, Strano Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RALPH STRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. THE KIPLINGER WASHINGTON EDITORS,
INC., a Delaware limited liability corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-11913-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., June 27, 2019), targets
Kiplinger's intentional and unlawful disclosure of customers'
Personal Reading Information in violation of the Preservation of
Personal Privacy Act (PPPA).

According to the complaint, Kiplinger rented, exchanged, and/or
otherwise disclosed personal information about Plaintiff's Personal
Finance magazine subscription to data aggregators, data appenders,
data cooperatives, and list brokers, among others, which in turn
disclosed his information to aggressive advertisers, political
organizations, and non-profit companies.

As a result, Mr. Strano has received a barrage of unwanted junk
mail. By renting, exchanging, and/or otherwise disclosing Mr.
Strano's Personal Reading Information between June 27, 2016 and
July 30, 2016, Kiplinger violated Michigan's Preservation of
Personal Privacy Act.

Kiplinger's disclosure of Personal Reading Information, and other
personal, demographic, and lifestyle information is not only
unlawful, but also dangerous because it allows for the targeting of
particularly vulnerable members of society. In fact, almost any
organization can rent a highly-detailed customer list from
Kiplinger that contains detailed information pertaining to its
subscribers. For example, almost any organization could rent a list
with the names and addresses of all Kiplinger's Personal Finance
customers who are female and reside in Michigan; such a list is
available for sale for approximately $173.00 per thousand
subscribers listed.

While Kiplinger profits handsomely from the unauthorized rental,
exchange, and/or disclosure of its customers' Personal Reading
Information and other personal information, it does so at the
expense of its customers' privacy and statutory rights because
Kiplinger does not obtain its customers' written consent prior to
disclosing their Personal Reading Information, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

LIBERTY NATIONAL: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss in Goostree Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion denying
Defendants’ Motion to Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned KEE
GOOSTREE, as representative of the ESTATE OF ALTON H. PADGETT, and
JEAN G. PADGETT, Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY and ROBERT D. BICE, Defendants. Case No. 1:19-CV-00071-KOB
(N.D. Ala.).

The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action consisting of people
located in Alabama who purchased or owned life insurance policies
through the Defendants for which their premiums paid exceed their
death benefits payable. They sued Liberty National Life Insurance
Company and Liberty National insurance agent Robert D. Bice for
various claims relating to Defendants allegedly recommending and
selling insurance policies to Plaintiffs that were inappropriate
for the Plaintiffs' needs.

Mr. Bice's motion to dismiss argues essentially what Defendants
noted in their notice of removal regarding fraudulent joinder:
Plaintiffs' claims against Mr. Bice are barred by Alabama Code
Section 6-5-462 and Plaintiffs failed to state a claim as a matter
of law against Mr. Bice, the non-diverse Defendant.

Standard of Review

A federal court may properly assert diversity jurisdiction over a
case in which the non-diverse defendant has been fraudulently
joined. When a plaintiff names a non-diverse defendant solely  to
defeat federal diversity jurisdiction, the district court must
ignore the presence of the non-diverse defendant.

To prove that a co-defendant was fraudulently joined, a defendant
must demonstrate that (1) there is no possibility that plaintiff
can establish a cause of action against the resident defendant or
(2) the plaintiff has fraudulently pled jurisdictional facts to
bring the resident defendant into state court. Such a showing must
be made by clear and convincing evidence.

The court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction
before considering Mr. Bice's motion to dismiss, the court's
analysis must focus on whether the complaint possibly states a
valid cause of action against Mr. Bice before the court can reach
the issue of jurisdiction under CAFA or whether the court must
dismiss Mr. Bice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

Liberty National first argues that Plaintiffs cannot assert a claim
against Mr. Bice for breach of contract under Count One because Mr.
Bice is not a party to any of the insurance contracts between
Liberty National and Plaintiffs. Instead, it contends that Mr. Bice
is merely a sales agent for Liberty National. Similarly, Mr. Bice
contends that an insurance agent cannot be held individually liable
for breach of an insurance contract under Alabama law.

Mr. Bice was not a party to any of the insurance contracts the only
parties to the contracts were the Padgetts and Liberty National.
And it is hornbook contract law that someone who is not a party to
a contract cannot be bound by the contract.

True, generally, an agent cannot be held liable for her principal's
breach of contract. This rule also applies to the insurance
context; an individual acting only as an agent of the insurance
company cannot be held liable for the insurance company's breach of
contract.

In this case, the Plaintiffs never allege that Mr. Bice acted in
any capacity other than that of Liberty National's agent. The
complaint alleges that The Policy and Class Policies constitute
contracts between Plaintiffs and the Class on the one hand, and
Defendant on the other. The complaint does not specify to which
defendant this statement refers, but the court assumes that it
refers to Defendant Liberty National because Plaintiffs sought
insurance coverage from Liberty National not from Mr. Bice
personally.

In their brief, Plaintiffs appear to conflate their breach of
contract claim with their breach of implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing claim. They offer citations to cases holding that
an insurance broker or agent can be held liable for failing to
procure insurance for a client, and that the agent or broker can be
held liable in contract or in tort for such a failure.

But holding an insurance agent liable for breach of contract for
failing to procure insurance differs from holding an insurance
agent liable for the alleged excessive premiums for the insurance
charged by the insurer. And Plaintiffs never argue that Mr. Bice
failed to procure an insurance policy. Instead, they seem to allege
that Mr. Bice procured policies unsuitable for Plaintiffs' needs.
Plaintiffs' arguments and citations are better suited for arguing
that Mr. Bice violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. And Plaintiffs point to no case where an insurance agent
was liable for the insurer's breach of contract.

Because Mr. Bice acted only as an agent of Liberty National in
forming the contracts between Liberty National and Plaintiffs and
because Alabama law prevents an agent from being held liable for
his principal's alleged breach of contract, Plaintiffs have no
possibility of asserting a valid breach of contract cause of action
against Mr. Bice.

Just as in the claim for breach of contract, Liberty National and
Mr. Bice contend that Plaintiffs cannot assert a claim against Mr.
Bice for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing in Count Two because Mr. Bice is not a party to any of the
insurance contracts between Liberty National and Plaintiffs.

The court first considers whether an insurance agent owes a duty of
fair dealing to the purchaser of insurance. Alabama follows the
general rule that insurance agents generally are not liable for
actions other than obtaining insurance coverage for their insureds
unless a special relationship has been established between the
parties. Insurance agents and brokers owe a duty agents to the
insurer and brokers to the insured to exercise reasonable skill,
care, and diligence in effecting coverage after the parties have
come to an agreement on the procurement of insurance.

Here, the Plaintiffs do allege that a special relationship existed
between Mr. Bice and the Padgetts. They contend that by and through
this long-term relationship with Mr. Bice over the 33 years he was
their insurance agent, the Padgetts reposed trust in him regarding
their insurance needs. But, no express agreement existed, no
additional compensation was paid, and no evidence indicates that
Mr. Bice held himself out to the Plaintiffs as an expert.

The court finds that the Plaintiffs did not fraudulently join Mr.
Bice in this action. Thus, the court does not have diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3hwma23 from
Leagle.com.

Kee Goostree, as representative of the estate of Alton H Padgett &
Jean G Padgett, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeffrey P. Mauro --
jpmauro@baddleymauro.com -- BADDLEY & MAURO, LLC, John Parker
Yates, YATES LAW, LLC, 850 Shades Creek Parkway, Ste. 310
Birmingham, AL 35209, Thomas E. Baddley, Jr. --
tbaddley@baddleymauro.com -- CAMPBELL PARTNERS, Andrew Phillip
Campbell, CAMPBELL PARTNERS LAW, LLC & Cason M. Kirby, CAMPBELL
PARTNERS. 27 E. 4th Street, P.O. Box 41012-0044, Covington, KY
41012- 0044.

Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Kriston Laney Gifford -- lgifford@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT
BOULT CUMMINGS LLP, Michael R. Pennington --
mpennington@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP & Scott
B. Smith -- ssmith@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS
LLP.

Robert D Bice, Defendant, represented by Donald R. James, Jr.,
BAXLEY, DILLARD, MCKNIGHT, JAMES & MCELROY & Randy James, BAXLEY,
DILLARD, MCKNIGHT, JAMES & MCELROY, 2700 Highway 280, Suite 110
East, Birmingham, Alabama 35223


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Certification of Classes and Sub-Classes Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, IN RE: LINCOLN NATIONAL COI LITIGATION
Case No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:

   1. certifying Classes and Sub-classes and appointing
      corresponding Class Representatives:

      The Nationwide Class:

      "all owners of JP Lifewriter Legend 100, 200, 300, and 400
      series life insurance policies subjected to an increase in
      the cost of insurance rates implemented by Lincoln
      beginning on October 9, 2016, represented by all Class
      Plaintiffs";

      The North Carolina Sub-Class:

      "all members of the Nationwide Class who were residents of
      North Carolina when their Policies were issued, represented
      by Plaintiffs Carol Anne and Lowell Rauch";

      The New Jersey Sub-Class:

      "all members of the Nationwide Class who were residents of
      New Jersey when their Policies were issued, represented by
      Plaintiffs Bharti R. Bharwani and Arthur Milgrim";

      The California Sub-Class:

      "all members of the Nationwide Class who were residents of
      California when their Policies were issued, represented by
      Plaintiffs Barbara Valentine and Ivan and Alan Mindlin";

      The California Elder Abuse Sub-Class:

      "all members of the California Sub-Class over the age 65 as
      of October 9, 2016, represented by Plaintiff Barbara
      Valentine";

      The Florida Sub-Class:

      "all members of the Nationwide Class who were residents of
      Florida when their Policies were issued, represented by
      Plaintiff Barry Mukamal";

      The Georgia Sub-Class:

      "all members of the Nationwide Class who were residents of
      Georgia when their Policies were issued, represented by
      Plaintiff Richard Weinstein"; and

      The Maryland Sub-Class:

      "all members of the Nationwide Class who were residents of
      Maryland when their Policies were issued, represented by
      Plaintiffs Robert Rombro and Harriet Kanter."

Excluded from the foregoing Classes are the Lincoln Defendants,
their officers and directors, members of their immediate families,
and the heirs, successors orassigns of any of the foregoing, and
those Policyowners who have commenced their own individual
litigation challenging the legitimacy of the COI Increases.

The Plaintiffs also request that the Court appoint Jeffrey W. Golan
of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett Fairbourn
Friedman & Balint, PC, Stephen G. Sklaver of Susman Godfrey L.L.P.,
and Adam M. Moskowitz of The Moskowitz Law Firm PLLC as Co- Lead
Class Counsel for the Classes.

The Plaintiffs are Robert Rombro and Harriet Kanter, as Trustees
for the Alan Norman Kanter Trust; Ivan Mindlin, as Trustee of the
Mindlin Irrevocable Trust, and Alan Mindlin, as the insured who
funded the policies; Richard Weinstein, as an owner of a life
insurance policy insuring the life of Jay Weinstein; Lowell
Rauch and Carol Anne Rauch; Bharti R. Bharwani; Robert A. Zirinsky;
Barry Mukamal, as Trustee of the Mutual Benefits Keep Policy Trust;
US Life 1 Renditefonds GmbH & Co. Kg ("US Life 1") and US Life 2
Renditefonds GmbH & Co. Kg ("US Life 2"; together, "US Life"), as
owners of life insurance policies insuring the life of Loucille
Martindale; Milgrim Investments, LP ("Milgrim"), a New Jersey
Limited partnership; and Barbara Valentine.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Members of Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee are:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          Kimberly C. Page, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN &
          BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E Camelback Rd No. 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016

               - and -

          Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
          Robert A. Hoffman, Esq.
          Lisa M. Port, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

               - and -

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          One America Plaza
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM

               - and -

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Howard Bushman, Esq.
          2 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          SUSMAN G ODFREY L.L.P.
          Steven G. Sklaver
          1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067

               - and -

          Seth Ard, Esq.
          Jillian Hewitt, Esq.
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019


LIVENT CORP: Hagens Berman Reminds of Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, with nine offices in eight cities
around the country and eighty attorneys, reminds investors in
Livent Corporation (NYSE: LTHM) of the Lead Plaintiff deadline in
the securities class action, Nikolov v. Livent Corp. et al., No.
2:19-cv-02218, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Livent securities between
October 7, 2018 and May 22, 2019 (the "Class Period") and suffered
losses you do not need to sign up to be included in the putative
class of investors.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Livent securities during the
Class Period and suffered significant losses (in excess of
$50,000), you may qualify to be a lead plaintiff – one who
selects and oversees the attorneys prosecuting the case.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must move the Court no later than July 22, 2019 (the "Lead
Plaintiff Deadline").  Contact Hagens Berman immediately for more
information about the case and being a lead plaintiff.

https://www.hbsslaw.com/cases/LTHM

or contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation,
by calling 510-725-3000 or emailing

LTHM@hbsslaw.com.

According to the complaint, Defendants improperly concealed (1) the
termination of a supply contract with Nemaska Lithium Inc., and (2)
fulfillment of customer contracts using alternative vendors would
adversely affect Livent.

"We're focused on investors' losses and the extent to which
Defendants' IPO- and post-IPO statements about the Company's
business may have misled investors," said Hagens Berman partner
Reed Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding
Livent should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.  Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC.  

For more information contact:

       Reed Kathrein, Esq.
       Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
       Phone: 510-725-3000
       Website: www.hbsslaw.com/cases/LTHM
       E-mail: LTHM@hbsslaw.com
               reed@hbsslaw.com
[GN]




LUIGI'S BRIGHTON: Sicajau Seeks Minimum & Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN PECHER SICAJAU, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LUIGI'S BRIGHTON BEACH INC. d/b/a
LUIGI'S PIZZA, and GONXHE MARKE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03575 (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt
dishwasher, porter, kitchen helper/food preparer, stock person, and
food delivery worker for the Restaurant from on or about October
15, 2018 until on or about April 14, 2019. The work performed by
Plaintiff was directly essential to the business operated by
Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully
failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned minimum wages in direct
contravention of the FLSA and New York Labor Law.

Throughout the entirety of his employment, the Plaintiff was paid,
in cash, at the rate of $400 per week straight time for all hours
worked, and worked 72 hours per week. Work performed above 40 hours
per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as
required by state and federal law.

Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with weekly wage statements
in conjunction with payment of his cash wages, which set forth his
gross wages, deductions, and net wages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff:

           Justin Cilenti, Esq.
           Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
           CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
           10 Grand Central
           155 East 44th Street - 6 111 Floor
           New York, NY 10017
           Telephone: (212) 209-3933
           Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
           E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com

LYFT INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Lyft, Inc. (LYFT) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern
District of California, and indexed under 19-cv-03003, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Lyft common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Form S-1 Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with Lyft's March
2019 initial public stock offering (the "IPO" or "Offering").

