CAR_Public/190710.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, July 10, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 137

                            Headlines

3M: Judge Appoints 53 Lawyers to Spearhead Earplug Lawsuits
ACCORDIA LIFE: Federal Judge Gives Interim Approval to Settlement
ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES: Foster Seeks Class Certification Under ERISA
AFFLICTION HOLDINGS: Desalvo Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Upshaw Moves to Certify Women Inmates Class

ALBANESE DEVELOPMENT: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
AMP: Faces Class Action Over Exorbitant Members' Fund Fees
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
APPLE INC: Sermons Sues over Monopoly of Apps and in-App Products
ARMSTRONG MADISON: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York

ASCENA RETAIL: Kuznicki Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit
B8TA INC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
BABYSIDE STATION: Darusliana Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
BEAZER HOMES: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
BIODUN FATOYINBO: Class Action vs. COZA Pastor May Soon Start

BIRD ELECTRIC: Agreed Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Granted
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Riss Balks at Merger Deal with IFM
BUPA TRARALGON: May Face Class Action Over Elderly Mistreatment
CAESARSTONE: Slater and Gordon Files Class Action
CLASSIC OILFIELD: Fulmer Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers

CLOUDERA INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CORECIVIC INC: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Ruling in Gonzalez Suit
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Jennings Files FDCPA Suit in Maryland
EDISON PROPERTIES: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EROS INT'L: Schraufnagel Sues over Ratings Cut, Share Price Drop

EROS INTERNATIONAL: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Firm Investing Investors' Claims
FEDERAL NATIONAL: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Donahue Suit
FISHER-PRICE: Poppe Sues over Injury Risk of Rock 'n Play Sleepers

FLOORING TECHNOLOGIES: Van Hise Moves for Class Certification
FLORIDA FINE CARS: Emeric Appeals S.D. Florida Order to 11th Cir.
FORD MOTOR: Dowhan Suit Asserts ERISA Breach
FRESHLY INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
GEICO GENERAL: Munoz Sues Over Insurance Policy Dispute

GENERIC DRUG COS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
GR RESTAURANT: Lezotte Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
GUILIANO ENVIRONMENTAL: Santos Seeks Wage & Overtime Payments
HERTZ LOCAL: Removes Ramirez Suit to Northern Dist. of California
HOME DEPOT: Nunes et al Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California

HOMELAND SECURITY: Mons et al. Seek to Certify Class
HURRICANE STRAUSS: Almonte et al. Seek Minimum Wage & OT Pay
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Johnson Files Product Liability Suit in C.D. Calif.
ICAN BENEFIT: Invasion of Privacy Exclusion Bars Coverage for Suits
INDIANA: 9 Kids File Class Suit Over Child Welfare System

INFORMATION RESOURCES: Accord Reached in Service Managers' Suit
INTEGON NATIONAL: Center Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Removes Boone Suit to C.D. California
INTUIT INC: Deceived Taxpayers Into Purchasing TurboTax Product
J. ALEXANDER'S: Sued Over Denial of Service to Black Woman

K&S TOOL: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Kraczek Suit Says
KEESLER FEDERAL: Lloyd Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
KONA BREWING: Settles Class Action Over "Made in Hawaii" Claim
LAUREL LEE: Raysor Sues over SB 7066's Wealth-Based Discrimination
LINCARE INC: Martinez Discrimination Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.

LYFT INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MACK WELDON: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MDL 2047: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Taken under Submission
MDL 2741: Pritchett v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MEDICAL CITY HEALTHCARE: De Leon Suit Moved to N.D. Texas

MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Appeals Decision in Vedernikov to 3rd Cir.
MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Futures Contracts Price Manipulation
MIAMI-DADE, FL: Alvarez et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
MICRO KICKBOARD: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MISSISSIPPI: Receiver for Foster Care System Sought

MONEY SOURCE: Martinez Moves to Certify Class of Underwriters
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hosey Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Shirah Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Williams Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MOTEL 6 HOTEL: Settles Suit Over Release of Guest Lists to ICE

NATIONAL PLAN: Long Seeks to Facilitate Notice to Insurance Agents
NEW YORK: Brady Files Suit v. D'Amato
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Gorman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
O'REILLY MARSH: Lieberman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
OFFICE DEPOT: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Alvarez Suit

OSHKOSH DEFENSE: Marquette Seeks to Certify Collective Class
P.T. AUTOMOTIVE: Arellano Hits Missed Breaks, Unpaid Wages
PETROLEUM WHOLESALE: Class of SMs & ASMs Certified in Hradil Suit
PHILADELPHIA ENERGY: Employees of Burnt Refinery File Lawsuit
PHILADELPHIA ENERGY: Rutkowski & Harper Sue over Mass Layoff

PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS: 2nd Class Action Filed Over A-Plant
PRICESMART INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter
PURDUE PHARMA: First Opioid Crisis Case Trial Begins in Oklahoma

PURELINE TREATMENT: Scott Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
RAYDON CORPORATION: Woznicki Seeks to Cert. ESOP Participants Class
RCI HOSPITALITY: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Class Certification Sought in Bronson Suit
SANDALS: To Vigorously Defend Class Action Over Unpaid Taxes

SAPORITO FINISHING: Smart Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
SEA-NY.COM INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SIMON BROTHERS: Gregg Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SOUTH DAKOTA: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Stanko Civil Suit
SOUTH FLORIDA RACING: Lawrence's Class Certification Bid Denied

SPECIALTY COMMODITIES: Initial Approval of Quiruz Suit Deal Denied
STUDENT ASSISTANCE: Foley Seeks to Certify Class
SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Horowitz Sues Over Securities Act Breach
SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Pomerantz Investing Investors' Claims

TATE & KIRLIN: Mann Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pa.
TENNESSEE: Certification of Offenders Classes Sought in Does Suit
TRIUS TRUCKING: Mondrian Seeks Proper Wages for Truck Drivers
UNITED STATES: Hernandez Files Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus
VIRGINIA: Driver's License Suit Not Dismissed by Judge

WATCHES OF SWITZERLAND: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WELLS FARGO: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Popal Suit Says
WINCO FOODS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Johnson Labor Suit
YGRENE ENERGY: Woolley et al. Seek to Certify Class
[*] Law Commission Green Lights Litigation Funding Review


                            *********

3M: Judge Appoints 53 Lawyers to Spearhead Earplug Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
in Florida appointed 53 lawyers to spearhead hundreds of lawsuits
brought by U.S. military members over 3M's dual-ended Combat Arms
Earplugs. U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers, of the Northern
District of Florida, appointed three lawyers as co-lead counsel,
with Bryan Aylstock (Aylstock Witkin) at the head. The other two
are Shelley Hutson (Clark, Love & Hutson) and Chris Seeger (Seeger
Weiss). Rodgers also appointed two attorneys as co-liaison counsel,
seven lawyers on an executive committee and 14 on a plaintiffs'
steering committee, plus lawyers on nine subcommittees. Check out
her order here. Rodgers made some unusual moves: To decide
leadership appointments, she created a panel that heard two days of
presentations. [GN]


ACCORDIA LIFE: Federal Judge Gives Interim Approval to Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Bell, writing for ThinkAdvisor, reports that a federal
court in Illinois has taken a step toward approving a deal that
could apply to the owners of 530,000 interest-sensitive life
insurance policies who were affected by a life insurance company
system conversion effort.

Judge Colin Stirling Bruce -- a judge in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of Illinois -- recently issued an order
granting preliminary approval to a class action settlement for the
case Clapp et al v. Accordia Life and Annuity Company et al.

The plaintiffs in the case owned policies that were issued or
assumed by Accordia Life and Annuity Company and administered by an
outside company. The outside administrator moved the policies from
a number of old administration systems to a new system.

The plaintiffs in the Accordia case allege that Accordia and other
defendants stopped automatically withdrawing, accepting or applying
premium payments during a conversion period, and that, in some
cases, this caused policies to lapse, or for other problems to
occur, according to a memorandum filed by the plaintiffs.

Accordia has not opposed the proposed settlement agreement,
according to the order providing preliminary approval for the
agreement.

The Class

The Accordia case in Illinois combines a class action lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
in October 2016 with a separate lawsuit filed in the Illinois court
in April 2017.

The Illinois court has now provided preliminary certification for a
class that includes holders of most Accordia policies issued from
May 1, 2014, through June 7, 2019, and of Accordia policies that
were converted to a new administration system on or after Aug. 1,
2015. The class also includes the executor or representative of any
deceased class member's estate.

The Preliminary Settlement

Policyholders or estate representatives who dislike the settlement
can object or opt out.

Class members can also file claims for extra cash compensation
within the settlement framework.

The settlement provides automatic, "injunctive relief" for class
members who do nothing.

For those policyholders, the defendants are supposed to
retroactively fix any premium payment, interest payment or
lapsation problems, or other types of problems related to the
system conversion, such as income tax problems.

"There is no cap on the total value of the injunctive relief,"
according to the memorandum. "It provides for the automatic review
and adjustment of policies to correct errors in their status or
classification."

The judge set Dec. 2, 2019, as the final approval date for the
settlement.

Accordia's Reaction

Accordia has sent distributors a notice telling them about the
preliminary court approval of the settlement agreement. The company
said in the notice that it begin mailing notices about the
settlement to policyowners in waves starting July 22.

Independent producers of record will also get detailed notices
about the settlement, according to Accordia.

Accordia is a subsidiary of Global Atlantic Financial Group Ltd.
Global Atlantic has issued the following statement about the
preliminary settlement agreement:

Following the 2013 acquisition of the former life insurance
business of AvivaUSA, we partnered with DXC, a leading third-party
service provider, to move the policies off several legacy systems
onto a modern technology platform to better serve our
policyholders. This project was more complex than anticipated and
caused unintended service disruptions. Throughout this process we
have worked with policy holders to address any service disruptions
or issues as they arose, and this settlement ensures applicability
of those accommodations across the class. While this project was
challenging, the new technology platform is critical in our
continuing efforts to improve service for our customers over the
long term.[GN]


ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES: Foster Seeks Class Certification Under ERISA
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CAROL FOSTER, and THEO
FOREMAN, on behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ADAMS AND ASSOCIATES, INC., ROY A.
ADAMS, LESLIE G. ADAMS, DANIEL B. NOREM, JOY CURRY NOREM and THE
DANIEL NOREM REVOCABLE TRUST DATED JANUARY 9, 2002, Case No.
3:18-cv-02723-JSC (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court to certify the claims
in their Second Amended Complaint under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

The proposed class is defined as: (a) All participants in the Adams
and Associates Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("the ESOP") from
October 25, 2012 or any time thereafter who vested under the terms
of the ESOP; and (b) the beneficiaries of such participants.

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and their immediate
family; any fiduciary of the ESOP; the officers and directors of
Adams and Associates, Inc. or of any entity in which a Defendant
has a controlling interest; and legal representatives, successors,
and assigns of any such excluded persons.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives and to appoint Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow
LLP and Block & Leviton LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the Class.

The Court will commence a hearing on August 22, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
          E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com

               - and -

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          1735 20th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 734-7046
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Vincent Cheng, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 968-8999
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: vincent@blockesq.com


AFFLICTION HOLDINGS: Desalvo Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Affliction Holdings,
LLC. The case is styled as Brett Desalvo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Affliction
Holdings, LLC, doing business as: Affliction Clothing a California
corporation, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-01301-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal., June 28, 2019).

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

Affliction Clothing is an American clothing manufacturer and
retailer based in Seal Beach, California. It is owned by Affliction
Holdings LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
     Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
     Wilshire Law Firm
     3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (213) 381-9988
     Fax: (213) 381-9989
     Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
            bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Upshaw Moves to Certify Women Inmates Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled TIKISHA UPSHAW, TYREKA STEWART
and ANDREA HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE;
SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN; ASSISTANT SHERIFF D. HOUGHTELLING,
COMMANDER TOM MADIGAN; CAPTAIN D. HESSELEIN, CAPTAIN TARA RUSSELL,
CAPTAIN D. SKOLDKVIST, DEPUTY STINSON, DEPUTY SENSIBA, DEPUTY
SARTIN, DEPUTY KRANTAVILLE, DEPUTY HENDERSON, DEPUTY GUERRA, DEPUTY
CRANDALL, DEPUTY CHANDRA AND DOES 1 THRU 50, Case No.
3:18-cv-07814-JD (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for a limited issue
class certification under Rule 23(c)(4) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The class consists of:

     all women who are now or will be in the future, incarcerated
     in the Alameda County Jails; on the limited issue of whether
     Defendants' policies and practices depriving and disrupting
     women prisoners' sleep violates plaintiffs' and class
     members' constitutional rights.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court for an order appointing Tikisha
Upshaw, who is currently in custody and pretrial, as the class
representative.

The Court will commence a hearing on August 1, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yolanda Huang, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF YOLANDA HUANG
          475 14th Street, Suite 500
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 329-2140
          Facsimile: (510) 580-9410
          E-mail: yhuang.law@gmail.com

               - and -

          Dennis Cunningham, Esq.
          115A Bartlett St.
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Telephone: (415) 285-8091
          Facsimile: (415) 285-8092
          E-mail: denniscunninghamlaw@gmail.com


ALBANESE DEVELOPMENT: Olsen Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Albanese Development
Corporation. The case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Albanese Development Corporation doing business as: The Solaire,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03801 (E.D. N.Y., June 29, 2019).

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

Albanese Development Corporation develops hotel, office, and
residential properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


AMP: Faces Class Action Over Exorbitant Members' Fund Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Mathew Dunckley, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
AMP and the trustees of its superannuation funds face a fresh class
action alleging up to 1 million customers were overcharged fees on
their accounts.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn was expected to lodge a class action
claim in the Federal Court on May 30 alleging two trustees -- AMP
Superannuation Limited and NM Superannuation Limited -- of various
AMP superannuation funds failed to discharge their legal duties to
their customers.

The lawsuit will centre on claims that a string of administration
and other fees that AMP charged the funds were too high and the
trustees breached their legal duty in failing to determine if the
fees were fair or seek a better deal.

The level of the alleged gouge will vary depending on the
particular superannuation account, but Maurice Blackburn claims the
2.5 million affected accounts could each have been overcharged
thousands of dollars.

The case will cover customers who held accounts from 2013 through
to May 30.

AMP altered its fees last year when the performance of its funds
was under the spotlight from the Hayne royal commission.

Maurice Blackburn principal lawyer Brooke Dellavedova said evidence
uncovered at the royal commission had formed an important part of
the case's foundation along with publicly available documentation.

"It's important that inquiries and regulators uncover mass
wrongdoing of this nature, but that doesn't give people back their
hard-earned superannuation funds, which they need for their
retirement. We estimate that over 2 million accounts have been
impacted by AMP's alleged misconduct," Ms Dellavedova said.

The royal commission heard that AMP's superannuation funds had
outsourced its operations to other AMP entities in deals worth
hundreds of millions of dollars in fees. AMP has since cut fees it
charges the superannuation trustees.

Ms Dellavedova said the AMP companies that had provided the
services to the funds were also being sued because they had
received the benefit of the overcharging and so were implicated.

This class action asserts that AMP trustees breached statutory and
general law obligations, essentially paying itself handsome fees
from members' funds.

Maurice Blackburn's Brooke Dellavedova
"This class action asserts that AMP trustees breached statutory and
general law obligations, essentially paying itself handsome fees
from members' funds. The case we are running will hold AMP to
account for that," she said.

Maurice Blackburn won the right to lead a field of class actions
against AMP on behalf of shareholders claiming the company breached
its continuous disclosure obligations.

Rival law firm Slater & Gordon has also flagged it would seek to
run a class action on behalf of AMP's superannuation customers.

An AMP spokesman said the company had not yet seen any documents
relating to the case but stood by its performance.

"We understand the potential action relates to AMP superannuation
trustees and AMP meeting its obligations to members. On this basis,
we would defend the matter vigorously, if served," he said.

"AMP and the trustees of its superannuation funds are firmly
committed to acting in the best interests of their superannuation
members and acting in accordance with legal and regulatory
obligations. We encourage any customers who have concerns to
contact AMP directly or their financial adviser."

He added that AMP had cut fees on its MySuper products in 2018 and
in 2019 had also cut fees on its MyNorth product.

The Maurice Blackburn class action is backed by litigation funder
Harbour.

In a statement, lead plaintiff Sebastian Smith said he felt that
AMP had taken advantage of its customers.

"The information out of the banking royal commission regarding
AMP's superannuation fees really annoyed me," he said.

"Here is a huge wealth institution that I -- and millions more like
me -- have entrusted our future retirement savings to, and they're
not working in our best interests, they're not giving us a good
deal, and they're not even giving us a fair deal. It stinks."

AMP shares closed on Wednesday, May 29, 2019, at $2.19 at near
record lows after trading above $5 in February last year prior to
the start of the royal commission. [GN]


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (BUD) for violations of §§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 March 1, 2018
and October 24, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 20, 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. Anheuser-Busch's cost-cutting measures
had been implemented to the greatest extent possible. At the same
time, key emerging markets suffered from currency devaluation and
cost inflation, negatively impacting the Company's margins. In a
variety of key markets, the Company suffered from lower growth than
expected. In fact, Anheuser-Busch would not be able to maintain its
current dividend while still meeting deleveraging targets, and it
was at risk of a credit downgrade. The Company filed false and
misleading disclosures to the SEC including on liquidity and
working capital, and risk factors the Company was experiencing.
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 Anheuser-Busch, 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]


APPLE INC: Sermons Sues over Monopoly of Apps and in-App Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Sermons, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03796-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 28, 2019),
seeks to recover for damages and injunctive relief under the
antitrust laws of the United States. The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant has gained and maintains monopoly power in the U.S.
market for iOS app and in-app products in violation of Section II
of the Sherman Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. As a
result of Apple's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and members of
the proposed Class are being harmed in a manner they otherwise
would not have been in a competitive market.

The lawsuit is brought by iOS app developers against Apple for the
following anticompetitive practices: acquiring and maintaining a
monopoly in the market for apps and in-app products developed for
the Apple iOS operating system; refusing to allow other entities to
distribute apps and related digital products to U.S. owners of its
Apple iOS devices; and pricing requirements and mandates, including
charging the same 30% supra-competitive commission on the sale of
all paid apps and in-app purchases (since the App Store opened in
2008) and dictating minimum and greater price points that prevent
developers from offering products for sale at lower prices.

Apple launched its App Store in 2008 to coincide with the release
of its iPhone 3G.  The App Store provides a setting for users to
access or purchase millions of software applications (apps) for
their Apple iOS devices. Through the App Store, Apple hosts apps
created by developers and makes the apps available for browsing and
downloading by users. Within this environment, developers create
apps that compete with other apps for user downloads. The App Store
has hundreds of millions of customers who have downloaded apps more
than tens of billions of times.

App Store apps can be downloaded directly to iOS devices such as
the iPhone smartphone, the iPod Touch handheld device, the iPad
tablet computer, the Apple Watch, or Mac 5 devices. Apps are
available for purchase or through a free download, which often
utilize a "freemium" payment model, that allows the user to
download the app without upfront costs but generates revenues
through in-app purchases.

The popularity of the App Store has been stunning. Within the first
18 months of the App Store's existence, nearly 150,000 apps were
released (at a rate of approximately 275 apps per 3 day) and nearly
4 billion apps had been downloaded worldwide. Today, there are
currently more than two million apps available in Apple's App
Store.

Apps today have become an everyday tool for persons throughout the
U.S., and worldwide. In fact, apps, and their in-app product
purchase options, are one of the largest growing markets in the
electronic commerce industry, with astonishing worldwide growth
from less than $10 billion annual revenue in 2011 to an expected
$189 billion by 2020.

The App Store has been a money-making machine for Apple. From 2014
to 2016 alone, Apple's App Store revenue rose from $4.5 billion to
$8.8 billion. Revenue for Apple from the App Store in 2017 was
approximately $11.5 billion. Users of the App Store spent an
estimated $46.6 billion in 2018. The enormous increase in the
development and sales of apps and in-app products has resulted in a
substantial corresponding increase in Apple's revenues.

Apple has achieved such staggering growth and revenue because it
designed its iOS operating system to lock its Apple iOS device
users into buying applications only from the App Store.
Applications created for other mobile devices not sold by Apple
through its App Store will not work on Apple iOS devices.

Through this exclusive distribution service, Apple has obtained and
maintains a dominant position in the market for iOS app and in-app
product distribution services. Apple uses this dominant position
over iOS developers to charge developers supra-competitive fees.
The App Store contractual guidelines limit choice and stifle
innovation by charging developers a 30% tax, or commission (the
exact same amount Apple has charged since the App Store opened
despite the $99 annual fee just to sell their products through the
App Store. Apple further limits developers' choice and stifles
their innovation by mandating that developers charge a minimum
price of $0.99 26 for all paid apps and greater price points (all
ending in $.99) for more expensive apps.

Even as Apple's revenue from the App Store has continued to grow,
it has further cut app developers' earnings. In June 2017, Apple
introduced rule 4.2.6 into the App Store guidelines which gave it
the right to ban any apps that share a code base or template with
another app. The rule was subsequently revised in December 2017 so
that template apps could be submitted, but more significantly,
Apple made another change: to successfully submit apps to the App
Store, developers had to create individual accounts for each
submission. The result is that each account, and thus each 5 app,
required a separate $99 annual fee to be paid to Apple by the app
developer.

Apple's improper monopolization of this market, or the abuse of its
monopoly powers in the retailing space, has stifled competition by
preventing the emergence of any viable competitors to market and
sell iOS apps. Additionally, Apple's exclusion of any competitors
depresses the output of iOS app and in-app product distribution
transactions by rendering undiscoverable vast numbers of apps (and
related in-app products) because of the sheer number of apps
populating the App Store.

There are no legitimate business justifications for Apple's
exclusionary and anticompetitive conduct. To the extent Apple has
sought to achieve any legitimate business purposes through its
conduct, it has not used the least restrictive means for doing so.
Any claimed pro-competitive benefit is outweighed by the
anti-competitive harm. Any purported legitimate business
justifications are mere pretexts. Apple's refusal to permit others
to distribute apps on Apple iOS devices and its mandated pricing
requirements are unlawful restraints of trade.

Apple's anticompetitive conduct has caused developers to incur
inflated fees, costs, and pricing for each app and in-app product
developed for Apple's iOS operating system; and harmed competition
by reducing competitors' ability to compete and incentive to
innovate.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and The Proposed Class are:

          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          Guido Saveri, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          E-mail guido@saveri.com
                  rick@saveri.com

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 234-6487
          E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com
                  jjagher@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, #130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                  bhogan@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
                  glynch@carlsonlynch.com

ARMSTRONG MADISON: Rosenberg Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Armstrong Madison &
Chase Ltd. et al. The case is styled as Yehuda Rosenberg on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Armstrong Madison & Chase Ltd., Armstrong Madison & Chase LI Inc.,
Peter Romano, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03770 (E.D. N.Y., June
27, 2019).

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

Armstrong Madison & Chase Ltd. manages past due accounts
receivables. The Company maintains in-house investigation and
skip-tracing departments to handle commercial accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
     Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
     735 Central Avenue
     Woodmere, NY 11598
     Phone: (516) 668-6945
     Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


ASCENA RETAIL: 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]




B8TA INC: Dominguez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B8ta, Inc. The case
is styled as Yovanny Dominguez on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. B8ta, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06027 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019).

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

b8ta, Inc. owns and operates retail store for technical gadgets.
The company was formerly known as Beta Retail, Inc. and changed its
name to b8ta, Inc. in June 2015.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BABYSIDE STATION: Darusliana Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bayside Station
Laundromat & Dry Cleaner Inc. The case is styled as Layli
Darusliana, Yuliana Entzek, on behalf of those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Bayside Station Laundromat & Dry Cleaner Inc., Nancy
Paat, Rafi Paat, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03747 (E.D. N.Y.,
June 27, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bayside Laundry & Dry Cleaning is a privately held company in
Niceville, FL and is a business categorized under Garment Pressing
and Cleaners' Agents.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


BEAZER HOMES: 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 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]


BIODUN FATOYINBO: Class Action vs. COZA Pastor May Soon Start
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tonye Bakare, writing for The Guardian, reports that despite his
denial of rape allegations against him, the groundswell of possible
legal action against the global senior pastor of Commonwealth of
Zion Assembly (COZA) may take shape in the coming week.

Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo was accused by Busola Dakolo, a celebrity
photographer and wife of Nigerian singer Timi Dakolo, of raping her
twice within a week in 2000.

Busola said she was a 16-year-old teenager when Fatoyinbo allegedly
raped her, first at her parents' house and later at a secluded spot
in Ilorin, the Kwara State capital.

Fatoyinbo said Busola was a member of the church at the time she
said the rape happened, but he insisted he never raped her or
anyone else.

"I have never in my life raped anybody even as an unbeliever and I
am absolutely innocent of this," said Fatoyinbo in an unsigned
statement posted to his Instagram account on evening of June 28.

But the details shared by Busola in the four-part videos published
by YNaija on June 28 morning have earned support from Nigerians,
including politicians, celebrities and civil society organisations,
one of which The Guardian learned is filing a class action against
Fatoyinbo in the coming week.

"We have more than 30 people who are ready to testify against him,"
said Segun Awosanya, who is working with Citizen Gavel, a civic
tech organisation, on the case.

"Busola's case is just one out of the plethora of abuses that we
have heard."

When asked if Fatoyinbo could be sued for statutory rape since
Busola said he raped her when she was below the age of 18, Awosanya
said it is possible.

Awosanya, however, warned against the case against Fatoyinbo being
misconstrued as a fight against the church.

"We are ending rape culture and we are starting in the culture."

In a country with an abysmal conviction rate of persons accused of
rape, the support Busola has gotten since the interview was
published on June 28 morning has been immense.

"We all, as women, must rise up and demand justice," tweeted Abike
Dabiri, the chairman, Nigerians in Diaspora Commission and senior
special adviser to Nigerian president on foreign affairs and the
diaspora.

"Busola, you've got my back!"

She is also being praised for her bravery by speaking out about her
trauma despite having so much to lose, especially in a country that
encourages silence in such circumstances.

In his response to the allegations, Fatoyinbo said Busola's
allegations were "fallacious," "non-existent" and threatened to sue
her and her husband.

That threat is being already countered by Busola's husband Timi
Dakolo and Nigerians who promised to establish legal funds for
her.

"I have seen Biodun Fatoyinbo's statement. I look forward to him
carrying out his threat to sue Busola Dakolo," tweeted Dr Joe Abah,
a former director-general of the Bureau of Public Service Reforms
and current country director of DAI.

"As Mrs Dakolo doesn't have a church that can fund her defence, I
have set aside a little money to contribute to her defence. Please
do so too."

Dr Abah's tweet elicited a flurry of promises of financial support
for Busola legal defence.

What lies ahead

In the days ahead, the legal battles, and their fallouts the
allegations against Fatoyinbo will birth may define how Nigeria
treats rape allegations, especially those involving high-ranking
individuals. [GN]


BIRD ELECTRIC: Agreed Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, CHRISTOPHER LOPEZ, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BIRD
ELECTRIC ENTERPRISES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
7:18-cv-00231-DC-RCG (W.D. TeX.), the Hon. Judge Ronald C. Griffin
entered an order:

   1. withdrawing the Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's
      opposed motion for conditional certification issued by the
      court on June 10, 2019;

   2. denying as moot Plaintiff's opposed motion for conditional
      certification;

   3. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for corrective notice;

   4. granting Parties' agreed motion for conditional
      certification of a class of:

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

   5. directing Defendant that within 14 days of the Order, to
      disclose in Excel (.xlsx) format: the full name; last known
      address(es) with city, state, and zip code; all know
      telephone numbers; beginning date(s) of employment; and
      ending date(s) of employment (if applicable) of any class
      members;

   6. authorizing Plaintiff to offer the Class Members the option
      to consent to join this collective action through the use of

      electronic signatures; and

   7. directing Class Counsel may only contact any Class Member by

      telephone for the purpose of securing a correct mailing
      address if the original mailed notice is returned to Class
      Counsel as undeliverable, other than the text message
notice.