This action asserts non-fraud strict liability claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act")
against Lyft and certain Lyft's officers and directors
(collectively, the "Defendants").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Lyft securities pursuant or
traceable to the IPO, you have until July 16, 2019, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

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

In November 2018, following its $251 million acquisition of
Bikeshare Holdings LLC ("Motivate"), the largest bike share
operator in North America with a 2017 revenue of approximately $100
million, Lyft added bikes to its suite of services. According to
its Form S-1 filed on March 1, 2019, with the SEC, Lyft acquired
Motivate to "establish a solid foothold in the bike-share market
and offer access to new transportation options on the Lyft
Platform." Pursuant to its agreement, Lyft acquired Motivate's
technology and corporate functions, including its city contracts
(e.g., New York City's "Citi Bike").

On March 28, 2019, in what appeared to be a race against the
world's number-one rideshare company, Uber Technologies, Inc.
("Uber"), to be first to list its shares on a public exchange, Lyft
conducted an IPO through which it offered 32.5 million shares to
the public at a price of $72.00 per share for anticipated total
proceeds to Lyft of over $2.275 billion.

According to the Offering Documents filed in connection with the
IPO, Lyft estimated that its ridesharing marketplace "is available
to over 95% of the U.S. population, as well as in select cities in
Canada." Lyft also asserted that its "U.S. ridesharing market share
was 39% in December 2018, up from 22% in December 2016."

The Complaint alleges that unbeknownst to investors, however, the
Registration Statement's representations were materially
inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to
disclose, among other things, 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; and (4) Lyft failed to warn
investors that a labor disruption could affect its operations.
Accordingly, the price of the Company's shares was artificially and
materially inflated at the time of the Offering. Accordingly, the
price of the Company's shares was artificially and materially
inflated at the time of the Offering.

As the true facts emerged in the wake of the Offering, the
Company's share price fell sharply from the $72.00 Offering price,
damaging investors.

         Contact:
         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Phone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


LYFT INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Lyft, Inc.
("Lyft" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: LYFT) for violations of the
federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant to and/or
traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering in March 2019
(the "IPO") are encouraged to contact the firm before July 16,
2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Rina Restaino, of
the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Lyft's claimed position in the
ridesharing market was overstated. More than 1,000 of the Company's
ridesharing bicycles suffered from safety deficiencies requiring a
recall to fix. At the same time, the Company's drivers were
becoming disincentivized from driving for Lyft. The Company failed
to warn investors that this labor disruption could threaten its
operations. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the IPO period.
When the market learned the truth about Lyft, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East
         Suite 404, Los Angeles
         CA 90067
         Phone:
            Office: 310-301-3335
            Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


LYFT, INC: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts to July 16 Plaintiff 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. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Lyft, Inc. (LYFT)
Class Period: pursuant or traceable to the Company's Offering and
Registration Statement issued in relation to the March 28, 2019
IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lyft-inc-loss-form?wire=3

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.

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

Jumia Technologies AG (JMIA)
Class Period: Purchasers of American Depositary Shares between
April 12, 2019 and May 9, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 15, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/jumia-technologies-ag-loss-form?wire=3


Allegations: Jumia Technologies AG made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Jumia had
materially overstated its active customers and active merchants;
(b) Jumia's representations about its orders, order cancellations,
undelivered orders and returned orders lacked a sufficient factual
basis and materially overstated the Company's sales; (c) Jumia
failed to sufficiently disclose related party transactions; and (d)
Jumia's financial statements were presented in violation of
applicable accounting standards.

To learn more about the Jumia Technologies AG class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Eros International Plc (EROS)
Class Period: July 28, 2017 - June 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/eros-international-plc-loss-form?wire=3


Allegations: During the class period, Eros International Plc made
materially 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 ("EIML"), 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.

To learn more about the Eros International Plc class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (TEVA)
Class Period: on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Teva American Depositary Shares ("ADS") between
August 4, 2017 and May 10, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/teva-pharmaceutical-industries-ltd-loss-form?wire=3


Allegations: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. made materially
false and/or misleading statements throughout the class period
and/or failed to disclose that: (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.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]



MACY'S INC.: Hit With Class Suit Over Criminal History Checks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper and Paige Smith, writing for Bloomberg Law, report
that Macy's Inc. illegally rejects job applicants, revokes job
offers, and terminates employment based on old, minor, and
unrelated criminal histories, a class action filed June 26
alleges.

The retailer's policies and practices "reinforce the racial
discrimination present in the criminal justice system and result in
unjustified racial disparities in employment opportunities," it
says.

The complaint alleges violations of civil rights laws barring
disparate impact discrimination, which focuses on neutral
employment policies that have a disproportionately negative effect
on workers based on race or other protected characteristics. It
also says Macy's violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act's
protections against using criminal history information in consumer
reports against applicants without their knowledge. Macy's is one
of the largest retailers in the U.S., with subsidiaries including
Bloomingdale's and Bluemercury.

In recent years, state and federal lawmakers and civil rights
agencies have highlighted the impact of background checks in
employment decisions, with some success.

"Ban-the-box" laws that bar employers from factoring criminal
convictions into employment decisions have been enacted in 35
states and more than 150 cities and counties. In March, a federal
bill that would prohibit federal agencies and contractors from
asking job applicants about their criminal histories until later in
the hiring process cleared a House committee.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces federal
anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act, issued controversial guidance on the issue during the Obama
administration. The state of Texas challenged that guidance in 2013
and convinced a federal judge to block it. But the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is now considering whether the state
is able to sue over the guidance.

The EEOC declined to comment on the Macy's case but stated that the
agency's position is outlined in the updated guidance posted on its
website.

The debated issue of criminal histories impacting employment
chances also exposes a rift between the EEOC and the Justice
Department, which both enforce Title VII. While the DOJ agrees that
the case brought by Texas shouldn't be heard, it disagrees with the
EEOC's stance that requesting criminal history screenings could
impact an applicant's shot at being hired.

Outten & Golden associate Cheryl-Lyn Bentley, Esq.--
cbentley@outtengolden.com-- who is part of a team of plaintiffs'
attorneys working on the Macy's case, said workers from several
states have already reported the alleged discrimination but that
more from across the country could join.

"The people that have come to our firm have been people who have
applied to Macy's all over," she said.

The lawsuit was filed by Fortune Society Inc., a nonprofit
organization that provides alternatives to incarceration and
reentry assistance to individuals impacted by the criminal justice
system.

"We work really hard to help people get jobs, and Macy's is an
important employer," Fortune Society President and CEO JoAnne Page
said. "They are in an industry that is really full of potential."

Page said they originally filed charges with the EEOC in 2017.

"When people are arrested even, but certainly when they get
convicted for a crime, it's like an albatross around their neck for
the rest of their lives," she said. "When we see an important
employer who bars our folks from jobs that can give them a future,
we always see if it's possible for them to change their policies."

Causes of Action: Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, New York
City Human Rights Law, Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Relief: Injunction barring unlawful practices; class certification;
statutory and punitive damages.

Potential Class Size: All job applicants and employees affected by
the alleged practices at 800 stores nationwide.

Response: Macy's declined to comment.

Attorneys: Outten & Golden LLP, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational
Fund Inc., and Youth Represent filed the complaint.

The case is The Fortune Soc'y, Inc. v. Macy's, Inc., S.D.N.Y., No.
19-5961, filed 6/26/19.
[GN]



MCSS REST: Court Certifies 4 Employee Classes
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, CATALINO MENDEZ et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
MCSS REST. CORP. et al., the Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-2746 (NGG)
(RLM) (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis entered an
order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for an order affirming that the
      court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their
      New York Labor Law claims and certifying four classes --
      the Old Tipped Employees, Old Non-Tipped Employees, New
      Tipped Employees, and New Non-Tipped Employees;

      Old Tipped Employees:

      "all persons who worked as tipped hourly food service
      workers ("tipped employees") at Cross Bay Diner between May
      31, 2010 and its closure after Hurricane Sandy in or around
      October 29, 2012 and at Parkview Diner at any time between
      May 31, 2010 and its sale in or around July 2014";

      Old Non-Tipped Employees:

      "all persons who worked as non-tipped employees at Cross
      Bay Diner between May 31,2010 and its closure after
      Hurricane Sandy in or around October 29, 2012 and at
      Parkview Diner at any time between May 31,2010 and its sale
      in or around July 2014";

      New Tipped Employees:

      "all persons who worked as tipped employees at Cross Bay
      Diner at any time between its reopening after Hurricane
      Sandy on or about May 24,2013 and the present"; and

      New Non-Tipped Employees:

      "all persons who worked as non-tipped employees at Cross
      Bay Diner at any time between its re-opening after
      Hurricane Sandy on or about May 24,2013 and the present."

   2. appointing Plaintiffs Catalino Mendez, Eduardo Chocoj, and
      Israel Rodriguez as class representatives;

   3. appointing Pelton Graham LLC as class counsel; and

   4. directing parties to proceed with class-wide discovery and
      to confer regarding the form of class notice and the
      production of Class Members' contact information before
      submitting a proposed notice to the court.[CC]


MDL 2873: Smith vs. 3M Company over AFFF Products Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case is captioned as ROBINSON SMITH, NANCY ANN WILLIAMS, ROBERT
WILLIAMS, ROBERT WILLIAMS JR., PATRICIA DUBLIN, WILLIAM DUBLIN,
DANIEL YODER, JASON BOUFFARD, JILL CWIKLIK, MARY KATHRYN RENDALL,
RICHARD REYNOLDS, LORRIE HODGDON, RENEE GAUTHIER, VANESSA SULLIVAN,
KATIE TSIGOUNIS, CHARLES BADGER, JONATHAN ROSE, ROBERT HARRIMAN,
BENJAMIN BURKE, ANTHONY DEBLAISE and JEFF REED, the Plaintiffs, vs.
3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC., TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P.,
successor in interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY, NATIONAL FOAM, INC.,
E.I DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, individually and as successor in
interest to DuPont Chemical Solutions Enterprise, THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY, individually and as successor in interest to DuPont
Chemical Solutions Enterprise, and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, L.L.C.,
individually and as successor in interest to DuPont Chemical
Solutions Enterprise, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00560, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the  District of New
Hampshire, to the the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina (Charleston) on June 18, 2019. The District of South
Carolina Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01746-RMG to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Honorable Richard M
Gergel. The lead case is Case No. 2:18-mn-02873-RMG.

The Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for medical monitoring
and property damage as a result of their exposure to water
contaminated with toxic chemicals resulting from Defendants'
harmful and defective products, aqueous firefighting foams ("AFFF")
and other materials containing perfluorochemicals (PFCs) including
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related fluorochemicals
that can degrade to perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") or PFOS, which
were released onto the ground, into the environment and infiltrated
the groundwater and Plaintiffs' drinking/potable water.

The Smith case is being consolidated with MDL 2873 in RE: Aqueous
Film-Forming Foams (AFFF) Products Liability Litigation.

3M Company, is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, health care, and consumer
goods.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

          Tate J. Kunkle, Esq.
          Patrick J. Lanciotti, Esq.
          360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: tkunkle@napolilaw.com
                  planciotti@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence A. Vogelman, Esq.
          77 Central Street, 11th Floor
          Manchester, NH 03101
          Telephone: (603) 669-7070
          E-mail: ksimoneau@davenixonlaw.com
                  LVogelman@davenixonlaw.com

MDL 2879: Simon Suit vs Marriott over Data Breach Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit titled Aryeh Simon and Sassya Simon,
Individually and on Behalf of a Class of all Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide LLC, Arne Sorenson, and Does
1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00873 (Filed Dec. 5, 2019),
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland (Greenbelt) on June 27, 2019. The District of Maryland
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:19-cv-01792-PWG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege violation of customers' privacy rights.

The Simon case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2879 in re:
Marriott International, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 6, 2019. These
actions -- which are putative nationwide and/or statewide consumer
class actions -- share factual issues concerning a
recently-disclosed breach of Marriott's Starwood guest reservation
database from 2014 to 2018. In its Feb. 6, 2019 Order, the MDL
Panel found that the factual overlap among these actions is
substantial, as they all arise from the same data breach, and they
all allege that Marriott failed to put in to place reasonable data
protections. Many also allege that Marriott did not timely notify
the public of the data breach. Centralization will eliminate
duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on
class certification and other issues, and conserve the resources of
the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in
the MDL is Hon. Judge. Paul W. Grimm. The lead case is
8:19-md-02879-PWG.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Daniel R Warren, Esq.
          Gilbert S Keteltas, Esq.
          Lisa M Ghannoum, Esq.
          BAKER AND HOSTETLER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave. NW Ste. 1100
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 861-1530
          Facsimile: (202) 861-1783
          E-mail: gketeltas@bakerlaw.com
                  lghannoum@bakerlaw.com
                  dwarren@bakerlaw.com

MDL 2887: Connary Suit over Tainted Dog Food Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, Donna Connary on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.  HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC.
and Colgate-Palmolive Company, the Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-00913 (Filed April 2, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City) on June 17,
2019. The District of Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-02327-JAR-TJJ to proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Chief District Judge Julie A. Robinson. The suit alleges
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act violation.

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Benjamin Blakeman, Esq.
          BLAKEMAN LAW
          8383 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 510
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (213) 629-9922
          Facsimile: (213) 232-3230

METRO BANK: Vincent Wong Notifies of July 29 Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Metro Bank PLC (OTCMKTS: MBNKF)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019
Class Period: March 6, 2018 and May 1, 2019

Get additional information about MBNKF:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/metro-bank-plc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Momo Inc. (NASDAQ: MOMO)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 15, 2019
Class Period: April 21, 2014 and April 29, 2019

Get additional information about MOMO:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/momo-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (NASDAQGS: ASNA)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 6, 2019
Class Period: September 16, 2015 and June 8, 2017

Get additional information about ASNA:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ascena-retail-group-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Pyxus International, Inc.  (NYSE: PYX)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 6, 2019
Class Period: on behalf of stockholders who purchased Pyxus (f/k/a
Alliance One International, Inc. (AOI)) securities between June 7,
2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive.

Get additional information about PYX:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/pyxus-international-inc-f-k-a-alliance-one-international-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Phone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]



MOMO INC: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Momo Inc.
("Momo" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: MOMO) for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between April 21, 2015
and April 29, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 15, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Sherin Mahdavian,
of the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Momo failed to maintain adequate controls
and compliance procedures to prevent inappropriate financial
reporting activity. The Company's Tantan dating app was not
compliant with Chinese laws. This put the app at risk of being
removed from Chinese app stores at the direction of government
officials. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the
truth about Momo, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone:  
           Office: 310-301-3335
           Cell:   424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com.
                sherin@schallfirm.com
[GN]




MOMO INC: Vincent Wong Notes of July 15 Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Metro Bank PLC (OTCMKTS: MBNKF)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019
Class Period: March 6, 2018 and May 1, 2019

Get additional information about MBNKF:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/metro-bank-plc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Momo Inc. (NASDAQ: MOMO)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 15, 2019
Class Period: April 21, 2014 and April 29, 2019

Get additional information about MOMO:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/momo-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (NASDAQGS: ASNA)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 6, 2019
Class Period: September 16, 2015 and June 8, 2017

Get additional information about ASNA:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ascena-retail-group-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Pyxus International, Inc.  (NYSE: PYX)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 6, 2019
Class Period: on behalf of stockholders who purchased Pyxus (f/k/a
Alliance One International, Inc. (AOI)) securities between June 7,
2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive.