Within 30 days of receiving the contact information for the Class
Members:

   Class Counsel shall send a copy of the Notice and Consent Form
   to this Order to the Class Members by First Class U.S. Mail;
   Class Counsel may send the Text Message Notice of Collective
   Action attached to this Order one time to the Class Members
   through text message; and Class Counsel may make the Notice and

   Consent Form available on a website solely dedicated to
   disseminating notice. Class Counsel shall send a link of the
   website to Defendant's counsel shortly after the time the
   website is published and shall not make changes to the website
   during the Notice Period, without agreement from Defendant's
   counsel in advance.

Within 3 days of the initial delivery of the Notice of Collective
Action:

   Class Counsel shall file an Advisory with the Court indicating
   the date of delivery of the Notice of Collective Action and
   Consent Form was first sent to the Class Members (the "Delivery

   Date").

60 days from the Delivery Date:

   The Class Members shall have 60 days from the Delivery Date to
   return their signed Consent forms to Class Counsel for filing
   with the Court (the "Notice Period").

No later than 7 days after the close of the Notice Period:

   Class Counsel shall file with the Court all signed Consents to
   Join.[CC]

BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Riss Balks at Merger Deal with IFM
----------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL RISS, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BUCKEYE PARTNERS, L.P., CLARK C.
SMITH, PIETER BAKKER, BARBARA M. BAUMANN, BARBARA J. DUGANIER,
JOSEPH A. LASALA, JR., MARK C. MCKINLEY, LARRY C. PAYNE, OLIVER G.
RICHARD, III, FRANK S. SOWINSKI, and MARTIN A. WHITE, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01241-UNA (D. Del., June 28, 2019),
seeks to enjoin unitholders from voting on a proposed merger
transaction, unless and until material information is disclosed to
Buckeye unitholders.

The case is a unitholder class action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and all other public unitholders of Buckeye
Partners, L.P. against Buckeye and the members of Buckeye's Board
of Directors for their violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, pursuant to which Buckeye will be acquired by
IFM Investors Pty Ltd., through Hercules Intermediate Holdings LLC
and Parent's wholly-owned subsidiary Hercules Merger Sub LLC.

On May 10, 2019, Buckeye and IFM issued a joint press release
announcing they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated May 10, 2019 to sell Buckeye to IFM. Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, each issued and outstanding unit of Buckeye
representing limited partner interests in the Company will be
converted into the right to receive $41.50 in cash.  The proposed
transaction is valued at $10.3 billion.

On June 25, 2019, in order to convince Buckeye's public unitholders
to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, defendants filed a
Definitive Proxy Statement with the SEC, which omits or
misrepresents material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction, the lawsuit says.

Following the announcement of the deal, Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
disclosed it was investigating potential claims against the board
of directors of Buckeye on behalf of Buckeye unitholders concerning
the proposed acquisition of the company by IFM.  The investigation
focused on whether Buckeye and its board of directors violated the
federal securities laws and/or breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's unitholders by failing to conduct a fair process and
whether and by how much the proposed transaction undervalues the
Company.

Buckeye is one of the largest independent liquid petroleum products
pipeline operators in the United States in terms of volumes
delivered, with approximately 6,000 miles of pipeline. Buckeye also
uses its service expertise to operate and/or maintain third-party
pipelines and perform certain engineering and construction services
for its customers. Buckeye's global terminal network comprises more
than 115 liquid petroleum products terminals with aggregate tank
capacity of over 118 million barrels across its portfolio of
pipelines, inland terminals and marine terminals located primarily
in the East Coast, Midwest and Gulf Coast regions of the United
States as well as in the Caribbean.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Melissa A. Fortunato,.
          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

               - and -

          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

BUPA TRARALGON: May Face Class Action Over Elderly Mistreatment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cher Jimenez, writing for Latrobe Valley Express, reports that aged
care home in crisis Bupa Traralgon may be faced with a class suit
as families of residents engage a law firm involved in
investigating alleged mistreatment of the elderly at nursing homes
across the country.

On May 15 a lawyer from NSW-based Schofield King Lawyers met 12
families who had a loved one who lived or still lives at the Park
Lane site to discuss possible legal action against the company.

The meeting took place in Traralgon with the lawyer holding
one-on-one meetings with individual families the next day.

Senior counsel from Schofield King Lawyers Melissa Obrist said she
was shocked to discover how some residents were being treated at
nursing homes after representing an aged care worker for a work
compensation case.

"I said to my boss I wanted to be part of a change. It used to be a
thing where you go to a nursing home and you're poorly treated and
people say it's not right. Now it's a well-known fact [and seems
normal]. It's not how it should be," Ms Obrist told The Express.

Ms Obrist used social media to reach out to families at Bupa
Traralgon and advised them of their rights and possible legal steps
they could take against the aged care home.

"There's a lot of potential causes of action . . . it's just matter
of sitting with a barrister and talking about what prospects there
are and what needs to be done -- whether it's going to be a class
suit or individual cases," she said.

"It's possible that it's [going to be] a class action but it has
requirements."

Ms Obrist said a class action required seven or more clients making
claims against the same person, the claims should rise out of
similar or related circumstances and "must give rise to a
substantial common issue of law or facts."

She said while there were benefits in aiming for a class action
against Bupa as it was "cost effective [and] can sometimes end up
in quicker results," families should not feel discouraged.

"If it doesn't end up to be a class suit they should not to be
disappointed. If you hit Bupa with individual claims, they will
have same effects," Ms Obrist said.

She said families could possibly claim for neglect and abuse,
dependency claims if a resident had passed away, mental harm and
nervous shock for families seeing a loved one pass away, breach of
contract and for overcharging of medications that were not provided
to residents.

Ms Obrist said families had complained of issues such as poor
quality of food being served to residents, instances where staff
gave the wrong medication to an elderly person and failure to
provide personal care among other concerns.

She said family members reported visiting their loved ones at the
facility to feed and give them a shower after clocking out from
work.

"The exhaustion on these people is huge," she said.

"One of the biggest things that stands out to me was reports of
cases where buzzers were being removed so residents can't buzz [for
help]."

Ms Obrist said families who had a loved one who used to be at the
aged care home and had passed on could still consider legal action
against Bupa.

Heather Mayes, who lost her mum at the facility last year, has
taken a wait-and-see approach to see what would transpire after the
meeting.

Ms Mayes and other family members had a quiet get together to
honour her mum, Christina Monks, who would have turned 80.

She said two days before her mother died on July 13, it took 35
minutes for the nursing staff to change her mother's syringe
driver.

Ms Mayes said she was hopeful legal action would change things at
Bupa.

"I'm hopeful for other residents. It could be something for them --
hopefully it might help them," she said. [GN]


CAESARSTONE: Slater and Gordon Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Emily McPherson, writing for 9News, reports that law firm Slater
and Gordon has launched a class action on behalf of hundreds of
stonemasons who have contracted a potentially fatal lung disease
while cutting up kitchen benchtops.

The class action will take on the manufacturers of the stone
benchtops, who Slater and Gordon says failed to properly warn
workers about the risks their products posed and what precautions
they needed to take to protect themselves.

Doctors fear the disease could be the "next asbestos" after
identifying a sudden spike in the number of stonemasons diagnosed
with the condition.

Silicosis is caused by long-term exposure to silica dust, which is
created when artificial or engineered stone -- popular in kitchen
bench tops and bathroom vanities -- is cut.

In April, nine.com.au broke the tragic news of 36-year old Gold
Coast tradie Anthony White's death.

Mr White became the face of the health crisis after speaking out
about the deadly condition.

His brother Shane, who worked alongside him as a stonemason at the
same company, was diagnosed with silicosis a week before his
death.

In the past year in Queensland alone, more than 100 stonemasons
have been diagnosed with silicosis., while in Victoria 36 workers
have lodged WorkCover claims for silica-related conditions.

Joel Goldby, a 29-year-old stonemason from Brunswick, Melbourne was
recently diagnosed with silicosis after working for 12 years in the
industry.

Mr Goldby is part of Slater and Gordon's class action.
"I had a shortness of breath and assumed it was everyday life or
something that happens when you get older," Mr Goldby said.

"I had never even heard about it and we never really spoke about it
at work; we really didn't know the danger involved.

"My mum pushed me to go to the doctor after my older brother got
diagnosed.

"When I finally got the test done, the scan showed numerous nodules
ranging from 1-5mms across both lungs."

Slater and Gordon Practice Group Leader Margaret Kent said
Australia's major stone bench top suppliers -- Caesarstone, Quantum
Quartz and Smartstone -- had failed to do enough to protect workers
handling their products.

"Under Australian law the responsibility for harm caused in these
circumstances rightly falls on the manufacturers involved. The
extreme levels of harm caused by dust from stone bench-top products
in Australia can be traced back to a small number of
manufacturers," Ms Kent said.

"It is a tragedy that so many people have, or will, become
grievously ill just by going to work.

"This class action will seek to ensure that the manufacturers are
held to account for the harms their products have caused."

However the class action has been criticised by rival law firm
Shine Lawyers who say it is not the best way for affected workers
to get compensation.

Shine Lawyers' dust disease expert, Roger Singh, who represented Mr
White and achieved a confidential settlement for him before his
death, said in a statement that workers suffering from silicosis
were still better off taking individual action against their
employer.

"The best option for injured workers in silicosis cases is to bring
individual claims in this instance and not a class action," Mr
Singh said.

The Queensland Government has so far led the way in cracking down
on safety standards in the industry by banning the dry cutting of
engineered stone, setting up a specialist silicosis working group
and conducting workplace audits.

In Victoria, Workplace Minister Jill Hennessy has vowed to lobby
for the national exposure standard of silica dust to be reduced
from 0.1 milligrams per cubic metre over an eight-hour shift to
0.025 milligrams, as it is in the US. [GN]


CLASSIC OILFIELD: Fulmer Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, RICHARD TODD FULMER, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CLASSIC OILFIELD SERVICES,
LP, and BEN PINKSTON, the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00041-DC-RCG
(W.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action:

      "all current and former truck drivers employed by Defendant
      who exclusively hauled cuttings within the state of Texas,
      and worked in excess of 40 hours in any workweek at any time

      for during the three years preceding the date the Order for
      Certification is entered";

   2. requiring Defendants to furnish Plaintiff's counsel with a
      complete and accurate list of the names, last known
      addresses and email addresses of the potential class
      members within 30 days of entry of the Order by the Court;
and

   3. approving issuance of notice and consent to join forms.

The case is filed as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action,
and Plaintiff claims that he, and others similarly situated to him,
were not properly paid overtime during their employment with
Defendants. Defendants deny all such allegations, the lawsuit
says.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
          Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
          ROSS SCALISE LAW GROUP
          1104 San Antonio Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 474-7677
          Facsimile: (512) 474-5306

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Aaron M. Dorfner, Esq.
          Melinda D. Hamm, Esq.
          COTTON BLEDSOE TIGHE & DAWSON
          500 W Illinois Ave, Suite 300
          Midland, TX 79701
          Telephone: (432) 684-5782
          Facsimile: (432) 682-3762
          E-mail: adorfner@cbtd.com
                  mhamm@cbtd.com

CLOUDERA INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Cloudera, Inc. (NYSE: CLDR) from April 28, 2017
through June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Cloudera investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Cloudera class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1596.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) Cloudera was finding it increasingly difficult to
identify large enterprises interested in adopting Cloudera's
Hadoop-based platform; (2) Cloudera needed to expend an increasing
amount of capital on sales and marketing activities to generate new
revenues; (3) Cloudera had materially diminished sales
opportunities and prospects and could not generate annual positive
cash flows for the foreseeable future; (4) the primary motivation
for Cloudera's merger with Hortonworks was to generate growth
through the acquisition of Hortonworks' existing customers (as
opposed to obtaining them organically); (5) the purported synergies
and other benefits of the merger with Hortonworks were materially
overstated; and (6) defendants' positive statements about
Cloudera's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 6,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1596.html

To discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action
please 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]


CORECIVIC INC: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Ruling in Gonzalez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant CoreCivic, Incorporated, filed an appeal from the
District Court's denial of its motion to dismiss the TVPA claim in
the lawsuit entitled Martha Gonzalez v. CoreCivic, Incorporated,
Case No. 1:18-CV-169, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, Austin.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed on February 22, 2018, arguing that a
company that manages immigrant detention centers, including the T.
Don Hutto Center in Taylor, is violating the federal Trafficking
Victims and Protection Act by forcing labor on those in the
center.

Martha Gonzalez, a Harris County resident who was formerly detained
at one center in Laredo, one in Taylor and a third center just
north of Laredo, is suing private prison company CoreCivic on
behalf of herself and "all others similarly situated."

Ms. Gonzalez's lawsuit says she was required to work at these
detention centers under threat of isolation, retaliation and other
deprivations.

"CoreCivic threatened detainees who refused to work with
confinement, physical restraint, substantial and sustained
restrictions, deprivation, violation of their liberty and solitary
confinement," the lawsuit says.  "CoreCivic made frequent examples
of individual detainees who complained or refused to work."

The appellate case is captioned as Martha Gonzalez v. CoreCivic,
Incorporated, Case No. 19-90017, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that
response/opposition is due on July 5, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent MARTHA GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
          Joseph F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay Anand Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com
                  jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner CORECIVIC, INCORPORATED is represented by:

          Nicholas D. Acedo, Esq.
          Daniel P. Struck, Esq.
          Rachel Love, Esq.
          Ashlee B. Hesman, Esq.
          Jacob B. Lee, Esq.
          STRUCK LOVE BOJANOWSKI & ACEDO, PLC
          3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300
          Chandler, AZ 85226
          Telephone: (480) 420-1600
          E-mail: nacedo@strucklove.com
                  dstruck@strucklove.com
                  rlove@strucklove.com
                  ahesman@strucklove.com
                  jlee@strucklove.com

               - and -

          Allison L. Bowers, Esq.
          HUTCHESON BOWERS LLLP
          1301 S. Mopac, Suite 430
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 777-4449
          E-mail: allison@hutchesonbowers.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Jennings Files FDCPA Suit in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Dawn Jennings on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic
Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01895-GJH (D.
Md., June 27, 2019).

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

Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full-service collection agency
based in South Carolina. Dynamic Recovery Solutions is experienced
in collecting late-stage debt for small, medium, and high-volume
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
     Lemberg Law LLC
     43 Danbury Road
     Wilton, CT 06897
     Phone: (203) 653-2250
     Fax: (203) 653-3424
     Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


EDISON PROPERTIES: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Edison Properties,
LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett Individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Edison
Properties, LLC
doing business as: The Ludlow NYC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06103 (S.D. N.Y., June 29, 2019).

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

Edison Properties, LLC owns and operates real estate properties.
The company specializes in parking, mini storage, small offices,
and flexible workspaces.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EROS INT'L: Schraufnagel Sues over Ratings Cut, Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SCHRAUFNAGEL, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EROS INTERNATIONAL PLC,
KISHORE LULLA, PREM PARAMESWARAN, and JYOTI DESHPANDE, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-14445 (D.N.J., June 28, 2019), seeks
to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of
the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The case is a class action on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Eros securities
between July 28, 2017, and June 5, 2019, inclusive.

According to complaint, on July 28, 2017, the Company issued a
press release containing its financial results for the fiscal year
2017, ended March 31, 2017. On August 1, 2017, the Company issued
another press release announcing that it had filed its Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the 2017 fiscal year, ended March 31, 2017.
The 2017 20-F confirmed the financial results from the July 28,
2017 Press Release and was signed by Defendant Deshpande.
Additionally, the 2017 20-F contained certifications signed by
Defendants Deshpande and Parameswaran pursuant to the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX") attesting to the accuracy of the
Company's financial reporting. The Plaintiff, as set forth in the
accompanying certification, incorporated by reference, purchased
Eros securities during the Class Period and was damaged thereby.

On June 5, 2019, CARE Ratings, India's second largest credit
ratings agency, downgraded unit Eros International Media Limited'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 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. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Eros, together with its subsidiaries, including its majority-owned
subsidiary Eros International Media Limited, co-produces, acquires,
and distributes Indian films in various formats worldwide. The
Company distributes its fim 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. Eros India is a public company incorporated
in India and listed on the BSE Limited and National Stock Exchange
of India Limited, or the Indian Stock Exchanges. As of July 30,
2018, Eros owned approximately 60.06% of Eros India.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

EROS INTERNATIONAL: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, with nine offices in eight cities
around the country and eighty attorneys, reminds investors in Eros
International PLC (NYSE: EROS) of the August 20, 2019 Lead
Plaintiff deadline in the securities class action, Montesano v.
Eros International PLC et al., No. 2:19-cv-14125, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Eros International
securities between July 28, 2017 and June 5, 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 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 20, 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/EROS or
contact Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by
calling 510-725-3000 or emailing EROS@hbsslaw.com

According to the complaint, Defendants misled investors by
concealing (1) multiple related-party transactions that appear
designed to hide receivables, and (2) many of Eros's reported
receivables do not actually exist.

"We're focused on investors' losses and the extent to which
Defendants may have misled investors about the economic substance
of certain Company transactions and the sufficiency of internal
controls over financial reporting," said Hagens Berman partner Reed
Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding Eros
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/cases/EROS
       Email: EROS@hbsslaw.com
              reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
August 20, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Eros
International Plc (NYSE: EROS) securities between July 28, 2017 and
June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On June 5, 2019, the Company's Indian subsidiary's credit rating
was downgraded to "Default" by India's second largest credit
ratings agency over concerns of "ongoing delays/default in debt
servicing due to slowdown in collection from debtors."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.59, or nearly 49%,
to close at $3.71 on June 6, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on June 7, 2019, an article published by Hindenburg Research
explained that the reason for the credit downgrade was due to
"multiple undisclosed related-party transactions that appear
designed to hide receivables", and that "a significant portion of
Eros's receivables don't exist."

On this news, the Company's share price fell an additional $0.41,
or nearly 12%, to close at $3.30 on June 7, 2019, thereby further
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) 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) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Eros 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 if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action 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 action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters please contact:

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


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Schall Law Firm Investing Investors' Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Eros International Plc (NYSE: EROS) 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.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. One of India's largest credit rating
agencies, CARE Ratings, downgraded Eros' Indian subsidiary on June
5, 2019, to "Default." CARE Ratings cited "ongoing delays/default
in debt servicing due to slowdown in collection from debtors," as
the reasoning behind the downgrade. Based on this news, shares of
Eros fell by almost 50% on June 6, 2019. Hindenburg Research
published a report on Eros the next day entitled, "Eros
International: On-The-Ground Research, Employee Interviews, and
Private Company Documents Expose Egregious Accounting
Irregularities," to expand on the reasoning for the downgrade.
According to Hindenburg, "a significant portion of Eros's
receivables don't exist," and alleges "multiple undisclosed
related-party transactions that appear designed to hide
receivables."

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.

We also encourage you to 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]


FEDERAL NATIONAL: First Circuit Appeal Filed in Donahue Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Josephine B. Donahue filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Donahue v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-10635-DJC, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

The lawsuit is brought over foreclosure-related issue.

The appellate case is captioned as Donahue v. FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., Case No. 19-1618, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

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

   -- Docketing Statement was due July 9, 2019;

   -- Transcript Report/Order form was due July 9, 2019; and

   -- Appearance form was due July 9, 2019.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JOSEPHINE B. DONAHUE, on behalf of herself and
all others so similarly situated, is represented by:

          Todd Steven Dion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD S. DION, ESQ.
          15 Cottage Ave., Suite 202
          Quincy, MA 02169
          Telephone: (401) 965-4131
          E-mail: toddsdion@msn.com

Defendant-Appellee OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, is represented by:

          Maura Katherine McKelvey, Esq.
          Vanessa V. Pisano, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          53 State St., 27th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 213-7006
          E-mail: mmckelvey@hinshawlaw.com
                  vpisano@hinshawlaw.com

Defendant 82 COBB LANE, LLC, is represented by:

          John Fitzgerald Willis, Esq.
          FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP
          125 High St., Suite 1813
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 316-0144
          E-mail: john.willis@fnf.com


FISHER-PRICE: Poppe Sues over Injury Risk of Rock 'n Play Sleepers
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESSIE POPPE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FISHER-PRICE, INC. and MATTEL, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00870 (W.D.N.Y., June 28, 2019),
contends that Fisher-Price continued to sell and aggressively
market its Rock 'n Play Sleepers even while it was aware of
fatalities of infants who sleep in the Sleepers and while the
American Academy of Pediatrics ("AAP") and consumer groups
repeatedly warned of the dangers of the Sleepers.

On April 12, 2019, the Rock 'n Play was recalled by Fisher-Price
after a series of infant deaths (the "Recall"). The Consumer
Product Safety Commission ("CPSC"), which helped coordinate the
Recall, stated that more than 30 babies died in the product after
they turned over while unrestrained or "under other circumstances."
On April 8, 2019 Consumer Reports' published an article documenting
the concerns about the product's development and pushed for the
recall after it obtained agency records concerning the deaths.

Of the 32 fatalities more than half occurred after September 2016.
It was not until April 2019 that Defendants acknowledged at least
32 infant deaths attributed to the Sleeper since 2009.

The Rock 'n Play was designed as a flexible folding frame with a
fabric hammock suspended between the legs. The product has high
sides and sits at an incline, causing the infant placed in it to
also sit at an incline.   According to the complaint, from 2009 to
present, Fisher-Price sold over $4.7 million Rock 'n Play Sleepers
at $50 to $80 equaling gross revenues of between $235 and $376
million.  The revenues resulted from an invention developed by a
small group of engineers at the Fisher-Price toy company located
outside of Buffalo, New York. This invention addressed a basic gap
in the market, a product that helped parents get their infant
children to sleep. The box the Sleepers came in stated "Baby can
sleep at a comfortable incline all night long!"

Fisher-Price's owner, Mattel, declined to respond to a detailed
list of questions about the Rock 'n Play and its creation and
instead stuck its head in the sand and stated that "Safety is
priority number 1 for Fisher-Price" and the company "has a long,
proud tradition of prioritizing safety as our mission."

Plaintiff, like other Class members, owned and/or purchased the
Sleeper unwittingly and unaware of its dangers and suffered damages
in that she now must purchase an alternative to the Sleeper and/or
lost the benefit of her bargain because she would not have
purchased and/or owned the Sleeper had she known it was not safe,
the lawsuit says.

Fisher-Price is an American company that produces educational toys
for children and infants, headquartered in East Aurora, New York.
Fisher-Price has been a subsidiary of Mattel since 1993.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER &
          GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: 845-356-2570
          Facsimile: 845-356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
                  Melissa R. Emert, Esq.

               - and -

          Howard T. Longman, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street 5th floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: 212-687-7230
          Facsimile: 212-490-2022
          E-mail: memert@ssbny.com
                  hlongman@ssbny.com

FLOORING TECHNOLOGIES: Van Hise Moves for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DENISE VAN HISE d/b/a CARPET
& TILE BY THE MILE, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons v. FLOORING TECHNOLOGIES INC.
d/b/a QFLOORS, Case No. 3:19-cv-00995-KAD (D. Conn.), moves the
Court for an order:

   A. taking this Motion for Class Certification under submission
      and deferring further activity on it until after the
      discovery cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming
      Rule 23 scheduling order, or alternatively;

   B. granting the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
      pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FLORIDA FINE CARS: Emeric Appeals S.D. Florida Order to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mary Anne Emeric filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Mary Emeric, et al. v. Florida Fine Cars, Inc.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-20987-DPG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed the case under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Florida Fine Cars, Inc. retails automobiles.  The Company provides
a wide variety of new and used cars, trucks, vans, and SUVs.
Florida Fine Cars also offers parts, maintenance, and in house
financing services.

The appellate case is captioned as Mary Emeric, et al. v. Florida
Fine Cars, Inc., Case No. 19-12391, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before August 5, 2019;

   -- The appendix is due no later than seven days from the
      filing of the appellant's brief;

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before July 8, 2019, as to Appellant Mary Anne Emeric; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before July 22, 2019, as to Appellee Florida Fine Cars,
      Inc.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MARY ANNE EMERIC, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, and NATALIA MARIE RIVERA, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Cristina Alonso, Esq.
          CRISTINA ALONSO, P.L.L.C.
          15757 Pines Blvd., Suite 222
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33027
          Telephone: (954) 667-8675
          E-mail: alonso@alonsoappeals.com

               - and -

          Tammi A. Calarco, Esq.
          Lance Harke, Esq.
          HARKE LAW LLP
          9699 NE 2nd Avenue
          Miami Shores, FL 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536-8222
          Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
          E-mail: tcalarco@harkelaw.com
                  lharke@harkelaw.com

Defendant-Appellee FLORIDA FINE CARS, INC., a Florida profit
corporation, is represented by:

          Philip A. Allen, III, Esq.
          GUNSTER YOAKLEY & STEWART, PA
          600 Brickell Ave., Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 810-2790

               - and -

          Brian Patrick Yates, Esq.
          GARBETT ALLEN & ROZA PA
          80 SW 8th St., Suite 3100
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 579-0012
          E-mail: byates@gsarlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Dowhan Suit Asserts ERISA Breach
--------------------------------------------
MONICA NICOLAYSEN DOWHAN, ERIK ELIASON ANDREW KRESS, MATHEWS V.
JOHN, individually and on behalf of similarly situated LL5/LL6
employees, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-11923-BAF-APP (E.D. Mich.,
June 27, 2019) is a lawsuit seeking to secure damages and
appropriate equitable relief resulting from Plaintiffs' wrongful
terminations, and seeks Class Wide equitable relief on behalf of
similarly situated former Ford managers who have not executed a
release of claims.

The national employment retirement law, the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, ("ERISA") protects employees who, through
their employment, participate in retirement income and health and
welfare benefit plans. Because employers control the employees'
ability to earn retirement benefits through continued employment,
Congress made it unlawful for an employer to make adverse
employment decisions motivated by an intention to deprive employees
of retirement benefits for which they would become eligible through
continued employment. In order to reduce operating expenses and
reduce debt and pension liabilities, Ford adopted a Salaried
Involuntary Reduction Process ("SIRP") which was carried out in
Four Waves. Ford retained the services of Boston Consulting Group
("BCG") to develop a headcount and pension reduction plan. This
plan was promoted as a High-Tech program designed to modernize Ford
and was given the title of "Smart Re Design." At the core of the
BCG program was a proprietary algorithm that was capable of quickly
reviewing information from tens of thousands of personnel records.
This automated system was deliberately programmed to target older
and higher pension-cost salaried employees based on legally
protected characteristics including the employee's proximity to
retirement benefit milestones or the employee's age.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs and the other LL5/LL6
managers they seek to represent were separated in Wave Four of the
SIRP on May 31, 2019. Plaintiffs are all former long-term managers
of Ford who were selected for separation in Wave Four for the
purpose of preventing them from reaching important milestones which
would have allowed them to receive their full retirement benefits
and would have dramatically increased Ford's financial obligations
to their former managers. Managers such as Plaintiffs, hired before
January 1, 2004, were eligible to participate in Ford's General
Retirement Plan ("GRP"). Milestones for full retirement benefits
per the terms of the GRP included a supplemental benefit upon
attaining 30 years of Ford Service, regardless of age ("Service
Milestone" of "30 and out") or attaining the age of 55 and at least
10 years of Ford Service, thus entitling the employee to an early
retirement benefit ("Age Milestone" or "55 and 10"). Ford, with the
aid of the BCG algorithm, terminated Plaintiffs based on their age,
for the purpose of preventing them from attaining their "30 and
Out" supplemental benefit and "55 and 10" early retirement benefit,
or both.