Get additional information about PYX:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/pyxus-international-inc-f-k-a-alliance-one-international-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Phone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]



MONSANTO COMPANY: Allison Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dawayne Allison, Sr., the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00978-KOB (N.D. Ala., 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:

          Christine C. Brandt, 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: cbrandt@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Benton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Wade Benton, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00976-KOB (N.D. Ala., 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:

          Christine C. Brandt, 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: cbrandt@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Brasfield Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Joyce Brasfield, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00974-RDP (N.D. Ala., 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:

          Christine C. Brandt, 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: cbrandt@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Bryan Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Lee Bryan, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00314-N (M.D. Ala., 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:

          Christine C. Brandt, 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: cbrandt@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Caminiti Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly A. Caminiti, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00979-SGC (N.D. Ala., 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:

          Christine C. Brandt, 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: cbrandt@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Cannings Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD CANNING and SHIRLEY CANNING, Husband and Wife, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00338-LG-RHW (D. Mass., June 24, 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. Richard
Canning'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:

          Francis J. Lynch, III, Esq.
          Peter E. Heppner, Esq.
          Matthew J. Ilacqua, Esq.
          LYNCH & LYNCH
          45 Bristol Drive
          South Easton, MA 02375
          Telephone: (508) 230-2500
          E-mail: Pheppner@lynchlynch.com
                  milacqua@lynchlynch.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: McCall Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy R. McCall, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00982-KOB (N.D. Ala., 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:

          Christine C. Brandt, 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: cbrandt@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Melton Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNIE M. MELTON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01835 (E.D. Mo., June 26, 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 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: Metcalf Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roderick Burrell Metcalf, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00980-LCB (N.D. Ala., 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:

          Christine C. Brandt, 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: cbrandt@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Orrs Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
---------------------------------------------------------
JAMES D. ORR and LESLIE ORR, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01836 (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. James D.
Orr'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: Payne Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Stephenson Payne, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00975-KOB (N.D. Ala., 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:

          Christine C. Brandt, 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: cbrandt@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Scruggs Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
John L. Scruggs, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00977-SGC (N.D. Ala., 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:

          Christine C. Brandt, 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: cbrandt@morrisbart.com
                  bbarnes@morrisbart.com
                  rroot@morrisbart.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Terhune et al Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, GERALD TERHUNE and PATY TERHUNE, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01419-SPM (Filed on May 24,
2019), was transferred from the United District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri to the United District Court for the
Northern District of California. This product liability case is now
assigned to Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. Accordingly, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03465 to the proceeding.

In this complaint, Plaintiffs Gerald Terhune and Paty Terhune seek
for damages they suffered as a direct and proximate result of
Monsanto'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, containing the active ingredient glyphosate.
Plaintiffs maintain that Roundup 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.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in St. Louis Missouri. It is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation, which is considered as the
world's leading producer of glyphosate. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Nabriva Therapeutics plc ("Nabriva" or the "Company")
(NBRV) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in
United States District Court, for the Southern District of New
York, and indexed under 19-cv-04713, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Nabriva securities between November 1, 2018 and April 30,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims
against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Nabriva securities during
the class period, you have until July 8, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Nabriva is a biopharmaceutical company that purports to develop
novel anti-infective agents to treat serious infections. One of the
Company's product candidates is CONTEPO, an epoxide antibiotic
developed by Zavante Therapeutics ("Zavante"), which the Company
acquired in July 2018.

The complaint 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: (i) the Company's manufacturers
failed to meet good manufacturing practices; (ii) these
manufacturers would be subject to inspections by the FDA in
connection with the Company's NDA; (iii) as a result of the
manufacturing deficiencies, the Company's NDA for CONTEPO was
unlikely to be approved by the FDA; and (iv) 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 April 30, 2019, the Company revealed that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") would not approve its New Drug Application
("NDA") for CONTEPO due to "issues related to facility inspections
and manufacturing deficiencies at one of Nabriva's contract
manufacturers."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.82 per share, or
over 27%, to close at $2.17 per share on May 1, 2019, on unusually
high trading volume.

Contact:

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Phone: 888-476-6529 ext. 9980
         Website: www.pomerantzlaw.com
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


NATIONAL CONGRESS OF EMPLOYEES: HII Files Motion to Quash Subpoena
------------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to quash subpoena and motion for protective order and
incorporated memorandum of law have been filed by non-party Health
Insurance Innovations, Inc. (HII) pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) and 26(c), and Local Rule 3.01, in
connection with the case, MARY BILEK, individually and on Behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL CONGRESS OF
EMPLOYEES, ET AL., Defendants Case No. 1:18-cv-03083 (Filed on
April 30, 2018).

In this lawsuit, Bilek, individually, and on behalf of others
presumable similarly situated, alleges that certain entities and
individuals violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
making four phone calls to her cellular phone.

HII's motion claims that Alexander Burke, Esq. with Burke Law
Office LLC, on behalf of Plaintiff, Mary Bilek, served a Rule 45
Subpoena on non-party HII requesting that HII produce documents and
designate a Rule 30(b)(6)corporate representative to testify at a
deposition.  Burke allegedly failed to provide any information that
suggests was involved with these calls, and Burke is pursuing
duplicitous discovery in multiple lawsuits. Burke should obtain the
discovery from the actual defendants in this lawsuit instead of
burdening HII with the non-party Subpoena. Accordingly, the motion
also alleges that Burke is misusing the Subpoena as a way to
circumvent the district court of Florida's ability to manage the
discovery process.

Headquartered in Tampa, Florida, HHI operates as a cloud-based
technology platform and distributor of individual and family health
insurance plans, and supplemental products in the United States.
[BN]

Attorneys for Non-party Health Insurance Innovations, Inc.:

     Dariel Abrahamy, Esq.
     GREENSPOON MARDER LLP
     2255 Glades Road, Suite 400-E
     Boca Raton, FL 22431
     Telephone: (561) 994-2212
     E-mail: dariel.abrahamy@gmlaw.com


NATURE MEDIC: Skadowski and Shin Drop Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint against Nature Medic, LLC, Kim Nick, and
Kang Soo Jang for alleged fraud has been quickly dismissed by the
plaintiffs.  The case was captioned James Skadowski et al v. Nature
Medic, LLC et al, Case No. 2:19-cv-05213-DSF-JPR (C.D. Cal., June
14, 2019), and assigned to the Hon. Judge Dale S. Fischer.

Nature Medic, LLC is a Fucoidan-specialized global company founded
in 2014. The company is composed of a group of
Fucoidan-professional executives and managers that since 2005 have
been playing a fundamental role in the introduction of Fucoidan
products to many countries, including the United States.

A Notice to Parties of court-directed ADR Program was lodged on the
case docket on June 14.  Five days later, Plaintiffs filed a Notice
of Dismissal Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 41(a) or (c) against defendants
Kang Soo Jang, Nature Medic, LLC, Kim Nick.  Dismissal is without
Prejudice.  On June 20, a Recommendation presented by Magistrate
Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth was posted on the docket regarding a
Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.  A Proposed Order was
forwarded to the District Judge for approval.[BN]

Plaintiffs James Skadowski and James Shin are residents of Los
Angeles, California.  They appear pro se.


NATURE MEDIC: Skadowski Seeks $250,000 in Personal Injury Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Nature Medic, LLC,
Kim Nick, and Kang Soo Jang for negligence. The case is captioned
James Skadowski v. Nature Medic, LLC et al, Case No.
2:19-cv-05261-MWF-JPR (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2019). This personal
injury case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald.
Skadowski demands a maximum of $250,000 in compensation.

Nature Medic, LLC is a Fucoidan-specialized global company founded
in 2014. The company is composed of a group of
Fucoidan-professional executives and managers that since 2005 have
been playing a fundamental role in the introduction of Fucoidan
products to many countries, including the United States.[BN]

James Skadowski, who is filing the lawsuit "on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated," appears pro se.  He is a
resident of Los Angeles, California.

NAVISTAR: Seeks Prelim. Approval of EGR Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Morgan, writing for Fleet Equipment Magazine, reports that
Navistar took a major step to resolve the legal accusations filed
in 2014. U.S class action plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking
preliminary judicial approval of a settlement agreement that, when
effective, will be a major step in resolving EGR litigation related
to Model Year 2011-2014 Class 8 trucks sold with the company's big
bore engines, the company stated. In anticipation of that
settlement, Navistar is taking a $159 million charge, including
$135 million to reflect the cost of the proposed settlement and an
additional $24 million for certain other engine lawsuits that are
not included in the settlement agreement.

This preliminary step toward the settlement of these class action
lawsuits supports the company's ongoing efforts to focus on
Navistar's current and future market opportunities.

While this is definitely the biggest headline-making move, it's
just one of many that Navistar has recently taken to position
itself for future progress. Over the past six months, the company
has repaid over $600 million of its outstanding debt, which
included both of its convertible notes. The repayments were funded
with cash on hand, another sign of the company's improved financial
profile.

Additionally, in December 2018, Cerberus Capital Management
announced its purchase of a 70% interest in Navistar's defense
business, Navistar Defense LLC. This strategic milestone provided
Navistar Defense with a well-established, long-term partner that is
focused on making crucial growth investments in the business. It
also sent a strong signal to the market that the company was
focused on core truck and bus activities that remain at the heart
of the company's future.

Further strengthening the company's position -- and limitation of
outside issues -- in January 2019, the company ratified a new
six-year collective bargaining agreement with the United Auto
Workers. The contract sets a mutual agreement between the UAW and
Navistar to implement team concepts at the company's largest US
manufacturing facility in Springfield, Ohio. The agreement not only
sets a six-year path of prosperity for the plant workers, but
includes critical agreements pertaining to quality, safety and
cost.   

Navistar also announced the purchase of group annuity contracts
that transfer to two Canadian insurers approximately $268 million
of defined pension benefit plan obligations in Canada. The February
2019 transaction reflected Navistar's goal to de-risk the balance
sheet and manage future pension obligations while providing
retirees with equivalent pension benefits. [GN]


NEW YORK: Court Certifies Class of Diabetic Students
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned M.F., a minor, by and
through his parent and natural guardian YELENA FERRER; M.R., a
minor, by and through her parent and natural guardian JOCELYNE
ROJAS; I.F., a minor, by and through her parent and natural
guardian JENNIFER FOX, on behalf of themselves and a class of those
similarly situated; and THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION, a
nonprofit organization, Plaintiffs, v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION; THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL
HYGIENE; THE OFFICE OF SCHOOL U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N. Y. HEALTH;
THE CITY OF NEW YORK; BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as
Mayor of New York City; RICHARD A. CARRANZA, in his official
capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of
Education; OXIRIS BARBOT, in her official capacity as Acting
Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene; and ROGER PLATT, in his official capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of the Office of School Health, Defendants. No.
18 Civ. 6109 (NG)(SJB). (E.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs filed suit pursuant to Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act); Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); and the New York
City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code (NYCHRL), alleging that
defendants have systemically failed to provide appropriate care to
students with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in New York City public
schools in violation of the students' civil rights.

By this motion, the plaintiffs seek certification of the following
class, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:

     All students with diabetes who are now or will be entitled to
receive diabetesrelated care and attend New York City Department of
Education schools.

Requirements of Rule 23(a)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) sets forth certain
prerequisites to a class action lawsuit: "One or more members of a
class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all
only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the
class (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class and (4) the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class."

Ascertainability

Turning, first, to the implied requirement of ascertainability,
plaintiffs typically must demonstrate that there is an identifiable
class. A class is identifiable when, as stated above, its
membership may be ascertained by reference to objective criteria,
or where the class description is sufficiently definite so that it
is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a
particular individual is a member.

Numerosity

Rule 23(a)(l) requires the class to be so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable. This prerequisite is satisfied by a
class consisting of at least 40 members. Courts have not required
evidence of exact class size or identity of class members to
satisfy the numerosity requirement. Here, the circumstances support
a finding that the numerosity requirement has been met.

According to representations by defendants, there were 1,745
students with Type 1 diabetes and 372 students with Type 2 diabetes
in DOE schools during the 2016-2017 school year.

Commonality

Rule 23(a)(2) requires there to be questions of law or fact common
to the class. The commonality requirement does not mandate that all
class members share identical claims, and the individual
circumstances of the class members may differ without precluding
class certification.

Here, the plaintiffs allege that all putative class members have
suffered injuries from a common issue of law: whether the
defendants' policies and practices are violating the substantive
and procedural rights of the putative class rights guaranteed to
students with diabetes by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,
the ADA, and the NYCHRL. There are fundamental legal disputes
common to the class, and it is possible that the plaintiffs will be
able to prove, through common testimonial and documentary evidence,
that these violations occur on a large scale and amount to a
widespread failure to comply with the applicable laws and
regulations.  

Thus, the plaintiffs have demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that the commonality requirement is satisfied.

Typicality

The typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the
claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the
claims or defenses of the class. Like the commonality requirement,
typicality serves as a guidepost for determining whether under the
particular circumstances maintenance of a class action is
economical and whether the named plaintiffs claim and the class
claims are so interrelated that the interests of the class members
will be fairly and adequately protected in their absence. While
Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes may be different diseases with unique
causes, the Court accepts the representations by counsel for the
Association at the April 24, 2019 conference that children with
either form of diabetes are subject to the same serious medical
risks and require similar care; therefore, injunctive relief would
help children with each disease equally.

The allegations of the complaint, coupled with the declarations
submitted by plaintiffs and the representations by counsel at the
conference on April 24, 2019, are sufficient to demonstrate that
maintenance of the action as a class action would be economical,
and that plaintiffs' claims and the putative class claim are
sufficiently interrelated to satisfy the typicality requirement of
Rule 23(a)(3).

Adequacy

Rule 23(a)(4) requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that the proposed
action will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
class. To satisfy this requirement, class representatives must
demonstrate that they are members of the class they purport to
represent.

Suing by their parents, named plaintiffs M.F., I.F., and M.R. are
all members of the class they purport to represent and they all
recognize their obligations as class representatives and are
committed to representing the needs of absent class members. The
Court is further satisfied by statements made on the record at the
April 24, 2019 conference by counsel for the Association that class
representatives with Type 1 diabetes will be able to represent
absent class members with Type 2 diabetes adequately and that, for
the purposes of this action, there is no conflict of interest
between the named plaintiffs and other members of the plaintiff
class based upon the type of diabetes the individual has.