By terminating its managers to prevent them from attaining one or
both Milestones, Ford significantly reduced the employee's lifetime
retirement benefits and significantly improved its balance sheet by
reducing its ongoing pension obligations. The impact on Ford's
long-term managers terminated short of their Age and Service
Milestones has been financially devasting, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are participants in the Ford GRP, which is an ERISA plan
as that term is defined in ERISA.

Ford is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Dearborn,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
     Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
     Pitt, McGehee, Palmer and Rivers PC
     117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Phone (248) 398-9800
     Fax: (248) 268-7996
     Email: mpitt@pittlawpc.com
            mbonanni@pittlawpc.com

          - and -

     Kevin M. Carlson, Esq.
     Kevin M. Carlson PLLC
     Attorney for Plaintiffs
     P.O. Box 6028
     Plymouth, MI 48170
     Phone/Fax: (734)386-1919
     Email: kevin@kevincarlsonlaw.com


FRESHLY INC: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Freshly Inc. The case
is styled as Brian Fischler Individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Freshly Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06003 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019).

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

Freshly, Inc. provides freshly prepared meals online. The company's
meals menu includes entrees and breakfasts with dairy products,
eggs, pork, tree nuts, chicken, beef, turkey, fish, soy, and
shellfish.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



GEICO GENERAL: Munoz Sues Over Insurance Policy Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------
MARTISHA ANN MUNOZ and CINDY VENTRICE-PEARSON, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company, Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-03768 (N.D. Cal., June 27, 2019) is a class action
lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs, the named insured under their
respective GEICO automobile policies issued for private passenger
auto physical damage including comprehensive and collision coverage
(the "Policy").

Defendant GEICO is one of the largest passenger auto insurance
carriers operating in the State of California.

The Defendant's Policy promises payment of "Actual Cash Value"
("ACV") in the event of a total loss of an insured vehicle.
Pursuant to the terms of the Policy, ACV includes, inter alia,
State sales tax and State-mandated regulatory fees. GEICO
acknowledges that its Policy includes these taxes and fees: as part
of its ACV payment to insureds who own vehicles that have sustained
a total loss, GEICO pays sales tax; and as part of its ACV payment
to all insureds, GEICO pays mandatory fees albeit in an
insufficient amount.

However, in violation of its Policy, GEICO refuses to pay sales tax
(or, in rare cases, underpays sales tax) when it purports to pay
ACV to insureds who have suffered a total loss of their leased (as
opposed to owned or financed) insured vehicle. Further, and also in
violation of its Policy, GEICO underpays mandatory regulatory fees
to all insureds, whether the vehicle was owned/financed or leased.
GEICO systematically and uniformly underpaid Plaintiffs and
thousands of other putative Class Members amounts owed its insureds
who suffered the total loss of a vehicle insured with comprehensive
and collision coverage, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are domiciled, resides in, and are citizens of the State
of California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Annick Persinger, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 254-6808
     Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
     19495 Biscayne Blvd #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: 305-975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

          - and -

     Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
     Jacob L. Phillips, Esq.
     NORMAND PLLC
     Post Office Box 1400036
     Orlando, FL 32814-0036
     Phone: 407-603-6031
     Email: iacob.phillips@mormandpllc.com
            ed@ednormand.com


GENERIC DRUG COS: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Mateus, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that
a class action lawsuit was filed early in May by Connecticut and 44
other states against 20 large generic drug companies and 15 senior
executives responsible for sales, marketing and pricing for
allegedly conspiring as a cartel to fix prices and restrain trade
on over 100 generic drugs.

Between 2013 and 2014, of 1,215 generic versions of the most
prescribed drugs, prices soared on average more than 400 percent.
Some of the more critical medications saw a price hike of more than
1000 percent.

In a prepared statement, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong
said, "We have hard evidence that shows the generic drug industry
perpetrated a multi-billion-dollar fraud on the American people. We
have emails, text messages, telephone records, and former company
insiders that we believe prove a multi-year conspiracy to fix
prices and divide market share for huge numbers of generic drugs."

This is the second case filed accusing the generic drug industry of
perpetrating a multi-billion-dollar fraud against the public. The
first complaint had been filed in 2016 against 15 generic drug
manufacturers. Many of these drugs treated grave chronic conditions
such as diabetes, arthritis, hypertension, and cancers.

The soaring prices for prescription drugs are directly linked to
these criminal practices. The suit alleges that for several years
these companies have colluded as cartels, avoiding competition, and
settling on "fair share" market prices to keep them inflated. In
2018, the pharmaceutical industry spent $27.5 million on lobbying
against the pressure to lower prices.

Compounding the storm and stress for the generic drug industry, in
a recent expose published in the New York Times headlined,
"Americans Need Generic Drugs. But Can They Trust Them?" an
investigative journalist and expert in Big Pharma, Katherine Eban,
has provided a searing critique of the generic drug industry's
practice.

According to Eban, "To minimize costs and maximize profit,
companies circumvented regulations and resorted to fraud:
manipulating tests to achieve positive results and concealing or
altering data to cover their tracks. By making the drugs cheaply
without the required safeguards and then selling them into
regulated and more costly Western markets, claiming that they had
followed all the necessary regulations, companies could reap
enormous profits."

Just last year, the FDA approved more than 1,000 new generic drugs
for sale in the US market. Nearly 40 percent are made in India, and
80 percent of the active ingredients for both brand-name and
generic drugs are manufactured abroad. China and India manufacture
the majority of these.

An unusually decent FDA safety officer by the name of Peter Baker,
since his discovery of fraudulent practices at a Wockhardt Ltd.
pharmaceutical plant in India in 2012, has gone on to inspect
nearly 100 plants in India and China. His startling findings
document that deceptive practices, such as manipulating the results
of tests on manufactured drugs, are commonplace with almost 80
percent of drug plants engaged in such behavior.

In her expose, Ms. Eban says, "Interviews with more than 240
people, including numerous whistle-blowers, helped expose what was
going on behind the boardroom doors at generic drug companies. Some
companies have encouraged data fraud as the most profitable path to
securing approvals from regulators and have used deceit to hold the
FDA's investigators at bay."

The FDA has feebly defended its practice of giving advanced notice
to foreign manufacturing plants for their upcoming inspections.
They cite difficulty in obtaining visas and arranging local
transportation as reasons. Inspectors arrive as company guests
agreeing on inspection dates of selected sites. They are also
treated to travel perks, accommodation upgrades, and leisure
outings at no cost. And when serious deficiencies are discovered
requiring "official action indicated" designation, FDA bureaucrats
have downgraded these to "voluntary action indicated" for over 100
Indian plants which meant that drugs from those plants would
continue reaching US markets.

In September of 1984, the Drug Price Competition & Patent Term
Restoration Act, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, was signed
into law by then-President Ronald Reagan. This law created a new
regulatory pathway for the introduction of generic drugs into US
markets, which were until then kept in a legal stranglehold by
Brand-name manufacturers. The legislation intended to encourage
innovation while promoting competition between Brand-name and
generic drugs to lower prices.

The decade before had seen a rapid escalation of healthcare costs
partially due to Medicare expenditures and rapid inflationary
stresses. The expansion of hospital expenses and profits with the
rapidly developing technology led to corporatizing and integrating
hospital systems. Prescription drug spending was also on a rapid
rise as a share of GDP and total health spending.

Once the patent on the brand name expired, these generic drugs were
placed on a fast track if they could show the FDA they had similar
metabolism and effect as their brand-name equivalent. However,
there are no measures in place to conduct safety trials on these
generics, and none are required. No studies are performed to ensure
equivalent effects and adverse outcome evaluation as with brand
names beyond their data in the initial application due to the
length of time and cost for conducting these trials.

From 1984 to 2018, the rate of prescribing generics climbed from 19
to 90 percent. By 2018, generic drugs accounted for $442 billion of
the $1.324 trillion in global pharmaceutical sales. On its present
trajectory, according to a BCC Research report, the global market
for generic drugs should reach $533 billion by 2021.

In the intervening three decades, the manufacturing sources for
generic drugs has shifted from the US and Israel, which led in the
1990s, to countries like India and China which have, presently,
surpassed their Western counterparts. While emerging markets have
contributed to the global growth of generic markets looking for
cheaper substitutes, by 2009 market saturation and tepid economic
projections led to consolidation through merger and acquisitions to
achieve the appropriate scale to ensure profitability. The top ten
generic drug producers now control a 61 percent share of the total
revenue.

Politicians have praised the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act as a boon for
the public at large. They note that from 2003 to 2012, generic
drugs have saved the US healthcare system $1.2 trillion. However,
behind these cost-saving measures has come a catastrophic erosion
in assurance and safety for patients using these generic versions.
There is considerable anecdotal evidence that when patients were
switched to generic medications, their symptoms returned and
condition deteriorated. Some have died taking these medications for
the prevention of organ rejection after a transplant procedure.

Adding insult to injury, in 2013, a 5 to 4 vote in favor of Mutual
Pharmaceutical Co, owned by Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the
Supreme Court ruled that the state could not sue manufacturers of
generic drugs for harm caused by their products, reversing a lower
court multi-million-dollar jury awarded decision. Karen Bartlett
had suffered a debilitating adverse reaction to a generic
anti-inflammatory called Sulindac. She had a toxic reaction that
affected 60 percent of her skin, causing open wounds, infections,
permeant pain, and near blindness. Writing for the majority
opinion, Justice Samuel Alito noted that state laws could not run
against federal laws on prescription medicines whose design was
approved by the FDA, essentially blocking a patient or their
families from suing for harm incurred.

The National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA) estimated that US
health care spending grew 4.4 percent in 2018 over 2017 reaching
$3.65 trillion or over $11,212 per person, accounting for 18
percent of the GDP. Prescription drug spending was up 3.3 percent
year over year, mainly due to rising prices and not increased
usage. By example, Medicare Part D spending on insulin has
increased 840 percent over ten years, rising from $1.4 billion in
2007 to $13.3 billion in 2017. Generic drugs have become
indispensable to the objective mathematics of the health care
crisis.

Nonetheless, the proportion of generic drugs that are seeing a
doubling of their price year-over-year is growing as these
manufacturers find therapeutic niches with little competition which
they can exploit as well as colluding to fix prices. Insurance
carriers, in turn, shift the burden of higher costs to consumers
through hiking premiums, deductibles, and copayments.

The logic of establishing the generic drug industry in a capitalist
milieu demonstrates that they are fallacious measures that attempt
to stabilize the ever-growing contradictions of capitalism that
only heighten the crisis down the road. The past three decades have
exposed the inevitable development of this industry's malignant
operations and disastrous impacts on the health of the globe. The
working class is the only force capable of bringing a rational
perspective, utilizing the massive technological gains that have
been made, to reorganizing these resources for social need and,
importantly, their safety. [GN]


GR RESTAURANT: Lezotte Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
ADAM LEZOTTE, by and through the undersigned counsel and on behalf
of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GR RESTAURANT
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, G&V 2, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, and GARY RACK, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-61617-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2019)
is an action against Defendants for violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant is a limited liability company formed and existing under
the laws of the State of Florida. Plaintiff became employed and
hired by Defendants on February 2017, and worked for Defendants
preparing food until approximately April 2019.

Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more
work weeks during his employment with Defendants. However,
Defendants did not pay time and-a-half wages for all of the
overtime hours worked by Plaintiff, says the complaint. Plaintiff,
therefore, seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorney's fee and costs from Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian Militzok, Esq.
     MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
     Wells Fargo Building
     4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
     Hollywood, FL 33021
     Phone: (954) 780-8228
     Facsimile: (954) 719-4016
     Email: bjm@militzoklaw.com


GUILIANO ENVIRONMENTAL: Santos Seeks Wage & Overtime Payments
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRYANT SANTOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GUILIANO ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC, and all
other affiliated Entities and/or Joint Employers, CHRISTOPHER
GUILIANO, individually, and ROBERT FISTER, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-14468 (D.N.J., June 28, 2019), seeks
to recover statutory wage and overtime payments, payment for unpaid
supplemental benefits that Plaintiff and the members of the
putative class were statutorily and contractually entitled to
receive for work they performed on numerous privately financed
projects (Private Projects) and publicly financed projects (Public
Works Projects) pursuant to contracts with various government
entities (Government Entities) under the violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, and
the New Jersey State Prevailing Wage Act. The action is brought on
behalf of Plaintiffs and a putative class of individuals who worked
as roofers, demolition laborers, and other construction-related
trades, and snow removal laborers, for GUILIANO and/or any other
entities affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by the
Defendants.

The Defendants own and/or maintain a roofing, demolition, and snow
removal business which operates throughout the State of New Jersey,
as well as neighboring states and states throughout the Eastern
United States.

The Government Entities include, but are not limited to, the
following: Union County, New Jersey, and Bergen County, New Jersey,
as well as the State of New Jersey.

The Public Works Projects were undertaken and performed by the
Guiliano in accordance with the terms and conditions of certain
"Public Works Contracts" entered into with the Government Entities
between June 2013 and the present.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, No. 306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: Aglenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  Jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com

HERTZ LOCAL: Removes Ramirez Suit to Northern Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Local Edition Corp. and Hertz Loca Edition Transporting, Inc.
remove case DANIEL RAMIREZ, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HERTZ LOCAL EDITION CORP.,
HERTZ LOCAL EDITION TRANSPORTING, INC; HERTZ LOCAL EDITION
TRANSPORTING; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. RG19019783 (Filed  May 21, 2019), from the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 28, 2019. The
Northern District of California  Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-03782-KAW to the proceeding.