With regard to the Association, it has standing to bring suit on
behalf of its members when (1) its members would otherwise have
standing to sue in their own right (2) the interests it seeks to
protect are germane to the organization's purpose and (3) neither
the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the
participation in the lawsuit of each of the individual members.

There can be no dispute that the plaintiffs' counsel has extensive
experience with disabilityrelated class action litigation and has
sufficient resources to litigate this matter. Moreover, my
observations of counsel thus far have shown them to be
well-qualified to conduct the action appropriately. The Court do
not find that there are antagonistic interests between the named
plaintiffs and the putative class or their counsel.

Because the Court finds that the named plaintiffs will diligently
perform their fiduciary duties to the class, the adequacy
requirement has been satisfied.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is
granted. The class is defined as follows:

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

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4x42gzd from
Leagle.com.

M. F., a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian
Yelena Ferrer, M. R., a minor, by and through her parent and
natural guardian Jocelyne Rojas & I. F., a minor, by and through
her parent and natural guardian Jennifer Fox, on behalf of
themselves and a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Michelle A. Caiola -- mcaiola@dralegal.org --
Disability Rights Advocates, Torie A. Atkinson --
tatkinson@dralegal.org -- Disability Rights Advocates, Maia Beth
Goodell -- mgoodell@dralegal.org -- Disability Rights Advocates &
Seth Emmanuel Packrone -- spackrone@dralegal.org -- Disability
Rights Advocates.

The New York City Department of Education, The New York City
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, The Office of School
Health, City of New York, Bill de Blasio, in his official capacity
as Mayor of New York City, Richard A. Carranza, in his official
capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of
Education, Oxiris Barbot, in her capacity as Acting Commissioner of
the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene & Roger
Platt, in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the
Office of School Health, Defendants, represented by Philip S.
Frank, New York City Law Department & Chlarens Orsland, The City of
New York Law Department Office of Corporation Counsel.


NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Liens
----------------------------------------------------
Kelly Gooch, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
Evanston, Ill.-based NorthShore University Health System is accused
of placing liens instead of billing patient insurance and Medicare,
according to The Cook County Record.

Anna Kioutas, a Cook County resident, filed a class-action lawsuit
on behalf of herself and other patients NorthShore or its
affiliates treated from 2009 to May 22, 2019.

The lawsuit includes people injured in third-party liability
accidents. It alleges that NorthShore refused to properly bill
Medicare and the plaintiffs' supplemental patient insurance
providers, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, and instead placed liens
with "third-party tortfeasor(s) and/or their liability insurance
carriers," according to the Record.

Ms. Kioutas -- who received a lien after her stay at NorthShore's
Skokie (Ill.) Hospital -- reportedly is accusing NorthShore of
violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
intentional interference with a contractual relationship.

She and the other plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages, along with an injunction, attorney fees and court costs.

NorthShore told Becker's it does not comment on pending legal
matters. [GN]


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Nagan Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, STACY NAGAN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. OPTIO
SOLUTIONS, LLC, doing business as QUALIA COLLECTION SERVICES, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00170-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons with a Wisconsin address to whom Optio
      Solutions, LLC mailed an initial written communication to
      the Complaint, between February 1, 2018 and February 22,
      2019, which was not returned as undeliverable";

   2. appointing her to represent the putative class members;
      and

   3. appointing her attorneys, Stern Thomasson LLP as counsel
      for the class.

The Plaintiff asserts claims against Optio under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          3010 South Appleton Road
          Menasha, WI 54952
          Telephone (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                  Francis@SternThomasson.com

PAGLIACCI PIZZA: Wash App. Affirms Arbitration Denial in Burnett
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, issued an Opinion
affirming the District Court's judgment denying Defendant's Motion
to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned of STEVEN BURNETT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Respondent, v. PAGLIACCI PIZZA, INC., a Washington corporation,
Appellant. No. 78356-4-I. (Wash. App.).

When Steven Burnett was hired as a delivery driver by Pagliacci
Pizza Inc., he was required to sign an Employee Relationship
Agreement to begin work. He was also given an employee handbook
containing a mandatory arbitration policy and told to read it at
home. When Burnett later sued Pagliacci for various wage-related
claims.

Pagliacci argues that the trial court erred by denying its motion
to compel arbitration and its subsequent motion for
reconsideration. We disagree.

Arbitrability is a question of law that the Court review de novo.
The burden of proof is on the party seeking to avoid arbitration.

In determining whether an agreement to arbitrate exists, the Court
first determines whether the parties have agreed to arbitrate a
particular matter by applying ordinary contract principles. Where,
as here, no material facts are in dispute, contract interpretation
is a question of law that we review de novo.  

The Court concludes that an agreement to arbitrate exists here but
that the agreement is unconscionable and unenforceable.

Existence of Arbitration Agreement

Pagliacci argues that the trial court erred by concluding that the
mandatory arbitration policy was not incorporated into the ERA and
consequently there was no agreement to arbitrate.

The Court agrees.

Incorporation by reference allows the parties to 'incorporate
contractual terms by reference to a separate agreement to which
they are not parties,' and including a separate document which is
unsigned.

In Seventh-Day Adventists, Seventh-Day Adventists, 102 Wn. App. at
494-95, the court held that "a Trade Contract clearly and
unequivocally incorporated the Contract Project Documents and the
Contract Documents by stating that work would be performed in
accordance with the Project Contract Documents" and "in accordance
with Contract Documents."

Here, like the Trade Contract in Seventh-Day Adventists, the ERA
clearly and unequivocally incorporates the Little Book.
Specifically, the ERA expressly provides that employees will, on
their own initiative, learn and comply with the rules and policies
outlined in our Little Book of Answers.

Burnett makes no attempt to distinguish Seventh-Day Adventists even
though he cites that case for the proposition that incorporation by
reference must be clear and unequivocal. Instead, he argues that an
employment contract telling an employee to read on your own time' a
separate employment handbook is not `clear and unequivocal'
incorporation by reference. But the ERA not only directs the
employee to read the Little Book on his or her own time, it also
requires the employee to comply with the rules and policies
outlined therein.

Therefore, Burnett's argument is not persuasive, and the Court
concludes that an agreement to arbitrate exists here.

Enforceability of Arbitration Agreement

Having concluded that the parties agreed to arbitrate, the Court
next considers whether the parties' agreement is enforceable. For
the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that the circumstances
surrounding the formation of the parties' arbitration agreement
were procedurally unconscionable and that the mandatory arbitration
policy is substantively unconscionable. The Court also concludes
that severance of the substantively unconscionable provisions is
inappropriate here and thus hold that the mandatory arbitration
policy is unenforceable.

Procedural Unconscionability

Washington law recognizes two categories of unconscionability:
substantive and procedural. Procedural unconscionability is the
lack of meaningful choice, considering all the circumstances
surrounding the transaction.

To determine whether an agreement is procedurally unconscionable,
the Court loos to the following circumstances surrounding the
parties' transaction to determine whether the party claiming
unconscionability lacked meaningful choice: (1) the manner in which
the contract was entered (2) whether the party claiming procedural
unconscionability had a reasonable opportunity to understand the
terms of the contract and (3) whether the important terms were
hidden in a maze of fine print.  

Here, the ERA, including the Little Book and Pagliacci's mandatory
arbitration policy, constitutes an adhesion contract. Specifically,
the ERA is a standard form printed contract that Burnett was
required to sign to begin employment, i.e., on a take it or leave
it basis. Moreover, Pagliacci does not argue that the ERA is not an
adhesion contract. Rather, Pagliacci argues that even if the ERA is
an adhesion contract, the circumstances surrounding its formation
and specifically the formation of the parties' agreement to
arbitrate were not procedurally unconscionable.

But the Court disagrees.

In Mattingly, Steven and Deborah Mattingly entered an agreement
with Palmer Ridge Homes LLC under which Palmer Ridge would
construct a custom home for the Mattinglys. Mattingly, 157 Wn. App.
at 382. Six months later, the Mattinglys signed an application to
enroll in Palmer Ridge's 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty new home
warranty program.  As part of the enrollment, the Mattinglys
acknowledged that they read a sample copy of the Warranty Booklet
and understood that their claims and liabilities were limited by
the terms and conditions in the booklet. However, the Mattinglys
did not in fact see a copy of the warranty booklet before they
signed the enrollment application.  

After discovering problems with the construction of their home, the
Mattinglys sued Palmer Ridge. Palmer Ridge moved for summary
judgment, arguing that the Mattinglys' claims were barred by the
2-10 HBW warranty's limitations provisions. The trial court agreed
and dismissed the Mattinglys' claims.  

On appeal, Division Two of this court concluded that the 2-10 HBW
warranty limitations were unenforceable. It held that the
circumstances surrounding the 2-10 HBW warranty are suspect, as
there is no evidence in the record that the Mattinglys had a
reasonable opportunity to understand the terms contained within the
booklet, and the terms remain buried in the booklet.

Here, as in Mattingly, the circumstances surrounding the formation
of the parties' arbitration agreement are suspect. As in Mattingly,
there is no evidence in the record that Burnett had a reasonable
opportunity to understand the terms contained in the Little Book
and specifically the mandatory arbitration policy before he signed
the ERA. Instead, the record reflects that Burnett was not afforded
an opportunity to review the Little Book before signing the ERA:
Burnett testified that he was told to sign the ERA to begin work
and instructed to read the Little Book at home.

Furthermore, like the warranty limitations in Mattingly,
Pagliacci's mandatory arbitration policy is buried in a booklet:
Although it is written in plain English, it appears on page 18 of
the 23-page Little Book, in the same font size and with the same
formatting as surrounding sections.

The Court concludes that Burnett lacked meaningful choice in
agreeing to arbitrate, and thus the circumstances surrounding the
formation of the parties' arbitration agreement were procedurally
unconscionable.

Pagliacci argues that Mattingly is distinguishable because it does
not concern an employment relationship. It also points out that
while the Mattinglys did not receive the warranty booklet until
well after they signed the agreement that incorporated it, the
Little Book was reasonably available to Burnett throughout his
employment.

But the fact that Mattingly was not an employment case is not a
relevant distinguishing factor because, as discussed, we apply
ordinary contract law to determine the validity of an agreement to
arbitrate. And it is irrelevant that the mandatory arbitration
policy was available to Burnett after he signed the ERA if he did
not have a reasonable opportunity to review it before he signed the
ERA into which it was incorporated. Pagliacci's arguments are not
persuasive.

Pagliacci also contends that the mandatory arbitration policy is
not hidden in a maze of fine print' and that Burnett's failure to
read it is not a defense to enforcement. Pagliacci relies on Tjart
to support its arguments. But in Tjart, the employee completed an
employment application which itself contained an arbitration
provision. Tjart, 107 Wn. App. at 891-92. Indeed, in concluding
that the employee had a reasonable opportunity to understand that
she was agreeing to arbitrate her future claims, the Court observed
that the arbitration provision was obvious in the fairly short
contract.

Here, by contrast, the arbitration policy is not printed or even
mentioned in the ERA itself. Instead, it is buried in a separate
booklet that, as discussed, Burnett did not have a reasonable
opportunity to review before signing the ERA. Indeed, nothing in
the ERA suggests that the Little Book contains an arbitration
clause, and even the Little Book's own table of contents describes
the section in which the arbitration policy appears as the Mutual
Fairness Benefits section, giving no indication to the reader that
it might contain a one-way arbitration clause. Tjart is not
persuasive and neither is Pagliacci's argument that the mandatory
arbitration policy is not hidden.  

Substantive Unconscionability

Substantive unconscionability involves those cases where a clause
or term in the contract is alleged to be one-sided or overly
harsh.

Here, Burnett argues that Pagliacci's mandatory arbitration policy
is substantively unconscionable because (1) it requires employees,
but not Pagliacci, to submit certain claims to arbitration and (2)
the F.A.I.R. Policy, which is a prerequisite to arbitration,
contains a limitations provision that is overly harsh. Although the
Court disagrees that the mandatory arbitration policy is
substantively unconscionable merely because its arbitration
requirement is not mutual, the Court agrees that the F.A.I.R.
Policy's overly harsh limitations provision renders the mandatory
arbitration substantively unconscionable.

First, as Burnett points out, the limitations provision effectively
shortens the statute of limitations for any claim by an employee
who no longer works for Pagliacci because a terminated employee has
no way to informally report the matter and all details to your
supervisor, as required by the F.A.I.R. Policy's Supervisor Review
procedure. In other words, the limitations provision acts as a
complete bar to arbitration and suit for employees who do not
become aware that they have a potential claim until after their
employment with Pagliacci ends. Such a bar blatantly and
excessively favors. Pagliacci and is substantively unconscionable.


Pagliacci argues that the only reasonable interpretation of the
F.A.I.R. policy is that it is intended to apply to current
employees and not to former employees. But Pagliacci's proffered
interpretation would require us to read into the F.A.I.R. Policy an
exception that is not expressed therein. Pagliacci's proffered
interpretation also contradicts the F.A.I.R. Policy's unambiguous
limitations provision, which states: If you do not comply with a
step, rule or procedure in the F.A.I.R. Policy with respect to a
claim, you waive any right to raise the claim in any court or other
forum, including arbitration. The Court are not persuaded by
Pagliacci's liberal interpretation of this limitations provision,
which Pagliacci itself drafted in unambiguous terms.

Here, the mandatory arbitration policy does not contain a specified
limitations period. But because the time required for F.A.I.R.
Policy compliance is entirely indeterminate, it like the
contractual limitations periods in Adler, Gandee, and Hill is
substantively unconscionable because it provides Pagliacci with
unfair advantages. Specifically, and as discussed, the F.A.I.R.
Policy, which is a prerequisite to arbitration, acts as a complete
bar to arbitration unless an employee has "fully complied with the
steps and procedures in the F.A.I.R. Policy.

Therefore, an employee must anticipate and build in time to fully
comply with the F.A.I.R. Policy before the applicable limitations
period expires. But the time required for compliance is not within
the employee's control. Under the F.A.I.R. Policy, Pagliacci makes
no commitment to address disputes or schedule nonbinding
conciliation within a specified period of time after the employee
has reported the matter or initiated conciliation. Nor does the
policy provide any release valve that allows employees to commence
arbitration if conciliation under the F.A.I.R. Policy takes more
than a specified amount of time, or if the applicable statute of
limitations is set to expire while the employee is attempting to
comply with the F.A.I.R. Policy. Indeed, the F.A.I.R. Policy's
limitations provision provides just the opposite: Regardless of how
long the conciliation procedure takes, the bar to arbitration
"shall not be subject to tolling, equitable or otherwise.

For these reasons and because full compliance with the F.A.I.R.
Policy is a prerequisite to arbitration, the limitations provision
in the F.A.I.R. Policy renders the mandatory arbitration policy
substantively unconscionable.

Pagliacci argues that its mandatory arbitration policy is not
substantively unconscionable because it does not contain any of the
specific types of provisions that our Supreme Court has found to be
substantively unconscionable, such as contractual limitations
periods, fee-splitting requirements, or limitations on the amount
or types of damages recoverable. But the Court is not limited by
the specific types of provisions that the Supreme Court has already
deemed substantively unconscionable. Rather, our inquiry is whether
the effect of Pagliacci's two-step mandatory arbitration policy is
so one-sided and harsh that it is substantively unconscionable.

The Court concludes that it is.

Severance

As a final matter, Pagliacci argues that even if the mandatory
arbitration policy is substantively unconscionable due to the
F.A.I.R. Policy's limitations provision, the F.A.I.R. Policy must
be severed from the mandatory arbitration policy, leaving the
agreement to arbitrate intact.

The Court disagrees.

Severance is the usual remedy for substantively unconscionable
terms, but where such terms pervade an arbitration agreement, this
court refuses to sever those provisions and declares the entire
agreement void.

Here, Pagliacci's mandatory arbitration policy is both
substantively and procedurally unconscionable, so severance is
inappropriate.

Affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Wash. App.'s June 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3xnrt6y from Leagle.com.

Michael William Droke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 701 5th Ave Ste 6100,
Seattle, WA, 98104-7043,Todd Stuart Fairchild, Dorsey & Whitney
LLP, 701 5th Ave Ste 6100, Seattle, WA, 98104-7043,Jasmine Hui,
Dorsey & Whitney LLP, 701 5th Ave Ste 6100, Seattle, WA,
98104-7043, Counsel for Appellant(s).

Toby James Marshall, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, 936 N 34th St
Ste 300, Seattle, WA, 98103-8869, Erika L Nusser, Terrell Marshall
Daudt & Willie PLLC, 936 N 34th St Ste 300, Seattle, WA,
98103-8869, Blythe H Chandler, Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC, 936
N 34th St Ste 300, Seattle, WA, 98103-8869, Counsel for
Respondent(s).


PLANTRONICS INC: Court Denies Prelim Approval of Shin Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned PHIL SHIN, Plaintiff, v. PLANTRONICS, INC., Defendant.
Case No. 18-cv-05626-NC. (N.D. Cal.).

Plantronics is a headphones designer and manufacturer, who created
the BackBeat FIT wireless headphones (the Headphones). The
Headphones are marketed as sweatproof and waterproof, with
rechargeable batteries that are supposed to last for up to eight
hours per charge.  Shin purchased his Headphones through an online
retailer in March 2015 after seeing Plantronics's advertisements.
By mid-January 2016, Shin noticed that the Headphones became
difficult to charge.  Shin suspected that the battery life
diminished because he used the Headphones while exercising, but
they were not sweat- or waterproof.  

Settlement Agreement

Under the Settlement, class members are entitled to one of three
alternative remedies.. Alternative 1 is an extended limited
warranty that runs from the effective date of the Settlement. This
alternative is limited to class members who purchased Headphones
after January 1, 2018.  Under the extended warranty, class members
may receive a functional replacement1 if their Headphones suffers
from a battery charging issue. Id. §§ 6.2(b), 6.4. Alternative 2
is a $50 cash payment.  

Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) requires judicial approval of
any settlement by a certified class. The purpose of Rule 23(e) is
to protect the unnamed members of the class from unjust or unfair
settlements affecting their rights. Accordingly, a settlement
should only be approved if it is "fundamentally fair, adequate, and
reasonable.

The Court may grant preliminary approval of a settlement and direct
notice to the class if the settlement: (1) appears to be the
product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations (2) has no
obvious deficiencies (3) does not improperly grant preferential
treatment to class representatives or segments of the class and (4)
falls within the range of possible approval.
Identical Factual Predicate Rule

In the Ninth Circuit, a settlement agreement may preclude a party
from bringing a related claim in the future even though the claim
was not presented and might not have been presentable in the class
action, but only where the released claim is based on the identical
factual predicate as that underlying the claims in the settled
class action.

The first amended complaint, however, limits its factual
allegations to alleged defects with the Headphone's battery,
inability to resist sweat or water as warranted, and Plantronics's
allegedly misleading representations regarding the Headphones'
battery life and sweat- or waterproofing. FAC. But the Settlement
releases claims that may arise from facts not alleged in the first
amended complaint. For example, as Shin's counsel noted at the
preliminary approval hearing, the Settlement would release claims
concerning a defect that renders the Headphones unable to moderate
volume. But this defect may be wholly unrelated to the alleged
battery problems or lack of waterproofing. Such a broad release of
claims cannot be approved.

This reason alone warrants denial.

Adequacy of Settlement

The Court also finds that the settlement is inadequate.

To reiterate, the Settlement provides three alternative remedies
for the class: (1) an extended limited warranty for class members
who purchased their Headphones after January 1, 2018; (2) a $50
cash payment with proof of a prior complaint regarding a battery
charging issue or (3) a $25 cash payment without such proof.  

The recently amended Rule 23(e) requires that the Court consider
four overarching factors before approving a class settlement: (A)
the class representative and class counsel have adequately
represented the class (B) the proposal was negotiated at arm's
length (C) the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking
into account (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial and
appeal;(ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of
distributing relief to the class, including the method of
processing class-member claims (iii) the terms of any proposed
award of attorney's fees, including timing of payment and(iv) any
agreement required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3) and(D) the
proposal treats class members equitably relative to each other.

This amendment does not displace any factor previously announced by
the Ninth Circuit, but instead focus the court and the lawyers on
the core concerns of procedure and substance that should guide the
decision whether to approve the proposal.

Thus, the Court will also consider factors outlined by the Ninth
Circuit to determine the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of
the settlement: (1) the strength of the plaintiffs' case (2) the
risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further
litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class action status
throughout the trial (4) the amount offered in settlement (5) the
extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings;(6)
the experience and views of counsel (7) the presence of a
governmental participant and (8) the reaction of the class members
to the proposed settlement.

Here, the fourth and fifth Hanlon factors weigh against approval of
the Settlement.

Under the fourth Hanlon factor, courts often compare the proposed
class' expected recovery at trial to the value of the proposed
settlement.  

Plantronics estimates that the proposed settlement class contains
roughly 1.3 million members with approximately 300,000 class
members qualifying for the extended limited warranty.   Because the
Headphones generally sold for between $60 and $90 each, Shin
estimates that class recovery at trial would be between $7.8
million and $11.7 million.   Shin then estimates anticipated class
recovery under the Settlement to be between $3.25 million and $6.5
million assuming a 10% claim rate without accounting for the value
of the extended limited warranty.  

This comparison, however, is flawed. Shin fails to account for the
fact that class members can only recover under the Settlement for
battery charging issues. This is so even though the first amended
complaint alleges defects with both the Headphones' battery and
waterproofing and the proposed settlement class includes all
Persons who purchased at retail the Headphones.  

The fifth Hanlon factor, extent of discovery completed and the
stage of the proceedings also weighs against approval. As recounted
above, this lawsuit is in the early stages of proceedings and no
formal discovery had been taken. Indeed, the parties settled one
day after the hearing on Plantronics's motion to dismiss. The lack
of formal discovery is reflected in Shin's motion for preliminary
approval, which relies heavily on Plantronics's own representations
regarding many critical facts including the size of the class and
number of class members eligible for particular modes of relief.
This factor alone does not doom the Settlement.  

But the lack of formal discovery and the earliness of the
settlement amplifies the Court's concerns regarding its adequacy.

Proposed Notice Plan

To comply with Rule 23, the notice must clearly and concisely state
in plain, easily understood language (i) the nature of the
action;(ii) the definition of the class certified (iii) the class
claims, issues, or defences (iv) that a class member may enter an
appearance through an attorney if the member so desires (v) that
the court will exclude from the class any member who requests
exclusion;(vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion and
(vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule
23(c)(3).

The Court is not convinced that this plan would provide the best
notice that is practicable under the circumstances. As noted by
Shin's counsel, a large majority of the class cannot be identified
through Plantronics's records and effective notice under this plan
requires the cooperation of third-party retailers. Thus, the
prudent course of action would be to secure third-party cooperation
either before or in connection with this motion. But the parties
have not done so.

Indeed, the Settlement does not even require such action.  Further,
the Settlement provides no contingency in the event those retailers
refuse to provide their customers' information or deliver the class
notice. And if those retailers agree to deliver the notice instead
of turning over customer information, the Settlement provides
insufficient oversight of that largely voluntary process.

Normally, publication notice would act to cover such gaps in the
parties' outreach to the class. By publishing the settlement notice
on popular forums for discussion or complaints about the
Headphones, for example, the parties could target potential class
members with reasonable accuracy. But here, the Settlement provides
no details on what that publication notice would entail.  

The Court simply cannot assess the reasonableness and efficacy of
the proposed notice plan without such information.

In short, the Settlement's proposed notices and notice plan fall
short of Rule 23's requirements. This also weighs against
preliminary approval. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Shin's
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.

The Court denies Shin's unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of the class action settlement without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2z8hh4n from Leagle.com.

Phil Shin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Scott Kravitz – kravitz@sfms.com
-- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, James C. Shah –
jshah@sfms.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Jeffrey
Scott Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg
Schneider, LPA, pro hac vice, Justin Charles Walker --
jwalker@msdlegal,com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, Paul
Michael DeMarco -- pdemarco@msdlegal.com -- Markovits Stock
DeMarco, pro hac vice, Terence Richard Coates --
tcoates@msdlegal.com  Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC, pro hac
vice, Todd Benjamin Naylor -- tnaylor@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg
Schneider, LPA, pro hac vice & Wilbert Benjamin Markovits --
bmarkovits@msdlegal.com -- Markovits, Stock & DeMarco LLC, pro hac
vice.

Plantronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Darren Keith Cottriel
-- dcottriel@jonesday.com -- Jones Day &  Dayme Sanchez --
daymesanchez@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


PRICESMART INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against PriceSmart,
Inc. (NASDAQ: PSMT) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between October 26,
2017 and October 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 22, 2019.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall, or Rina Restaino, of
the Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA 90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
www.schallfirm.com or by email at brian@schallfirm.com

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. PriceSmart's omni-channel business
strategy failed to achieve its goals. The Company's South American
strategy also failed to achieve cost savings. The Company invested
Trinidad and Tobago dollars in certificates of deposit with
financial institutions, but improperly classified these investments
as cash and cash equivalents. Correcting these misclassifications
would materially impact the Company's financial statements. The
Company suffered from a material weakness in its internal controls
over financial reporting. 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
PriceSmart, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East, Suite 404
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Phone:
            Office: 310-301-3335
            Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


PRICESMART, INC: Kuznicki Law Notifies of Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in
these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff
and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQGS: PSMT)
Investors Affected: October 26, 2017 - October 25, 2018

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
PriceSmart, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose 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) that
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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/pricesmart-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Equity Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ: EQBK)
Investors Affected: May 11, 2018 - April 22, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Equity Bancshares, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
assess credit risk; (2) as a result, certain of the Company's loans
posed an increased risk of loss; (3) as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain
substandard loans; and (4) 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/equity-bancshares-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Community Health Systems, Inc. (NYSE: CYH)
Investors Affected: February 20, 2017 - February 27, 2018

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Community Health Systems, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/community-health-systems-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Ra Medical Systems, Inc. (NYSE: RMED)
Investors Affected: stockholders that purchased Ra Medical
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's September
2018 initial public offering.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Ra Medical Systems, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/ra-medical-systems-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Contact:

         Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
         Kuznicki Law PLLC
         445 Central Avenue, Suite 334
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516
         Phone: (347) 696-1134
         Cell: (347) 690-0692
         Fax: (347) 348-0967
         Email: dk@kclasslaw.com
[GN]



PUBLIC SAFETY DEPT: Opulento et al. Allege Civil Rights Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Hawaii Department
of Public Safety for alleged violations of civil rights. The case
is captioned Opulento; et al. v. State of Hawaii Department of
Public Safety; et al, Case No. 1:19-cv-00315-LEK-RT (D. Haw., June
18, 2019). It is assigned to Hon. Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi.

Headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii, the Department of Public Safety
provides correctional and law enforcement services to Hawaii's
communities. The government agency oversees the Corrections
Division, which includes jails and prisons, and the Law Enforcement
Division, which includes the Narcotics Enforcement and Sheriff
Divisions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric A. Seitz, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ERIC A. SEITZ
     820 Mililani St Ste 714
     Honolulu, HI 96813
     Telephone: (533) 7434
     E-mail: eseitzatty@yahoo.com

             - and –

     Gina May Szeto-Wong, Esq.
     Law Office of Eric A. Seitz
     820 Mililani St Ste 714
     Honolulu, HI 96813
     Telephone: (415) 532-6946
     E-mail: szetogina@gmail.com

             - and -

     Jonathan M.F. Loo, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ERIC A. SEITZ
     820 Mililani St Ste 714
     Honolulu, HI 96813
     Telephone: (808) 533-7434
     Facsimile: (808) 545-3608
     E-mail: jloo33138@yahoo.com

             - and -

     Kevin A. Yolken, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ERIC A. SEITZ
     820 Mililani St Ste 714
     Honolulu, HI 96813
     Telephone: (808) 533-7434
     Facsimile: (808) 545-3608
     E-mail: KevinYolken@gmail.com


PYXUS INT'L: Vincent Wong Notes of Aug. 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that class actions have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following companies. If
you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff.

Metro Bank PLC (OTCMKTS: MBNKF)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 29, 2019
Class Period: March 6, 2018 and May 1, 2019

Get additional information about MBNKF:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/metro-bank-plc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Momo Inc. (NASDAQ: MOMO)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 15, 2019
Class Period: April 21, 2014 and April 29, 2019

Get additional information about MOMO:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/momo-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (NASDAQGS: ASNA)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 6, 2019
Class Period: September 16, 2015 and June 8, 2017

Get additional information about ASNA:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ascena-retail-group-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Pyxus International, Inc.  (NYSE: PYX)
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 6, 2019
Class Period: on behalf of stockholders who purchased Pyxus (f/k/a
Alliance One International, Inc. (AOI)) securities between June 7,
2018 and November 8, 2018, inclusive.

Get additional information about PYX:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/pyxus-international-inc-f-k-a-alliance-one-international-inc-loss-submission-form?wire=3


Contact:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Phone: 212.425.1140
         Fax: 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com
[GN]

RA MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Kuznicki Law Notifies of Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in
these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff
and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

PriceSmart, Inc. (NASDAQGS: PSMT)
Investors Affected: October 26, 2017 - October 25, 2018

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
PriceSmart, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose 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) that
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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/pricesmart-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Equity Bancshares, Inc. (NASDAQ: EQBK)
Investors Affected: May 11, 2018 - April 22, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Equity Bancshares, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
assess credit risk; (2) as a result, certain of the Company's loans
posed an increased risk of loss; (3) as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to incur significant losses for certain
substandard loans; and (4) 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/equity-bancshares-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Community Health Systems, Inc. (NYSE: CYH)
Investors Affected: February 20, 2017 - February 27, 2018

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Community Health Systems, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/community-health-systems-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Ra Medical Systems, Inc. (NYSE: RMED)
Investors Affected: stockholders that purchased Ra Medical
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's September
2018 initial public offering.