The Defendants note that "Hertz Local Edition Transporting," which
is erroneously named as a separate defendant, is not an entity, but
rather a name sometimes used to refer to HLETI.

The Defendants in no way suggest that HLE ever employed Plaintiff,
they specifically deny that it ever did so, and further assert that
there is no community of interest between the non-exempt employees
employed by HLETI and the non-exempt employees employed by HLE.
Nonetheless, Plaintiff has alleged that both entities
are liable for the claims he asserts, he has sued both entities,
and he purports to bring this action on behalf of a class that
includes the non-exempt employees of both 13 entities. Therefore,
both entities are removing this action.

The Plaintiff alleges that he and the class are entitled to recover
unpaid overtime wages; unpaid premium wages; restitution; penalties
pursuant to California Labor Code Sections 226, etc.; and
attorneys' fees.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Robert A. Dolinko, Esq.
          William s. Lisa, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 32nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: 415-984-8200
          Facsimile: 415-984-8300
          E-mail: rdolinko@nixonpeabody.com
                  wlisa@nixonpeabody.com

HOME DEPOT: Nunes et al Suit Moved to Eastern Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Niki Nunes, Chris Smith, and Mitzi Wallace individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-19-06656, was removed from the San Joaquin
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (Sacramento) on June 28, 2019. The Eastern
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00548
to the proceeding. The case alleges labor-related violation.

Home Depot Inc. is an American home improvement supplies retailing
company that sells tools, construction products, and services. The
company is headquartered at the Atlanta Store Support Center in
unincorporated Cobb County, Georgia.[CC]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.:

          Donna M. Mezias, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 765-9500
          Facsimile: (415) 765-9501
          E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com

HOMELAND SECURITY: Mons et al. Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Angel Alejandro Heredia Mons, et al.,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
vs. KEVIN McALEENAN, Acting Secretary of the Dep't of Homeland
Security, in his official capacity, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01593-JEB (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs move the court to
enter an order certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and
23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule
23.1.

Plaintiffs' counsel, Luz Virginia Lopez, repeatedly attempted to
confer with Defendants' counsel, the Office of Immigration
Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice ("OIL"), to determine
whether Defendants would consent to the relief requested. Ms. Lopez
left several telephone messages for Sarah B. Fabian, Lead Attorney
at OIL, which have yet to be returned. On June 18, 2019, Ms. Lopez
again contacted OIL and spoke with attorney Kathleen A. Connolly.
Ms. Connolly stated that she did not have the authority to confer
on this matter, and informed Ms. Lopez that someone would soon
contact her to discuss. As of the date of this filing, the
Defendants' counsel has not contacted Ms. Lopez to confer about the
relief requested, despite Plaintiffs' repeated attempts to confer,
the lawsuit says.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Laura Rivera, Esq.
          Melissa Crow, Esq.
          Luz Virginia Lopez, Esq.
          Mary Bauer, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          150 East Ponce De Leon Ave, Suite 340
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 521-6700
          E-mail: Laura.Rivera@splcenter.org
                  Melissa.Crow@splcenter.org
                  Luz.Lopez@splcenter.org
                  Mary.Bauer@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Katie Schwartzmann, Esq.
          Bruce Hamilton, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
          LOUISIANA FOUNDATION
          P.O. Box 56157
          New Orleans, LA 70156
          Telephone: (504) 522-0628
          E-mail: kschwartzmann@laaclu.org
                  bhamilton@laaclu.org

HURRICANE STRAUSS: Almonte et al. Seek Minimum Wage & OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL ORTEGA ALMONTE, FIDEL GUZMAN VASQUEZ, FILIMON GONZALEZ VEGA,
GERARDO MENDOZA VAZQUEZ, LORENZO GALINDO, MARCELO ORDAZ, and MIGUEL
ANGEL GALICIA JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. HURRICANE STRAUSS, INC.
(D/B/A WESTVILLE CHELSEA), LAYLA TOV INC. (D/B/A WESTVILLE HUDSON),
JAY'S NICKELS AND DIMES, INC. (D/B/A WESTVILLE WEST), JAY STRAUSS,
GEORGE MOTZKIN, BRETT TRACEY, LIZ DOE, ALEX DOE, SHAWN DOE, PETER
DOE, OLIVER DOE, and CHRIS DOE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-06104 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2019), seeks to recover minimum
wage and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate, or control three American restaurants,
located at 246 West 18th Street, New York, New York 10011 under the
name "Westville Chelsea", at 333 Hudson Street, New York, New York
10013 under the name "Westville Hudson", and at 210 West 10th
Street, New York, New York 10014 under the name "Westville West".
The Plaintiffs are both current and former employees of the
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs have ostensibly been employed as delivery workers.
However, they have been required to spend a considerable part of
their work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not
limited to taking out the trash, folding cardboard boxes, packing
dressings in containers for delivery, stocking beverages in the
refrigerator, sweeping the station, cleaning the patio and
bathrooms, mopping, transporting inventory to and from the other
restaurants, preparing salad dressing, putting away the bicycles at
the end of the day, and packing the orders for delivery
("non-tipped duties").

The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of
hours compensation for the hours that they have worked. Rather,
Defendants have failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and have failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Further, Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiffs the required
"spread of hours" pay for any day in which they have had to work
over 10 hours a day. The Defendants have employed and accounted for
Plaintiffs as delivery workers in their payroll, but in actuality
their duties have required a significant amount of time spent
performing the alleged non-tipped duties.

The Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Johnson Files Product Liability Suit in C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hyundai Motor America
Inc. The case is styled as Jennifer Johnson on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Hyundai Motor
America Inc., Kia Motors America, Inc., ZT TRW Automotive Holdings
Corp., Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01292 (C.D. Cal., June 27,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Product Liability.

Hyundai Motor America, Inc. sells new and used cars. The company
provides sedans, crossovers/SUVs, premium/luxury cars, and fuel
efficient vehicles. It offers its products through dealers
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J Preusch, Esq.
     Keller Rohrback LLP
     801 Garden Street Suite 301
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Phone: (805) 456-1496
     Fax: (805) 456-1497
     Email: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


ICAN BENEFIT: Invasion of Privacy Exclusion Bars Coverage for Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Taylor of Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP said that
recently, the District Court for the Southern District of Florida
held that an exclusion in a claims-made policy precluding coverage
for loss arising out of invasion of privacy barred coverage for a
TCPA class action.  

In Horn v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, Inc., 2019 WL 2297528 (S.D.
Fla. May 30, 2019), an underlying class action was filed against
Liberty's insured, iCan Benefit Group, LLC ("iCan"), a "national
direct response marketer and seller of insurance products,"
asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227 ("TCPA") for iCan allegedly sending unsolicited
text messages to members of the class.  

Liberty issued a claims-made errors and omissions "Private
Advantage Insurance Policy" that provided coverage to iCan Holding
LLC, as a Named Insured.  Liberty denied coverage for the
underlying suit on multiple grounds, one of which was an "invasion
of privacy" exclusion contained in the policy.  Specifically, the
exclusion barred coverage for "Loss" on account of any "Claim" made
against the Company:

"4. based upon, arising out of, or attributable to any actual or
alleged defamation, invasion of privacy, wrongful entry and
eviction, false arrest or imprisonment, malicious prosecution,
abuse of process, assault, battery or loss of consortium."

Following Liberty's coverage denial, the class action parties
entered into a "Coblentz" settlement agreement, whereby they
ratified a consent judgment for $60,413,112.00 and an assignment of
iCan's rights and interest under the Liberty Policy to the
underlying class action plaintiffs, who then could pursue the
damage amount from the insurer.  

In the ensuing declaratory judgment action, the plaintiffs argued
that the Liberty Policy's "invasion of privacy" exclusion did not
apply, insofar as their underlying complaint included allegations
and causes of action beyond just their invasion of privacy claim.
In other words, the allegations of invasion of privacy were just
one component of the underlying case. Moreover, plaintiffs
contended that they did not have to prove invasion of privacy in
order to prevail in the class action as it is not an element of
their TCPA cause of action. For this reason as well, they advocated
that the exclusion did not apply.

The District Court disagreed. Although invasion of privacy is not
an element of a TCPA violation, the District Court found that such
a violation may, in some circumstances, be considered an invasion
of privacy for purposes of analyzing coverage in an insurance
policy.  Relying on earlier Florida case law and a recent decision
from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court acknowledged
that "the source of the right of privacy is the TCPA, which
provides the privacy right to seclusion," and that the TCPA's
purpose is grounded in protecting individuals' right to privacy.
Horn, 2019 WL 2297528 at *4 quoting Penzer v. Transportation Ins.
Co., 29 So. 3d 1000, 1006 (Fla. 2010) ("The receipt of an
unsolicited fax advertisement implicates a person's right of
privacy insofar as it violates a person's seclusion…"); see also
Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company. 869 F.3d
795, 806 (9th Cir. 2017) (because "a TCPA claim is inherently an
invasion of privacy claim, [the insurer] correctly concluded that
Emanuel's TCPA claims fell under the Policy's broad [invasion of
privacy] exclusionary clause.").

Importantly, the Liberty Policy excluded claims that "arise out of"
an invasion of privacy, a phrase construed broadly under Florida
law to mean "originating from," "having its origin in," "growing
out of," "flowing from," "incident to" or "having a connection
with." Horn, 2019 WL 2297528 at *5.  By coupling case law that
interprets TCPA violations as invasions of privacy with Florida's
broad interpretation of "arising out of," the District Court held
that the TCPA violations alleged in the underlying litigation arose
out of an invasion of privacy, andwere excluded from coverage.  

Pertinent to its analysis, the District Court found that (1) the
underlying complaint explicitly stated that the class action
plaintiffs' privacy was invaded by the violative texts, (2) the
suit was "premised on violations of the TCPA, which caused actual
harm in the form of aggravation and nuisance and invasion of
privacy," and (3) plaintiffs' had conceded in their underlying
Complaint that the "pertinent allegations" for the relief sought
included actual harm caused by "invasions of privacy that result
from the sending and receipt of such text messages…."  Thus,
regardless of whether the "Claim" was viewed as the entire class
action as a whole or as separate "Claims" for each cause of action,
the District Court concluded that the Liberty Policy's broad
exclusion barring coverage for a "Claim" arising out of an actual
or alleged invasion of privacy precluded coverage entirely.

For insurance carriers, the Horn decision cuts both ways.  For
commercial general liability insurers whose policies typically
afford coverage for "written publication of material that violates
a person's right of privacy," the decision reaffirms that the
"[general liability] insurance policy provides coverage for sending
unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the TCPA." As
respects professional liability carriers, the holding brings
Florida's Southern District Court in line with those few decisions
that construe the "invasion of privacy" exclusionbroadly, so as to
bar coverage for TCPA class actions against an insured.  Moreover,
as states continue to enact regulations that increasingly focus on
data privacy, the decision may take on greater significance in
confirming the absence of coverage for claims asserting or arising
out of actual or alleged invasion of individual privacy rights.
[GN]


INDIANA: 9 Kids File Class Suit Over Child Welfare System
---------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Doyle, writing for Evansville Courier & Press, reports that
nine children in Indiana's foster care system filed a class action
lawsuit on June 25, 2019, in Evansville's U.S. District Court
seeking to stop "the ongoing violations of children's
constitutional rights and rights under federal law, transform the
state's child welfare system, and ensure DCS fulfills its legal
responsibility for vulnerable foster children in Indiana's child
welfare system," according to the attorneys filing the suit.

The children -- aged 3 to 16 from Marion, Allen, Spencer and Wells
counties -- in the filed complaint said the lawsuit was being
brought as a civil rights action on behalf of all children
currently or who will be in the custody of Indiana Department of
Child Services.

"For each named plaintiff, DCS has failed to provide safe and
appropriate foster care placements; failed to provide appropriate
services to the children and their families to allow safe
reunification; and, for those for whom safe family reunification is
not possible, failed to timely pursue termination of parental
rights legal proceedings and failed to seek and secure safe,
permanent homes," the complaint alleges. "In doing so, Defendants
have violated Plaintiffs' federal constitutional and statutory
rights."

The suit was filed by Indianapolis-based Indiana Disability Rights,
New York-based A Better Childhood and New York-based Kirkland &
Ellis.

DCS deputy director of communications Noelle Russell declined to
comment saying, "We do not have comment on the pending litigation
at this time. DCS has not yet received notification of the lawsuit,
and our legal team would need to review the information."

The suit also names Gov. Eric Holcomb and DCS director Terry
Stigdon.

The complaint alleges that Indiana removes children from their
homes to be placed into foster care at a "staggering rate — more
than double the national rate" and then fails to keep them safe
while in DCS custody "often placing them in inappropriate, unstable
or overly restrictive placements; fails to provide necessary
support services and medical and mental health care; and fails to
provide meaningful case management."

The shortcomings of the state's foster care system, the complaint
alleges, are well known by state officials. An analysis of the
Child Welfare Consulting Group showed the state's systemic and
continued failure to correct these issues leaves children in
serious and unconstitutional danger, the complaint alleges.

"Although the state has made some changes to the foster care system
since the issuance of the CWG report, the changes are minimal, and
the basic problems continue," according to the complaint. "The
agency appears to be focused more on statistics than outcomes, by
allegedly not investigating cases or closing cases that are not yet
ripe for closing and without providing necessary services to
children."

In a release from the attorneys representing the children, they
illustrated some of the living situations of the children in the
class action.

Ashley W. and Betty W., 3 and 4, were removed from their mother's
care due to her substance abuse and went through 16 and 17
different foster homes over 2 1/2 years, respectively. After two
years in care, DCS finally changed the girls' permanency goal to
adoption but then failed to meet statutory deadlines for
terminating parental rights, so a judge dismissed the DCS petition
and the girls are now split up and residing in separate non-kinship
foster homes.

Logan S. is a 12-year-old boy who entered the foster care system
over a decade ago when he was two years old and has cycled through
at least 15 placements, including failed pre-adoptive placements,
emergency shelters and residential facilities. It took DCS five
years to free Logan for adoption, and he now lives in a locked
facility in northern Indiana. He longs for a family who will love
him.

Sara O. is a 14-year-old girl who entered foster care at 7 due to
sexual abuse by her father. After several years in foster care, DCS
returned Sara to her father, who again sexually abused her. After
calling 911, Sara reentered foster care. DCS has placed Sara in at
least 17 different placements, including a state psychiatric
hospital, where she lived for three years. Sara currently lives in
a private secure facility in northern Indiana.

Milo S. and Thomas M. are three- and five-year-old brothers who've
been in foster care most of their lives. Thomas was removed from
his mother's care at 1 years old due to domestic violence and her
use of methamphetamine. DCS later placed him back home for a trial
visit but failed to monitor the family, and his mother started
using meth again. DCS removed Thomas and discovered then
three-month-old Milo with severe scabies all over his body. Six
Family Care Managers (FCMs) and four DCS attorneys have been
assigned to the boys' case, with two FCMs terminated due to
inappropriate behavior. Parental rights were terminated, but the
Court of Appeals reversed the order due to DCS's severe mishandling
of the case.

The complaint alleges that Holcomb, Stigdon and DCS have been aware
of the ongoing issues and failings of the department through a
number of audits and reports and the public resignation of former
DCS Director Mary Beth Bonaventura who warned in her resignation to
the Governor that Indiana officials were systematically placing
Hoosier children at risk "in ways that all but ensure children will
die."

Systemic issues alleged in the 81-page suit alleged include:

The state is failing to provide children in its care with stable,
nurturing, family-like homes -- a lack of foster homes mean
children are placed based on what home is available rather than
what home is suitable.

Frequent moves among homes and institutions increase trauma for
children already removed from their family homes and often
separated from their siblings, their school and their community.

DCS is unable to meet the needs of the thousands of foster children
with disabilities whose involvement in the child welfare system
places them at a greater risk of institutionalization.

The child welfare system relies heavily on institutionalization,
even for children with relatively minor behavioral problems.

The system is not set up to provide children the necessary services
and treatment they need. Foster children's medical, mental health,
and physical needs remain unmet due to irregular, infrequent
assessments and a lack of sufficient and available resources.

Overworked caseworkers struggle to make important but difficult
decisions about the right services to provide. They face having too
many children to serve, too few resources, and too little
training.

The complaint alleges the nine children have suffered serious
physical and psychological harm under DCS care.

"We have been deeply troubled the more we have studied the Indiana
child welfare system," A Better Childhood Executive Director Marcia
Robinson Lowry said in the release. "There have been years of
expert reports, years of promised reforms, and minimal and
intermittent movement forward, but the fundamental problems in this
system do not change. Children are being very badly harmed by the
lack of appropriate placements, by the erratic practices, and by
the lack of a fundamental focus on the well-being of children. The
way that Indiana is treating these vulnerable children is both
unconstitutional and inhumane."

Melissa Keyes, legal director of Indiana Disability Rights, said
children coming into the care of DCS have already experienced
trauma.

"The failure of DCS to protect these kids from further harm is
unconscionable, especially when much of that harm is due to DCS's
own failings," she said. "That children with disabilities are being
kept in overly restrictive institutional settings, that they are
not being provided with adequate community-based services has
certainly contributed to the developmental trauma these kids are
experiencing."

Kirkland & Ellis partner Aaron Marks, Esq. --
aaron.marks@kirkland.com -- said the failure to protect these
vulnerable children by DCS is "completely unacceptable."

"This violation of constitutional rights is causing lasting harm to
both the children and their communities," he said. "We are hopeful
that our efforts will transform this broken system, and ensure the
protection and welfare of Hoosier children."

The groups said they were responding to requests from local
advocates to investigate the state's child welfare system and
conducted extensive research and interviews with a number of people
involved with many aspects of the state's foster care system over
the last year. In the release, the groups said they "consistently
identified failings pointing to the need for a lawsuit to force
reform of DCS and protect children in its care.

The suit is asking the court permanently prohibit DCS from
subjecting the children in the suit to further harm and from
threatening their safety and well-being through practices that
violate their rights. The court is being asked to order appropriate
remedial relief to ensure that defendants comply with the law and
provide children with legally mandated services.[GN]


INFORMATION RESOURCES: Accord Reached in Service Managers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit IRAM BAKHTIAR, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. INFORMATION
RESOURCES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-04559-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties will move the Court to enter an order on August
8, 2019:

   a. preliminarily approving a class action settlement;

   b. certifying a proposed class for settlement purposes only;

   c. appointing Bryan Schwartz Law as Class Counsel, and
      appointing Iram Bakhtiar as Class Representative;

   d. appointing Rust Consulting as Claims Administrator;

   e. approving Class Notices to be sent to the Settlement Class;
      and

   f. scheduling a final approval hearing date.

The case is a wage-and-hour class and collective action against
Information Resources, Inc. brought by Client Service Managers,
Client Solutions Managers, Client Service Analysts, Client Service
Consultants, and other similar, non-management positions
(collectively, Client Service Managers).

The Plaintiff seeks preliminary approval of a $2.25 million
settlement of this matter on behalf of approximately 137 Client
Service Managers, who will receive an average gross recovery of
nearly $16,500/each. Moreover, by this Settlement, the Defendant
commits to a significant corporate reform, consisting of position
audits and reclassification, which will have long-term benefits for
absent Class Members, the lawsuit says.

IRI supplies market research data gathered from point-of-sale
trackers to its corporate clients. All of IRI's Client Service
Managers were classified as exempt from the overtime requirements
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and paid a fixed salary regardless
of the number of hours worked. Consequently, Client Service
Managers were not compensated at overtime rates for overtime
worked. Plaintiff alleges that IRI's Client Service Managers were
misclassified, while IRI contends that it properly classified
Client Service Managers as exempt under the administrative
exemption and/or other exemptions.[CC]

Attorneys for Iram Bakhtiar Individually and all others similarly
situated are:

          Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
          Samuel Goldsmith, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
          E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
                  samuel@bryanschwartzlaw.com

INTEGON NATIONAL: Center Files Suit in M.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against INTEGON NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY. The case is styled as JEFFREY CENTER
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. INTEGON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 5:19-cv-00258-TES (M.D. Ga., June 27, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Integon National Insurance Company operates as an insurance
company. The Company offers automobile, general, installment plan,
and other insurance products and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C COOPER KNOWLES, ESQ.
     Law Office of C. Cooper Knowles, LLC
     3405 Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 500
     ATLANTA, GA 30305
     Phone: (404) 431-5900
     Email: cknowles@cckfirm.com

          - and -

     CLINTON W SITTON, ESQ.
     RICHARD KOPELMAN, ESQ.
     5855 Sandy Springs Circle, Suite 300
     ATLANTA, GA 30328
     Phone: (404) 351-5900
     Email: clint@kopelmansitton.com
            richard@kopelmansitton.com

          - and -

     JAMES C BRADLEY, ESQ.
     MICHAEL J BRICKMAN, ESQ.
     NINA FIELDS BRITT, ESQ.
     PO BOX 1007
     MT PLEASANT, SC 29465
     Phone: (843) 727-6500
     Email: jbradley@rpwb.com
            mbrickman@rpwb.com
            nfields@rpwb.com

          - and -

     KIMBERLY KEEVERS PALMER, ESQ.
     1037 CHUCK DAWLEY BLVD BLDG A
     MT PLEASANT, SC 29464
     Phone: (843) 727-6500
     Email: kkeevers@rpwb.com

          - and -

     ADAM P PRINCENTHAL, ESQ.
     750 HAMMOND DR BLDG 12 STE 200
     SANDY SPRINGS, GA 30328
     Phone: (678) 534-1980
     Email: adam@princemay.com


INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Removes Boone Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of ANGELA BOONE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERSTATE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C.; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Orange (Case No.
30-2019-01066745-CU-OE-CXC) to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on June 17, 2019. The clerk of court
for the Central District of California assigned Case No.
8:19-cv-01208. The case is assigned to Judge Cormac J Carney and
referred to Magistrate Suzanne H Segal.

Interstate Management Company, LLC operates a restaurant.
Interstate Management Company, LLC was formerly known as Meristar
Management Company, LLC. The company was incorporated in 1998 and
is based in Arlington, Virginia. Interstate Management Company, LLC
operates as a subsidiary of Interstate Operating Company,LP. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          James E. Hart, Esq.
          P. Dustin Bodaghi, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2050 Main Street, Suite 900
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 705-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 724-1201
          E-mail: jhart@littler.com
                  dbodaghi@littler.com


INTUIT INC: Deceived Taxpayers Into Purchasing TurboTax Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA MCCONNAUGHEY, JOHN GILLIN II, JENIFER CASTO, AND ANDREA
MALLOY, individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs, v.
INTUIT INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-03745 (N.D. Cal., June 27,
2019) is an action concerning Intuit's campaign to intentionally
divert and deceive lower income tax payers who are eligible to
receive free tax preparation and filing services under the United
States Internal Revenue Service's ("IRS") Free File program ("Free
File Program") to its paid TurboTax products.

TurboTax is the market leading tax preparation software, owned and
manufactured by Intuit, that is utilized to file more than 36
million tax returns for taxpayers every year. Pursuant to an
agreement with the IRS, TurboTax and 11 other tax preparation
providers are required to cumulatively offer 70% of U.S. taxpayers
based on Adjusted Gross Income ("AGI") (currently anyone with an
AGI of $66,000 or less) the option to file their taxes for free.
The agreement was specifically designed to keep the IRS from
creating its own free online filing system. According to the
government, the goal of the Free File Program was to implement the
IRS's public policy of "extending the benefits of online federal
tax preparation and electronic filing to economically disadvantaged
and underserved populations at no cost to either the individual
user or to the public treasury." Intuit, however, has long been
luring customers into paying for a service that it promised the
government it would give away for free, notes the complaint.

The complaint asserts that with knowledge that the vast majority of
its users (the lowest earning 70% percent of American taxpayers)
qualify to file their taxes online for free using TurboTax, Intuit
violated its agreement with the IRS and defrauded Plaintiffs and
Class members by actively concealing public access to the IRS's
Free File Program and intentionally diverting qualified taxpayers
away from its "free filing" program in favor of its paid product
offerings. Only a small percentage of American taxpayers file their
faxes for free. For example, in fiscal year 2018, fewer than 2.5
million of the 100 million eligible taxpayers (less than 2.5%)
participated in the Free File Program.

The Plaintiff says Intuit employed deceptive and misleading
advertising to fraudulently induce lower income taxpayers into
purchasing TurboTax products when they were eligible for free
services pursuant to Intuit's agreement with the IRS. Indeed,
Intuit marketed its paid offerings as "Free Guaranteed"--so that
qualified taxpayers believed they were filing their taxes pursuant
to the Free File Program, only to be hit with unexpected charges
after they already spent hours entering information and preparing
to file. Because Intuit's actions and omissions violate well
established legal and statutory duties that they owed to Plaintiffs
and all other similarly situated U.S. consumers, those individuals
were forced to suffer the consequences. As a result of this scheme,
Intuit generated millions of dollars of ill-gotten gains from
persons who can least afford it, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs paid TurboTax to file their tax returns, despite
qualifying for the IRS free filing program.

Intuit markets, sells, and operates TurboTax, a tax preparation and
filing software product and service, and is a member of the Free
File Alliance, a nonprofit coalition of twelve tax software
companies under an agreement with the IRS to provide free
electronic tax services to eligible American taxpayers—the Free
File Program.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
     Stephen A. Weiss, Esq.
     SEEGER WEISS LLP
     77 Water Street, 8th Fl.
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 584-0700
     Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
     Email: jscullion@seegerweiss.com
            sweiss@seegerweiss.com

          - and -

     Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
     Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
     SEEGER WEISS LLP
     55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
     Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
     Phone: (212) 584-0700
     Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
     Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
            cayers@seegerweiss.com


J. ALEXANDER'S: Sued Over Denial of Service to Black Woman
----------------------------------------------------------
Fox 2 Detroit Staff reports that cell phone video taken inside J.
Alexander's shows the moments after a woman allegedly was denied
service due to her race last June 27, 2019, in West Bloomfield.

Maurice Davis, Esq., has filed a class action lawsuit against the
restaurant, representing the woman.

"This kind of behavior is archaic racism reminiscent of black men
and women in the 1950s," he said.

It all started when Liah Gant says she was sitting at the bar and
was asked to give up her seat for two white men.  When she refused,
she claims the bartender denied her service and poured her drink
down the sink.

"I had done nothing wrong, it made me feel invisible. It made me
feel I didn't deserve to be there," Gant said. "I immediately got
up and went to management. She said that I shouldn't be upset
because a drink wasn't thrown on me."

When a black customer tried to stand up for Gant and her friend, a
white customer began yelling at him -- and then threw food at him.
Gant was recording.

West Bloomfield police were called but Mr. Davis claims the
management protected the white customer, helping him leave through
the back.

"That manager chose to decide to say it is ok to be racist toward
your black patrons, it is okay to deny them service, to deny them
their basic humanity," Davis said.

That same night another black customer, Jerrick Jefferson, who had
never met Gant before, was there celebrating his anniversary with
his wife. He said they had horrible service and tried to talk to
the manager about it.

"The manager, she was totally dismissive of our concerns when I
brought up I thought we were racially profiled based on
observations with how they interacted with white patrons. She
simply said 'I am walking away,'" Jefferson said.

He said a man came out, called him the n-word and told them to go
home.