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Ra Medical Systems, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/ra-medical-systems-inc-loss-submission-form/?wire=3


Contact:

         Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
         Kuznicki Law PLLC
         445 Central Avenue, Suite 334
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516
         Phone: (347) 696-1134
         Cell: (347) 690-0692
         Fax: (347) 348-0967
         Email: dk@kclasslaw.com
[GN]



RGS FINANCIAL: Asks Court to Deny Tataru's Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, GABRIEL TATARU, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. RGS
FINANCIAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-06106 (N.D. Ill.),
RGS Financial asks the Court to deny Plaintiff's motion for class
certification of:

   "all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) who were sent a
   collection letter, by or on behalf of RGS, in the form
   represented by Exhibit A (c) to collect a consumer debt
   (d) that was sent from September 6, 2017, to September 27,
   2018 (e) that was not returned as undeliverable by the postal
   service."

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to establish that class
certification is appropriate in this case. Plaintiff has not
presented sufficient evidence to establish commonality, adequacy of
representation or superiority. Therefore, class certification
should be denied in this case, the Defendant says.

Gabriel Tataru brought suit against RGS alleging that RGS violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act while attempting to collect
Plaintiff's credit card debt. The Plaintiff owed the debt to First
National bank of Omaha, who transacts business through the website
fnbomaha.com. FNB Omaha referred the account to RGS to collect the
Plaintiff's debt. When RGS sent collection letters to Plaintiff
regarding the debt to FNB Omaha, RGS identified the creditor as
"FNB Omaha II." The Plaintiff -- as the sole basis for filing this
Action -- takes issue with RGS's abbreviation of "FNB Omaha" and
inclusion of "II" at the end of "FNB Omaha." Plaintiff alleges that
RGS's collection letter was misleading because it failed to
accurately identify the creditor in violation of the FDCPA.[CC]

Plaintiff's counsel are:

          Bryan Paul Thompson, Esq.
          Robert W. Harrer, Esq.
          CHICAGO CONSUMER LAW CENTER, P.C.
          111 West Washington Street, Suite 1360
          Chicago, IL 6062
          E-mail: Bryan.thompson@cclc-law.com
                  Rob.harrer@cclc-law.com

Counsel for the Defendant are:

          Robbie Malonem, Esq.
          Eugene Xerxes Martin, IV, Esq.
          Patrick A. Watts, Esq.
          Jin S. Shin, Esq.
          MALONE FROST MARTIN PLLC
          8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1850
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 346-2630
          Facsimile: (214) 346-2631
          E-mail: rmalone@mamlaw.com
                  xmartin@mamlaw.com
                  pwatts@mamlaw.com
                  jshin@mamlaw.com

SAN DIEGO, CA: Workers File Class Suit Over Asbestos Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Horn, writing for 10News, reports that a group of City of
San Diego employees is suing the city after they were exposed to
asbestos inside their office for months.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in Superior Court June 21, accuses
high-ranking city officials of knowing about the asbestos at 1010
Second Avenue, but keeping the workers there because they did not
want to break the lease.

The tower began undergoing a major renovation project in July
2017.

Within weeks, workers began reporting burning throats, breathing
issues and coughs. Court documents allege that city officials
ignored their concerns, only vacating the building after the County
Air Pollution Control District found measurable levels of asbestos
in January 2018.

Exposure to asbestos can lead to serious health conditions,
including the deadly mesothelioma lung cancer.

"I don't know in 20 years if I'm going to get sick or not," said
Stephanie Teel, 39, who worked in the building as part of the
Fire-Rescue Department. "Did that exposure — that they said was
nothing — make me be where in 20 years when I'm still fairly
young, my family is burying me?"

Teel said experienced firefighters spotted the asbestos but city
officials did nothing.

The City Attorney's office said it would respond through the
courts.

Maria Severson, representing the class of 550 workers on the case,
said it's about long-term protection.

"They need to know that if they leave the city and they ultimately
come down with a lung-related disease that the city is going to
take care of them," she said.

The building's owner said after the 2018 incident it worked with
tenants and regulatory agencies to address the concerns surrounding
the tower.

Teel has since transferred to a position in the mayor's office.
[GN]



SCREENING REPORTS: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Brown Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taura Brown individually and as a representative of the Classes,
the Plaintiff, vs. Screening Reports, Inc. d/b/a Better NOI, the
Defendant, Case No. 2019L000699 (Ill. Cir., June 27, 2019), alleges
that Defendant routinely and systematically violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by reporting outdated, non-criminal
convictions that are older than seven years.

Specifically, the Defendant falsely reported that Plaintiff had
been convicted of a felony, when in fact she had only been
convicted of a misdemeanor. Moreover, the Defendant misleadingly
reported Plaintiff and others who have violated the conditions of
their probation as having committed separate crimes, even though
probation violations are not crimes.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's inaccurate reporting
exaggerates and misstates the extent of consumers' criminal records
and portrays consumers as much worse potential tenants than they
actually are.

Further, because Defendant falsely characterizes probation
violations as crimes, Defendant reports probation violations for
longer than the allowable seven year period for the reporting of
non-criminal conduct allowed by the FCRA. As Defendant's practices
were routine and systematic, Plaintiff asserts claims for damages
on behalf of herself and two classes of similarly situated
individuals on whom Defendant produced consumer reports.

Screening Reports is a consumer reporting agency. On its website,
Defendant touts itself as "a national provider of background
screening services for the multifamily industry."[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Richard D. Schwartz, Esq.
          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 215 875 3000
          Facsimile: 215.875.4604
          E-mail: rschwartz@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net

SF MARKET: Removes Smock Suit to Central District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
SF Markets, LLC removed the case, ANTHONY SMOCK and RAFAEL ANTONIO
RODRIGUEZ, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SF MARKET LLC, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, from the the Superior Court of the
State of California for County of Los Angeles, Case No. 19STCV16263
(Filed May 9, 2019), to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on June 27, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-05607
to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts claims for failure to pay wages/overtime;
meal break violations; wage statement violations; waiting time
penalties; and unfair business practices under California Labor
Code.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant:

          Douglas J. Farmer, Esq.
          Jason P. Brown, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower, Suite 1300
          One Market Plaza
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: 415 442-4810
          Facsimile: 415 442-4870
          E-mail: douglas.farmer@ogletree.com
                  jason.brown@ogletree.com

SIXTIES SCOOP: Individual Payment Applications Due Aug. 30
----------------------------------------------------------
Collectiva Class Action Services says that information sessions on
the Sixties Scoop settlement individual payment application process
currently underway in Canada have been held across the country
since December 2018.  As the August 30, 2019 application deadline
fast approaches, Collectiva, the claims administrator, can confirm
that it has reached a great number of people who fit the
eligibility criteria for compensation. Many information sessions
have been held to date across Canada.

As there is still time to apply, the claims administration team has
recently begun to hold a second wave of information sessions across
the country.  The goal is to ensure that as many people as possible
who meet the eligibility criteria have the opportunity to apply
prior to the August 30, 2019 deadline.  Details are available on
the settlement Web site at: www.sixtiesscoopsettlement.info.
Anyone needing more information or the support of a professional to
complete an individual payment application is invited to
communicate with Collectiva.

It should be recalled that a settlement agreement was reached in
2017 in respect of a class action aimed at compensating any
registered Indian or person eligible to be registered or Inuit
person who was adopted or made a permanent ward and was placed in
the care of non-Indigenous foster or adoptive parents in Canada
between January 1, 1951 and December 31, 1991, resulting in the
loss of cultural identity.  Eligible class members will receive
compensation between $25,000 and $50,000 depending on the overall
number of eligible members.

For more information:

         Visit the web site:  www.sixtiesscoopsettlement.info
         Call: 1–844-287-4270
         Email: sixtiesscoop@collectiva.ca

For further information contact:

         Melanie Vincent, M.Sc.AJS
         Project Management
         Gestion MV Management  
         Cell / SMS: (418) 580-4442
         Mail: melanievincent21@yahoo.ca
[GN]



SOUTHFIELD, MI: Court Narrows Claims in Oron 2015 Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned
ORON 2015 LLC, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SOUTHFIELD, Defendant. Case
No. 18-cv-12671. (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff Oron 2015, LLC challenges the Defendant City of
Southfield's (City) inspection requirements for residential real
property in Southfield, which it says permit warrantless searches
and penalize any property owner who refuses inspection. Oron 2015
argues that the Inspection Ordinances are unconstitutional and
asserts the following claims against the City: (i) violation of due
process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (ii) violation of
the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and
(iii) a state-law claim for unjust enrichment/assumpsit.

The City seeks to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Oron 2015
lacks standing to bring this suit and has failed to state a claim
for unjust enrichment/assumpsit.

The City puts forth two arguments: first, that Oron 2015 lacks
standing to bring this suit; second, that the allegations are
insufficient to state a claim for unjust enrichment/assumpsit.

Standing

The standing doctrine requires that a litigant have suffered an
injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to the defendant's
allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the
requested relief. In order to allege an injury in fact, a plaintiff
must allege an invasion of a legally-protected interest which is
(a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imm[i]nent, not
conjectural or hypothetical.

The City argues that Oron 2015 has failed to allege an actual or
imminent injury, because it did not suffer an invasion of a legally
protected interest.  The City points out that Oron 2015 does not
allege that it ever objected to or refused to permit an inspection;
instead, Oron 2015 paid the inspection fee. Thus, the City claims
that Oron 2015 consented to the inspection and cannot bring a
claim.

In response, Oron 2015 asserts that it has the right to be free
from unreasonable searches, and that the $340 it paid under the
allegedly unconstitutional inspection ordinances is a concrete,
actual damage.  

The Court agrees with Oron 2015. Oron 2015 claims that it was
required to pay an inspection fee as a result of an allegedly
unconstitutional ordinance; this is a concrete economic harm
resulting from the City's conduct. Further, Oron 2015 alleges that
it was subjected to a warrantless inspection. This is also
sufficient to confer standing, regardless of whether Oron 2015
objected to the inspection or paid any fee, because Oron 2015
alleges that its legally protected interest has been invaded.

The City argues that Oron 2015 consented to the search, and
therefore has no Fourth Amendment claim. But Oron 2015 asserts in
its complaint that an owner of real property who does not allow the
City to inspect its property is coerced to consent. An owner who
does not agree to a search faces several consequences: it is denied
a certificate of compliance, cannot lawfully rent or occupy
property, may face civil infractions, and is subject to having
liens placed on its property.
  
While the City attempts to minimize the harm of a civil infraction,
it does not explain why this would not have a coercive effect on a
property owner, unsure of its rights and unwilling to face legal
repercussions for asserting them. Accordingly, the Court finds that
Oron 2015 has sufficiently alleged injury.

Unjust Enrichment/Assumpsit

The City's next argument is that Oron 2015's claim for
assumpsit/unjust enrichment must fail. The City correctly argues
that assumpsit has been abolished as a cause of action.  However,
the remedies available under assumpsit are still available to Oron
2015 if it prevails on its other claims.  Accordingly, the claim
for assumpsit is dismissed to the extent it is pled as an
independent cause of action; to the extent Oron 2015 prevails on
its claims, it may be entitled to remedies that were previously
available under assumpsit.

The City further argues that Oron 2015 cannot prevail on its unjust
enrichment claim because Oron 2015's claim is that the inspection
is unconstitutional, not the associated fee. Oron 2015 does not
allege that the City is not permitted to charge a fee for property
inspection, or that the amount of the fee raises a constitutional
issue. The City argues that Oron 2015 has not pled any facts to
show that the City's retention of these fees is inequitable.

Under Michigan law, unjust enrichment is defined as the unjust
retention of money or benefits which in justice and equity belong
to another. A plaintiff alleging unjust enrichment must establish
two elements: (1) the receipt of a benefit by defendant from
plaintiff and (2) an inequity resulting to plaintiff because of the
retention of the benefit by defendant. The complaint alleges that
the City collects inspection fees under the allegedly
unconstitutional scheme.

The Court agrees with Oron 2015 that it would be inequitable to
allow the City to retain that money if it was collected pursuant to
an unconstitutionally coercive ordinance and thus finds that Oron
2015 has stated a claim for unjust enrichment.

The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant City of
Southfield's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4y4gbd8 from
Leagle.com.

Oron 2015, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron D. Cox, Law Offices
of Aaron D. Cox PLLC, 23380 Goddard Rd., Taylor, Michigan 48180
&Mark K. Wasvary -- mark@wasvarylaw.com -- Mark K. Wasvary, P.C.

City of Southfield, Defendant, represented by David D. Burress,
Seward Henderson, PLLC, Kali M.L. Henderson, Seward Peck &
Henderson PLLC, 210 E 3rd St. Suite 212, Royal Oak, MI 48067,
Marcileen C. Pruitt, City of Southfield City Attorney's Office & T.
Joseph Seward, Seward Peck & Henderson PLLC, 210 E 3rd St. Suite
212, Royal Oak, MI 48067


ST. LOUIS, MO: Dixon Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against City of St. Louis, captioned
as DAVID DIXON, JEFFREY ROZELLE, AARON THURMAN, and RICHARD
ROBARDS, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, SHERIFF VERNON BETTS, JUDGE
ROBIN RANSOM in her official capacity as presiding judge, JUDGE REX
BURLISON in his official capacity as interim Presiding Judge, JUDGE
ELIZABETH HOGAN in her official capacity as Division Judge and Duty
Judge, JUDGE DAVID ROITHER in his official capacity as Division
Judge and Duty Judge, JUDGE THOMAS MCCARTHY in his official
capacity as Division 26 Judge, COMMISSIONER DALE GLASS in his
official capacity as St. Louis Commissioner of Corrections, the
Defendants, Case No. 19-2251 (Filed Jan. 28, 2019), was removed
from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on,
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on
June 18, 2019. The Eastern District of Missouri Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-00112 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek a declaration from the Court that Defendants'
policies and practices violate Plaintiffs' equal protection,
substantive due process, and procedural due process rights. The
Plaintiffs further request the Court remedy these unconstitutional
actions by issuing appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief
that will ensure the substantive and procedural safeguards are
followed and that individuals in St. Louis do not remain jailed
based solely on their poverty. As a result of Defendants'
unconstitutional policies and practices, 85% of the over one
thousand individuals locked in St. Louis City jails are there
awaiting trial because they are too poor to pay for their
release.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintifffs are:

          Simi Atri, Esq.
          Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
          Jacqueline Marie Kutnik-Bauder, Esq.
          Jacki Janelle Langum, Esq.
          Blake A. Strode, Esq.
          Michael-John Voss, Esq.
          John McCann Waldron, Esq.
          ARCH CITY DEFENDERS
          440 N. Fourth Street, Suite 390
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: 314 361-8834

               - and -

          Alexander G. Karakatsanis, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          916 G Street, N.W., Suite 701
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: 202-681-2409

               - and -

          Mary McCord, Esq.
          Seth T. Wayne, Esq.
          Robert D. Friedman, Esq.
          INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL
          ADVOCACY & PROTECTION
          Georgetown University Law Center
          600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Megan Kathleen G. Bruyns, Esq.
          CITY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE
          314 City Hall
          1200 Market Street
          Saint Louis, MO 63103-0000
          Telephone: 314 622-3361

               - and -

          Robert Henry Dierker, Jr., Esq.
          CITY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE
          314 City Hall
          1200 Market Street
          Saint Louis, MO 63103-0000
          Telephone: 314 622-3361
          Facsimile: 314 622-3361

STEVENS SECURITY: Court Certifies Classes of Security Guards
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, MICHELLE GUNN, MICHAEL WATSON, and
JACOB SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STEVENS SECURITY & TRAINING SERVICES,
INC., and AL STEVENS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-06314 (N.D.
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman entered an order
granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify these classes:

   Illinois Minimum Wage Law Class:

   "all individuals who worked as security guards for Stevens
   Security between August 31, 2014 and the present, who were
   paid by the hour, and who worked for Stevens Security in
   excess of 40 hours in any workweek or who earned less than
   $8.25 per hour during any of their first six weeks of work due
   to uniform deductions"; and

   Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act Class:

   "all individuals who worked as security guards for Stevens
   Security between August 31, 2014 and the present, who were
   paid by the hour, and whose pay records show that Stevens
   Security made deductions from their hourly wages (other than
   for child support payments mandated by law and other than for
   three $80 deductions for uniforms)".

Plaintiffs have alleged that a significant number of employees were
harmed by Stevens Security's common practices of misclassifying
employees that resulted in violations of the IMWL and of pay
deductions that violated the IWPCA.

The Court held that "resolution of Plaintiffs' claims on a
case-by-case basis would be an inefficient use of judicial and
party resources. It would also raise the possibility that many
potential plaintiffs may not bring their own claims because of the
generally small individual recovery. See Murray v. GMAC Mortg.
Corp., 434 F.3d 948, 953 (7th Cir. 2006) ("Rule 23(b)(3) was
designed for situations in which the potential recovery is too
slight to support individual suits, but injury is substantial in
the aggregate."). As such, Plaintiffs' claims are well-suited for
class treatment. Moreover, if Plaintiffs prove that the security
guards were employees under the IMWL and the IWPCA at the merits
stage, the need for individualized damages determinations do not
require denial of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. See
In re IKO Roofing Shingle Prods. Liab. Litig., 757 F.3d 599, 602
(7th Cir. 2014). When, as here, "there are substantial common
issues that outweigh the single variable of damages," the Court
"can devise solutions to address that problem." Arreola v. Godinez,
546 F.3d 788, 801 (7th Cir. 2008). Indeed, it is common in class
actions to have a final phase when individualized proofs are
submitted. Suchanek, 764 F.3d at 756. The Court finds it would be
inefficient and unrealistic to adjudicate liability numerous times
and that individualized damages claims do not preclude class
certification. See Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 727 F.3d 796,
801 (7th Cir. 2013). The proposed IMWL Class and IWPCA Class meet
the superiority requirement for certification under Rule
23(b)(3)."[CC]


SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Kehoe Notes of Aug. 26 Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit was
filed on behalf of purchasers of the American Depositary Shares of
Sunlands Technology Group (NYSE: STG) pursuant and/or traceable to
the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively,
the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with Sunland's
March 2018 initial public offering ("IPO").  The class action
lawsuit seeks to recover compensable damages for shareholders of
Sunlands under the federal securities laws.  

If you purchased securities of Sunlands and suffered damages,
please click Join a Securities Class Action or contact either John
Kehoe, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801, jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com, or
Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804,
myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com, info@kehoelawfirm.com, to learn more
about the class action investigation or lawsuit.  STG investors
have until August 26, 2019 to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff.

According to the class action complaint:

Sunlands provides online education services in the People's
Republic of China . . .. Sunlands offers various degree and
diploma-oriented post-secondary courses, including preparation
courses for the self-taught higher education examination . . . for
learners pursuing associate diplomas or bachelor's degrees, as well
as for the entrance examinations of master of business
administration programs.

In March 2018, Defendants held the IPO, issuing approximately 13
million American Deposit[a]ry Share[s] . . . to the investing
public at $11.50 per ADS, pursuant to the Registration Statement.

By the commencement of this action, Sunlands ADSs traded around
$2.28 per ADS, over 80% decline from the IPO price. As a result,
investors were damaged.

The class action complaint alleges that Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Sunlands's student enrollment was declining; (2) Sunlands's gross
billings were declining; (3) Sunlands's marketing tactics were not
as robust as described in the Registration Statement; and (4) as a
result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Additionally, the complaint states that "[t]he price of Sunlands's
ADSs has plummeted since the IPO. Currently, Sunlands's ADSs trades
around $2.28 per ADS, a decline of over 80% from the IPO price."
[Emphasis added.]

Contact:

         John Kehoe, Esq.
         Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
         Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.
         Phone: (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801,
                (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
         Email: jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com
                myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com
                info@kehoelawfirm.com
[GN]



SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Sunlands Technology Group (STG) pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with Sunlands's March 2018 initial public stock offering (the "IPO"
or the "Offering"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Sunlands investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Sunlands class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1598.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Sunlands's student enrollment was declining; (2)
Sunlands's gross billings were declining; (3) Sunlands's marketing
tactics were not as robust as described in the Registration
Statement; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about
Sunlands's 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.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 26,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1598.html

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190627005682/en/

Contact:

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



TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Kahn Swick Notes of Aug 20 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until August 20, 2019 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Limited (NYSE: TEVA), if they purchased the Company's
American Depository Shares ("ADS") between August 4, 2017 and May
10, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") - - not all law firms are created
equal. Visit www.ksfcounsel.com to learn more about KSF.
(PRNewsfoto/Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC)

What You May Do

If you purchased ADS of Teva Pharmaceutical and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email
(lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit
http://ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-teva/to learn more. If you wish
to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by August 20, 2019.

About the Lawsuit

Teva Pharmaceutical and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

On May 10, 2019, an antitrust lawsuit against the Company was filed
by an alliance of 44 state Attorneys General highlighting facts
about its role as a "consistent participant" in a generic drug
price-fixing conspiracy involving price increases for more than 110
generic drugs.

On this news, the price of Teva Pharmaceutical's ADS plummeted by
nearly 15%.

The case is Employees' Retirement System of The City of St.
Petersburg, Florida v. Teva Pharmaceutical, 19-cv-2711.

Contact:

         Lewis Kahn, Esq.
         Managing Partner
         Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
         206 Covington St.
         Madisonville, LA 70447
         Phone: 1-877-515-1850
         Website:  www.ksfcounsel.com.     
         Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
[GN]




TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Plaintiff 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. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Lyft, Inc. (LYFT)
Class Period: pursuant or traceable to the Company's Offering and
Registration Statement issued in relation to the March 28, 2019
IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 16, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/lyft-inc-loss-form?wire=3

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.

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

Jumia Technologies AG (JMIA)
Class Period: Purchasers of American Depositary Shares between
April 12, 2019 and May 9, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 15, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/jumia-technologies-ag-loss-form?wire=3


Allegations: Jumia Technologies AG made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Jumia had
materially overstated its active customers and active merchants;
(b) Jumia's representations about its orders, order cancellations,
undelivered orders and returned orders lacked a sufficient factual
basis and materially overstated the Company's sales; (c) Jumia
failed to sufficiently disclose related party transactions; and (d)
Jumia's financial statements were presented in violation of
applicable accounting standards.

To learn more about the Jumia Technologies AG class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Eros International Plc (EROS)
Class Period: July 28, 2017 - June 5, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 20, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/eros-international-plc-loss-form?wire=3


Allegations: During the class period, Eros International Plc made
materially 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 ("EIML"), 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.

To learn more about the Eros International Plc class action contact
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (TEVA)
Class Period: on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Teva American Depositary Shares ("ADS") between
August 4, 2017 and May 10, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2019
Join the action:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/teva-pharmaceutical-industries-ltd-loss-form?wire=3


Allegations: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. made materially
false and/or misleading statements throughout the class period
and/or failed to disclose that: (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.

Contact:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Phone: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
[GN]



TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ("Teva" or "the Company") (NYSE:
TEVA) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between August 4, 2017
and May 10, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are encouraged
to contact the firm before August 20, 2019.       

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Teva participated in a massive
price-fixing scheme across the entire industry from at least 2012,
despite the Company's denials. Although Teva was not the only
participant in the scheme, it was the principal organization behind
the anticompetitive action. Teva employees were so deeply involved
in the price-fixing scheme that they were personally named as
defendants by the Attorneys General of almost every state in the
nation. 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 Teva, investors suffered
damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         1880 Century Park East
         Suite 404, Los Angeles
         CA 90067
         Phone:
            Office: 310-301-3335
            Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com
[GN]



UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Fire Class Action Could Come Down to Ownership
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Stutz, writing for Billboard, reports that artists want
compensation for the destruction of their recordings, but their
case isn't simple.

On June 21, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
Universal Music Group on behalf of artists whose master recordings
are believed to have been destroyed in a 2008 fire on the Universal
Studios backlot where they were stored.  The main issue: To whom
did the masters belong?

That suit -- brought by law firms King, Holmes, Paterno & Soriano,
LLP, McPherson LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP representing Soundgarden;
Hole; Steve Earle; Tom Petty's ex-wife, Jane Petty; and Tom Whalley
(on behalf of the Afeni Shakur Trust, which oversees the estate of
Tupac Shakur) -- seeks half of UMG's proceeds from a legal
settlement and a reported insurance payment relating to the fire,
plus half of whatever value they didn't cover. The case will come
down to "good old American property rights," says an attorney who
works for several legacy acts and estates that aren't part of the
lawsuit. "As in, who owns the property?"

The plaintiffs assert that UMG breached its responsibility to
protect the tapes lost -- which held as many as 500,000 songs,
according to an investigation in The New York Times Magazine,
although a UMG archivist said the damage was "overstated." But most
recording contracts don't explicitly mention that responsibility,
and there's a legal distinction between the physical recordings and
the intellectual property they contain. Standard contracts give
labels ownership of physical recordings, so UMG will presumably
claim the property damaged was its own. (UMG declined to comment.)
The lawsuit says these acts expect to reclaim the rights to their
recordings under the reversion provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act
-- which is not a settled issue, as major labels maintain the
recordings are works for hire -- but the law says nothing about
physical property.

There could be other legal arguments -- including claims on lost
earnings for material that no longer exists in high-definition
form. These could be valid claims, says the attorney, but they are
"arguments for which there is no precedent that I'm aware."
[GN]



WELLS FARGO: Agrees to Pay $385MM to Settle Car Loan Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
CBS San Francisco reports that Wells Fargo has agreed to pay at
least $385 million to settle a California lawsuit alleging it
signed up thousands of auto loan customers for costly car insurance
without their consent, resulting in many having their vehicles
repossessed.

The bank filed the agreement on June 6, 2019, in a federal court in
Santa Ana.

Another defendant, National General Insurance, agreed to pay $7.5
million, the New York Post reported.

San Francisco-based Wells Fargo confirmed the agreement on June 7
and called it "an important step in making things right." The
bank's statement said that it will be sending checks to affected
customers.

The 2017 class-action lawsuit alleged that for more than a decade,
Wells Fargo tacked on insurance to customers' car loans that they
didn't need because they had private insurance.

Some 25,000 car owners couldn't meet the additional fees and had
their vehicles repossessed, the suit alleged.

The bank acknowledged in 2017 that $80 million in unnecessary
insurance charges had been added to 800,000 auto loans.

It's one in a series of scandals involving the banking giant,
starting in 2016 with the uncovering of millions of fake checking
accounts its employees opened to meet sales quotas.

That led to the resignation of CEO John Stumpf. Last year, the
Federal Reserve capped the size of Wells Fargo's assets, and
Stumpf's replacement, Tim Sloan stepped down in March. New
improprieties had come to light on his watch, including the auto
loan issues.

Federal regulators who lost patience with Wells Fargo's continued
bad behavior inflicted harsh punishments. Wells had to pay a $1
billion fine last year to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. But more
importantly, the Federal Reserve stepped in and handcuffed Wells'
ability to grow its business until the bank could prove that it had
gotten its house in order.

Despite the restrictions, Wells Fargo reported in March that it
earned $5.86 billion and profits rose by 14% from a year earlier,
helped by higher interest rates. [GN]


WILL COUNTY, IL: Lee Seeks to Certify Strip Searched Inmates Class
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Simon Lee, the Plaintiff, vs. Will
County, et al., the Defendants, Case: 1:19-cv-04244 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order June 25, 2019 to certify
a class of:

   "all inmates held in Will County Adult Detention Facility who
   has been, is or will be unconstitutionally strip searched
   absent specific articulated individualized reasonable
   suspicion that they were secreting weapons or contraband".

Simon Lee says, "During the period of September 2017 to the date of
Judgment in this matter we will have been searched specifically
after returning from court due to an indiscriminate, blanket strip
search policy of searching all persons confined within the jail who
attend and return from court. This includes Pretrial Detainees and
persons remanded after being integrated into the general jail
population returning for follow up court appearances clothed in
jail uniform, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23 (a)&(b).[CC]

WORLD PLUSH: Torres Seeks Overtime Pay, Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against World Plush, Inc.
et al for alleged violations of the Fair Employment and Housing
Act, the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code, for retaliation, and for wrongful termination in
violation of public policy. The case is captioned DANIEL TORRES, an
individual, Plaintiff, vs. WORLD PUSH, INC., a California
Corporation; EEC INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California Corporation; and
DOES 1 TO 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV21416 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 18, 2019). Among other things,
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have failed to pay overtime
wages, minimum wage and all hours worked by its employees. He also
asserts that the Defendants have failed to allow rest and meal
breaks, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and failed to
maintain required records.

Defendants jointly own, manage and/or operate EEC, which does
business in Los Angeles, California, and does business as the EEC
International and/or World Plush. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
     Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
     SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP
     316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
     Telephone: (213) 814-4940


ZF TRW: Court Amends Case Deadline in T. Copley Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order to Amend the Case Deadline in
the case captioned THOMAS COPLEY, MARVIN COYNER, and ELIZABETH
EVANS, Plaintiffs, v. ZF TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., HYUNDAI
MOTOR AMERICA, INC., AND KIA MOTOR AMERICA, INC., Defendants. No.
2:19-cv-00707-RSL. (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint.  In civil actions
now pending in other federal district courts, other plaintiffs have
asserted related or similar claims to those made in this action.

Counsel for the plaintiffs in two Related Actions filed a motion
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 (Consolidation Motion) with the
Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (Panel) seeking to
coordinate the Related Actions for consolidated pre-trial
proceedings in a single jurisdiction, opening MDL No. 2905.

The parties agree and stipulate that there is good cause to extend
the time for Defendants to answer, move, or otherwise plead in
response to Plaintiffs' Complaint and for Plaintiffs to file a
motion for class certification in accordance with LCR 23(i)(3)
until after the Panel rules on the Consolidation Motion, because
doing so will conserve the Court's and the parties' resources and
avoid duplicative or inconsistent rulings in this case and the
other Related Actions.

The parties further agree and stipulate that subject to this
Court's approval, by and between the Plaintiffs and Defendants, by
and through their undersigned counsel or counsel acting on their
behalf.

The deadlines related to initial disclosures and submission of the
Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan set by the Court, are
continued until after the Judicial Panel On Multidistrict
Litigation (Panel) rules on the motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407, opening MDL No. 2905 Consolidation Motion.

The parties agree to confer and propose new deadlines, if the Panel
denies the Consolidation Motion. Defendants' time to answer, move,
or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint shall be
continued until after the Panel rules on the Consolidation Motion
as follows:

   (i) In the event that the Panel denies the Consolidation Motion,
or MDL No. 2905 is otherwise terminated (1) the Defendants' time to
answer, move, or otherwise plead in response to Plaintiffs'
Complaint shall be extended until 45 days after the Panel's order
denying transfer or other event resulting in termination of the
proceedings in MDL No. 2905; (2) Plaintiffs shall have 45 days to
respond to any motions that may be made by Defendants directed to
the Complaint; and (3) Defendants shall have 30 days after
Plaintiffs' response(s) to file any reply in support of any
motion(s) that may be directed to the Complaint; or

  (ii) In the event that the Panel grants the Consolidation Motion,
the Defendants' time to answer, move, or otherwise plead in
response to Plaintiffs' Complaint; Plaintiffs' time to respond to
any motion(s); and Defendants' time to file any reply shall be
determined as ordered by the Transferee Court.

The deadlines pursuant to LCR 23(i)(3) are continued until after
the Panel rules on the Consolidation motion. The parties are to
confer regarding a class certification briefing schedule, if the
Panel denies the Consolidation Motion; and4. Entry into this
stipulation by the Defendants shall not constitute a waiver of any
defenses. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendants expressly
preserve and do not waive any other defenses, including, but not
limited to, the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, insufficiency of process, or improper
venue. The Defendants expressly reserve their rights to raise such
defenses in any responsive pleading.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 17, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyjxc799 from Leagle.com.

Thomas Copley, Marvin Coyner & Elizabeth Evans, Plaintiffs,
represented by Erika M. Keech -- eemerson@kellerrohrback.com --
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, Lynn Lincoln
Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP & Ryan
McDevitt -- rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP.

ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp, Defendant, represented by William
Randolph Squires, III --  rsquires@corrcronin.com -- CORR CRONIN,
LLP.

Hyundai Motor America Inc & Kia Motor America Inc, Defendants,
represented by Caroline Van Ness -- caroline.vanness@skadden.com --
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, pro hac vice, John H.
Beisner  -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER
& FLOM, pro hac vice, Lance A. Etcheverry --
lance.etcheverry@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM,
pro hac vice, Matthew Tako -- matthew.tako@skadden.com -- SKADDEN
ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, pro hac vice & Christopher Martin
Ledford -- cledford@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE.


ZUORA, INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Alerts to Aug. 13 Plaintiff Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Zuora, Inc. ("Zuora" or the
"Company") (NYSE: ZUO) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Zuora securities
from April 12, 2018 through May 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/zuo.  

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Zuora would focus on implementing RevPro for new
customers ahead of the deadline to comply with accounting standard
ASC 606; (2) Zuora lacked adequate resources to integrate RevPro
with the core business; (3) Zuora would focus on RevPro integration
a year after the acquisition closed; (4) delays in integrating
RevPro would materially impact the business; (5) the market for
RevPro was limited to customers seeking to implement new accounting
standards such as ASC 606; (6) after the deadline for ASC 606
compliance passed, demand for RevPro was reasonably likely to
decline; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about Zuora's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/zuo 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 in Zuora you have until August 13, 2019 to request that the
Court appoint you 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. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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]




ZUORA, INC: Kuznicki Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Kuznicki Law PLLC issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in
these companies during the dates listed below are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible appointment as lead plaintiff
and a preliminary estimate of their recoverable losses.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in the respective securities during the class periods.
Members of the class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff. No classes have yet been
certified in the actions below. Appointment as lead plaintiff is
not required to partake in any recovery.

A. O. Smith Corporation (AOS)

Investors Affected : July 26, 2016 - May 16, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in A
O Smith Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) A.O. Smith had undisclosed business connections
and entanglements with UTP through which it funneled up to 75% of
its China product sales; (b) A.O. Smith had used UTP to engage in
channel stuffing by artificially inflating inventories purportedly
sold through distributors that were not based on consumer demand,
thereby approximately doubling the normal level of inventory at
such distributors; (c) A.O. Smith had used its UTP relationship to
artificially inflate the sales figures it reported to investors by
as much as 8% and to conceal worsening sales trends that the
Company was experiencing in China; (d) A.O. Smith's sales growth
had been primarily in lower margin products as its higher priced
products were being undercut by competition in "second-tier"
Chinese cities, causing the Company to experience significant
margin pressures; (e) A.O. Smith had increased its cash reserves in
China to over $530 million in furtherance of its channel stuffing
and sales manipulation scheme, encumbering the Company's ability to
repatriate the cash or use it for capital expenditures; and (f) as
a result of (a)-(e) above, A.O. Smith's business, operations, and
prospects were significantly worse than publicly represented and
the Company was poised for sales and earnings declines in China,
its most important international market.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/a-o-smith-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=2112&from=1

Ascena Retail Group, Inc. (ASNA)

Investors Affected : September 16, 2015 - June 8, 2017

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants 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.

Shareholders may find more information at
https://kclasslaw.com/securities/ascena-retail-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=2112&from=1

Zuora, Inc. (ZUO)

Investors Affected : April 12, 2018 - May 30, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Zuora, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company would focus on implementing RevPro
for new customers ahead of the deadline to comply with accounting
standard ASC 606; (2) as a result, the Company lacked adequate
resources to integrate RevPro with the core business; (3) the
Company would focus on RevPro integration a year after the
acquisition closed; (4) delays in integrating RevPro would
materially impact the business; (5) the market for RevPro was
limited to customers seeking to implement new accounting standards
such as ASC 606; (6) after the deadline for ASC 606 compliance
passed, demand for RevPro was reasonably likely to decline; 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.

Contact:

         Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
         Kuznicki Law PLLC
         445 Central Avenue, Suite 334
         Cedarhurst, NY 11516
         Phone: (347) 696-1134
         Cell: (347) 690-0692
         Fax: (347) 348-0967
         Email: dk@kclasslaw.com
[GN]




[*] Actuarial Equivalence Key Phrase in Defined Benefit Plan Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Janik, Esq., Ann Murray, Esq., Lauren Nations, Esq., Alexia
Noble, Esq., Cheryl Shaw, Esq., Kathryn Solley, Esq., and Susan
Stoffer, Esq., of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, report that the phrase "actuarial equivalence"
does not roll off anyone's lips.  But, it may be the key phrase in
the next wave of class action potential liability for defined
benefit plans.  Over the last six months, cases have been filed
against companies such as Pepsico, Met Life, US Bancorp, American
Airlines, Anheuser Busch, as well as lesser-known companies.  These
cases essentially claim that the company's defined benefit pension
plan uses outdated factors to determine actuarial equivalence which
results in underpaying benefits.

In a defined benefit pension plan, optional forms of benefit, such
as a joint and survivor annuity or period certain and life annuity,
must be actuarially equivalent to the single life annuity.  Also,
defined benefit pension plans provide for early commencement of
benefits by reducing the normal retirement benefit on an actuarial
basis.  In both these instances, the plan terms identify the
interest rate and mortality table to be used for actuarial
purposes. These are sometimes embedded in tables for the plan.
Many plans use mortality tables that were first adopted many years
ago (e.g. 1971 GAM).  Many plans use interest rates that may be
higher than current rates.  These lawsuits claim that the mortality
tables should be newer to take into account longer life
expectancies and interest rates should be lower to reflect a
reasonable market rate.

Actuarial equivalence is not defined in ERISA and the Internal
Revenue Code but is required to be "reasonable".  Selection of the
mortality table and/or interest rates to be used by a plan involves
consideration of a number of factors.  Historically, plans have not
changed mortality tables and/or interest rates used in determining
actuarial equivalence in order to keep benefits the same for all
participants and to avoid complex "anti-cutback" issues which would
tend to permit only changes that would increase the amount of
benefits.  Because of these new lawsuits, employers should ask
their plan actuaries about their pension plan's exposure and
whether the actuarial equivalence for the plan is reasonable.

It should also be noted that most of these cases have also sued the
pension plan committees and their members for breach of ERISA
fiduciary duties.  This raises the question whether the committees
have reviewed and monitored the actuarial equivalent factors and
periodically consulted with the plan's actuaries regarding
compliance.  As annual testing and actuarial reports are underway
for this year, a conversation with the plan's auditors and review
of plan factors may be warranted.

The reported cases are generally in early stages of motions and
discovery.  As class actions which generally include all
participants who did not elect a single life annuity or all current
participants, even a small change in benefits over many people
could account for large amounts involved in these cases. Most
employers are waiting to see the viability of these cases.  In the
meantime, consultation with the actuaries and counsel can help
employers and their fiduciaries weigh the risks and consider if
plan changes would be warranted. [GN]


[] 9th Circ. Affirms Approval of Settlement vs. Large Automakers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weiner Brodsky Kider PC says that the Ninth Circuit, sitting en
banc, recently affirmed the district court's certification of a
nationwide settlement class, approval of a $210 million settlement,
and award of attorneys' fees in a multidistrict class action suit
brought over fuel economy promises made by two major automakers.
The en banc decision reverses a Ninth Circuit panel's earlier
decision to reject the settlement, finding that the district court
had failed to "rigorously analyze potential differences in state
consumer protection laws" before certifying the settlement class.

A number of class action cases were filed nationwide following the
initiation of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency investigation
into complaints that two large automakers had overstated the fuel
efficiency of their vehicles.  These cases were consolidated before
a federal judge in the Central District of California.  In the
interim, the automakers and a large number of class members entered
mediation and shortly thereafter announced a proposed nationwide
settlement for owners of vehicles affected by the fuel economy
statements.  The district court judge granted preliminary approval
of the settlement and certified the class for settlement purposes.
The district court found that "[w]hether the fuel economy
statements were in fact inaccurate;" and "whether [the automakers]
knew that their fuel economy statements were false or misleading"
were undisputed common questions that predominated over
individualized issues.  The decision was appealed, and a
three-judge panel vacated the district court's decision, holding
that in order to certify settlement classes, Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3)'s predominance inquiry requires a choice-of-law
analysis and proof of class wide deception—just as is required
for certification of a litigation class.

In an 8-3 decision, the en banc court ruled that, with regard to
the certification of the settlement class, "the district court did
not abuse its discretion in finding that common issues
predominated."  The court found that Rule 23(b)(3) predominance
factors must be considered in light of the reason for which
certification is sought—litigation or settlement.  Specifically,
the court held that: "the inclusion of used car purchasers in the
class did not defeat predominance; variations in state law did not
defeat predominance; objectors failed to meet their burden of
showing that California law did not apply; and application of
California law satisfied due process."  The court rejected the
objectors' argument that the district court was required to address
variations in state law affecting claims by used car purchasers.
Instead, the en banc court stated that "the prospect of having to
apply the separate laws of dozens of jurisdictions present[s] a
significant issue for trial manageability, weighing against a
predominance finding," but that in settlement cases like this one,
"the district court need not consider trial manageability issues."
Cases involving nationwide settlement classes may be: (1) settled
on a nationwide basis, rather than through a series of
state-by-state class actions; and (2) certified under a standard
that addresses issues related to settlement rather than trial
manageability issues.

With regard to the settlement approval, the court held that "the
notice to class members provided sufficient information; the claim
forms were not overly burdensome; and there was no evidence of
collusion between class counsel and the automakers," and that the
district court had properly exercised its discretion in calculating
the attorneys' fee award.

Finally, the en banc court held that the district court had not
abused its discretion by denying attorneys' fees to objector's
counsel—who challenged the certification order and fee awards on
various grounds ultimately found unpersuasive by the court.  The
court found that objectors' counsel had not contributed to the
class settlement in any meaningful way.
[GN]


[] Attorney Tim Miles Recognized as Distinguished Lawyer
--------------------------------------------------------
The Lawyers of Distinction is pleased to announce that Timothy L.
Miles, a nationally recognized securities class action attorney
from Hendersonville, Tennessee, has been recognized as a
distinguished lawyer. The Lawyers of Distinction is recognized as
the fastest growing community of distinguished lawyers in the
United States. Members are accepted based upon objective evaluation
of an attorney's qualifications, license, reputation, experience,
and disciplinary history. Please see www.lawyersofdistinction.com
for further details concerning membership qualification.

Mr. Miles has dedicated his career to representing shareholders in
complex class-action litigation and has led the fight to protect
shareholder rights for over 18 years. Whether serving as lead,
co-lead, or liaison counsel, Mr. Miles has helped recover hundreds
of millions of dollars for defrauded investors, shaped
precedent-setting decisions, and delivered real corporate
governance reforms. Judges and peers have repeatedly recognized Mr.
Miles' relentless advocacy for shareholders, as well as his
unbendable ethical standards. For example, Mr. Miles is a member of
the prestigious Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National
Trial Lawyers Association, which is by invitation only and is
"extended to those attorneys who exemplify superior qualifications,
trial results, and leadership in their respective state based upon
objective and uniformly applied criteria."

Additionally, Mr. Miles maintains the AV Preeminent Rating,
Martindale-Hubbell's highest possible rating for both ethical
standards and legal ability, after first achieving this rating in
2014. Mr. Miles other awards include: PRR AV Preeminent Rating on
Lawyers.com (2017 & 2019); The Top-Rated Lawyer in Litigation™
for Ethical Standards and Legal Ability(Martindale-Hubble® 2015);
Superb Rated Attorney (Avvo); Avvo Top Rated Lawyer for 2017 & 2018
(Avvo); America's Most Honored Professionals 2018 - Top 1% (The
American Registry 2016-2018).

Lawyers of Distinction uses it own independent criteria, including
both objective and subjective factors in determining if an attorney
can be recognized as a Lawyer of Distinction in the United States
in their respective field. This designation is based upon the
proprietary analysis of the Lawyers of Distinction organization
alone, and is not intended to be endorsed by any of the 50 United
States Bar Associations or The District of Columbia Bar
Association.

Contact:

         Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
         Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles
         124 Shiloh Ridge
         Hendersonville, TN 37075
         Phone: (855) TIM-MLAW (855-846-6529)
         Email: tmiles@timmileslaw.com
[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 ***