"This isn't coincidental; this restaurant has a culture of racism,"
Jefferson said.

J. Alexander's issued a statement which called it an unfortunate
incident that their staff tried to diffuse. They say they have a
strict non-discrimination policy and do not tolerate any
inappropriate behavior from guests or staff.

"They should be terminated, because I feel that today I should be
able to walk into a restaurant and order whatever I want, I
shouldn't be forced to get out of my seat," she said.

Davis said police have identified the suspect and assigned a
detective to the case.[GN]


K&S TOOL: Does not Properly Pay Workers, Kraczek Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER KRACZEK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. K&S TOOL, DIE & MANUFACTURING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00938-PP (E.D. Wis., June 27, 2019) is
a collective and class action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws ("WWPCL"), by Plaintiff against Defendant.

Defendant owned, operated, and managed a metal manufacturing
facility in the State of Wisconsin, located at N 8145 Maple Street,
Ixonia, Wisconsin 53036. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant into the
position of Maintenance Technician at its Ixonia, Wisconsin
manufacturing facility in approximately May 2016.

According to the complaint, the Defendant operated (and continues
to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprives current
and former hourly-paid, non-exempt Manufacturing employees of their
wages earned for all compensable work performed each workweek,
including at an overtime rate of pay for each hour worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek, by failing to include all forms of
non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses,
commissions, incentives, awards, and/or other rewards and payments,
in all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt Manufacturing
employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation purposes,
says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James A. Walcheske, Esq.
     Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
     WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
     15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
     Brookfield, WI 53005
     Phone: (262) 780-1953
     Fax: (262) 565-6469
     Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
            sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com


KEESLER FEDERAL: Lloyd Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Keesler Federal Credit Union.
The case is styled as Shirley Lloyd on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Keesler Federal Credit
Union, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00351-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss., June
28, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Keesler Federal Credit Union is a credit union headquartered in
Biloxi, Mississippi, chartered and regulated under the authority of
the National Credit Union Administration of the U.S. federal
government.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher J. Weldy, Esq.
     WELDY LAW FIRM, PLLC
     105 North College Street
     Brandon, MS 39042
     Phone: (601) 624-7460
     Fax: (866) 900-4850
     Email: chris@weldylawfirm.com


KONA BREWING: Settles Class Action Over "Made in Hawaii" Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the maker of
Kona Brewing Co.'s line of beers settled a class action alleging
that its brews weren't, in fact, made in Hawaii. Craft Brew
Alliance Inc. agreed to list on product packaging where its beer
was actually made. Under the deal, Kona has the right to terminate
the agreement should consumers submit more than 1 million claims
for refunds of $10 to $20 each. The case made the U.S. Chamber
Institute for Legal Reform's annual list of the 10 "most
ridiculous" lawsuits in 2018. [GN]


LAUREL LEE: Raysor Sues over SB 7066's Wealth-Based Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
BONNIE RAYSOR, and DIANE SHERRILL, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LAUREL M. LEE, in
her official capacity as Secretary of State, the Defendant, Case
No. 4:19-cv-00301-MW-MJF (N.D. Ga., June 28, 2019), seeks to enjoin
Defendant, her agents, employees, successors, and all those persons
acting in concert or participation with them, from enforcing SB
7066 including:

     a. Enjoining Defendant from initiating a process for the
rejection of any voter registration applications on the basis of
outstanding legal financial obligations or "LFOs";

     b. Enjoining Defendant from initiating a process for the
removal of any voters from the voter registration rolls on the
basis of outstanding LFOs;

     c. Requiring Defendant to instruct county election supervisors
that outstanding LFOs do not disqualify any individual from voting
rights restoration, and therefore not to remove or reject any
registrant based on outstanding LFOs;

     d. Requiring Defendant to inform those with past felony
convictions that the failure to pay LFOs does not disqualify them
from voting rights restoration under Amendment 4; and

     e. Requiring Defendant to instruct county election supervisors
to restore Florida citizens to the voter registration rolls if they
were removed solely on the basis of their outstanding LFOs.

On November 6, 2018, almost two-thirds of Floridians voted for
Amendment 4 to restore the right to vote to individuals with past
felony convictions. Except for individuals convicted of murder or
felony sexual offense, Amendment 4 re-enfranchised otherwise
eligible Florida citizens automatically "upon completion of all
terms of sentence including parole or probation." Fla. Const. art.
VI, section 4.

On June 28, 2019, Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 7066
("SB 7066"), which purports to "implement" Amendment 4, in part by
seeking to define "all terms of sentence" to include the payment of
any restitution, fines, and fees -- "LFOs" -- ordered by the court
"as a part of the sentence or that are ordered by the court as a
condition of any form of supervision."

The natural and foreseeable effect of this "implementing" law will
be to drastically reduce the number of people with past convictions
who regain the right to vote under Amendment 4; permanently
disenfranchise many minor offenders; and dole out the right to vote
on the basis of wealth.

On its face, SB 7066 discriminates on the basis of wealth. People
with the financial means to satisfy their LFOs either during or at
the conclusion of their sentence of incarceration or supervision
will have their rights automatically restored. But, people whose
socioeconomic status prevents them from satisfying their LFOs
concurrent with the termination of their incarceration or
supervision will be prohibited from voting until they are able to
pay their outstanding balance.

As a result, whether otherwise eligible individuals will have the
right to vote upon completion of their sentence of incarceration
and supervision depends entirely on their ability to pay for it.
Indeed, two otherwise eligible individuals with the same
conviction, who received the same terms of probation and parole,
and the same LFOs, would be treated differently under SB 7066 based
solely on whether they have the means to satisfy their LFOs.

In short, SB 7066's wealth-based discrimination not only violates
the Fourteenth Amendment, but also the Twenty-Fourth Amendment by
functioning as a modern-day poll tax. As a result of SB 7066,
people with convictions will often be left in the dark and find
themselves in need of a lawyer just to find out their eligibility
to vote. Individuals who register in error risk felony prosecution
and thus the unique threat of recidivism. Such ambiguity
surrounding access to the right to vote violates procedural due
process and cannot survive, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chad W. Dunn, Esq.
          Brazil & Dunn
          1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 783-2190
          Facsimile: (305) 783-2268
          E-mail: chad@brazilanddunn.com

               - and -

          Danielle Lang, Esq.
          Mark P. Gaber, Esq.
          Molly E. Danahy, Esq.
          Blair Bowie, Esq.
          Jonathan Diaz, Esq.
          Campaign Legal Center
          1101 14th Street NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736-2200
          E-mail: dlang@campaignlegal.org
                  mgaber@campaignlegal.org
                  mdanahy@campaignlegal.org
                  bbowie@campaignlegal.org
                  jdiaz@campaignlegal.org

LINCARE INC: Martinez Discrimination Suit Removed to E.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned TERINA MARTINEZ, an individual, Plaintiff, v.
LINCARE INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00255729 was removed from
the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California on June 27, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-at-00539.

The Complaint alleges eleven causes of action: (1) "Harassment and
Discrimination Based on Disability [FEHA];" (2) "Violation of
Rights Under California Family Rights Act [FEHA];" (3) "Harassment
and Discrimination Based on Sex [FEHA];" (4) "Retaliation [FEHA];"
(5) "Denial of Reasonable Accommodation and Interactive Process
Duties [FEHA];" (6) "Failure to Prevent Harassment and
Discrimination [FEHA];" (7) "Wrongful Termination in Violation of
Public Policy;" (8) "Fraud, Deceit, and Concealment;" (9) "Unfair
Business Practices;" (10) "Negligence;" and (11) "Intentional
Infliction of Emotional Distress".[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     David S. McLeod, Esq.
     Daniel J. Turner, Esq.
     MCLEOD & WITHAM LLP
     300 S. Grand Ave. Suite 2525
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 627-3600
     Facsimile: (213) 627-6290
     Email: dmcleod@mmwf.com
            dturner@mmwf.com


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

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant to
and/ortraceable 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,
ofthe Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los
Angeles, CA90067, at 424-303-1964, to discuss your rights free of
charge. You canalso 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
untilcertification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.
If youchoose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and
misleadingstatements to the market. Lyft's claimed position in the
ridesharingmarket was overstated. More than 1,000 of the Company's
ridesharingbicycles suffered from safety deficiencies requiring a
recall to fix. Atthe same time, the Company's drivers were becoming
disincentivized fromdriving for Lyft. The Company failed to warn
investors that this labordisruption could threaten its operations.
Based on these facts, theCompany's public statements were false and
materially misleadingthroughout 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]


MACK WELDON: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mack Weldon, Inc. The
case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Mack Weldon, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06024 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019).

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

Mack Weldon, Inc. manufactures men's underwears, undershirts,
T-shirts, and socks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2047: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. Taken under Submission
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, RE: CHINESE-MANUFACTURED DRYWALL
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 2:09-md-02047-EEF-JCW (E.D.
La.), the Hon. Judge Eldon E. Fallon entered an order taking
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification against Taishan
Gypsum Co., Ltd. under submission.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiffs is:

          Sarah London, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          275 Battery St Fl 29
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: slondon@lchb.com

Attorneys for Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. and Taian Taishan
Plasterboard Co., Ltd.:

          Christy Eikhoff, Esq. PARTNER,
          ALSTON & BIRD
          Telephone: 404 881 4496
          E-mail: christy.eikhoff@alston.com

MDL 2741: Pritchett v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICKIE PRITCHETT and PATRICIA PRITCHETT, the Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri, Case No. 4:19-cv-01460 (Filed May 28, 2019) to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on June 21, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03549-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MEDICAL CITY HEALTHCARE: De Leon Suit Moved to N.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
The case Pearl De Leon on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. North Texas Division, Inc. doing
business as: Medical City Healthcare and Columbia Medical Center of
Las Colinas, Inc. doing business as: Medical City Las Colinas, the
Defendants, Case No. DC-19-07928, was removed from the 160th
Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) on June 28, 2019.
The Northern District of Texas Court Clerk assgined Case No.
3:19-cv-01574-N to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon.
Judge David C. Godbey.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Daniel E. Blumberg, Esq.
          Peter F. Bagley, Esq.
          BLUMBERG & BAGLEY LLP
          2304 W. Interstate 20, Suite 190
          Arlington, TX 76017
          Telephone: (817) 277-1500
          Facsimile: (817) 277-1170
          E-mail: daniel@blumbergbagley.com
                  peter@blumbergbagley.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          J. Patrick Bredehoft, Esq.
          THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
          One Arts Plaza
          1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 969-1395
          Facsimile: (214) 969-1751
          E-mail: patrick.bredehoft@tklaw.com

               - and -

          Catherine Clemons Rowsey, Esq.
          William Mayer Katz, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
          1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 969-1700
          Facsimile: (214) 969-1750
          E-mail: catherine.rowsey@tklaw.com
                  william.katz@tklaw.com

MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Appeals Decision in Vedernikov to 3rd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Mercantile Adjustment Bureau LLC filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Igor Vedernikov v. Mercantile
Adjustment Bureau LLC, Case No. 3-18-cv-17364, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Igor
Vedernikov filed the lawsuit on December 18, 2018.

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

Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC provides collection and accounts
receivable management services to lenders, debt purchasers, and
universities in the United States.  The company offers services in
the areas of dismissed bankruptcy, pre legal and legal, and other
collection; call center, legal and compliance, client policy and
procedures certification, skip tracing, and reminder dunning
notice, and more; confidentiality, ongoing, and other training, as
well as client services.

The appellate case is captioned as Igor Vedernikov v. Mercantile
Adjustment Bureau LLC, Case No. 19-8022, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent IGOR VEDERNIKOV, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

Defendant-Petitioner MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU LLC is
represented by:

          Andrew J. Blady, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLC
          3682 Green Ridge Road
          Furlong, PA 18925
          Telephone: (267) 544-0840
          E-mail: ablady@sessions.legal


MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Futures Contracts Price Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GAMMA TRADERS - I LLC and VEGA TRADERS, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MERRILL
LYNCH COMMODITIES, INC., BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. LLC, EDWARD BASES, JOHN PACILIO, and JOHN DOE Nos. 1
– 5, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06002 (S.D. N.Y., June 27,
2019) is an action arising from Defendants' unlawful and
intentional manipulation of COMEX Gold Futures, COMEX Silver
Futures, NYMEX Platinum Futures, and NYMEX Palladium Futures
contracts, and options on those futures contracts (collectively,
"precious metals futures contracts") traded on the New York
Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") and the Commodity Exchange, Inc.
("COMEX") from approximately January 1, 2008 through December 31,
2014 (the "Class Period") in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act, (the "CEA") and the common law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants are a group of futures
traders and the trading firms that employ them. The Defendants
manipulated the prices of these precious metals futures contracts
using a classic manipulative device called "spoofing," whereby
Defendants placed orders that they never intended to execute for
precious metals futures contracts to send false and illegitimate
supply and demand signals to the market and then canceled those
orders before execution. As a result, Defendants caused precious
metals futures contracts prices to be artificial throughout the
Class Period to financially benefit their trading positions at the
expense of other investors, like Plaintiffs and the Class. The
unlawful conduct and manipulation described herein has been the
subject of both criminal and regulatory investigations. On July 17,
2018, Defendants Bases and Pacilio were indicted on commodities
fraud, spoofing, and conspiracy charges in the Northern District of
Illinois relating to the same conduct described in this Complaint.

On June 25, 2019, Defendant MLCI entered into a non-prosecution
agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") and a
settlement with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
("CFTC") and agreed to pay a combined $25 million in criminal
fines, restitution and forfeiture of trading profits. The DOJ
alleged that Defendants spoofed the markets for precious metals
futures contracts thousands of times throughout the Class Period.
Furthermore, the CFTC and DOJ identified example days when
Defendants manipulated precious metals futures contracts prices.

Plaintiffs transacted in thousands of precious metals futures
contracts throughout the Class Period, including on the specific
days identified as examples of Defendants' spoofing, and suffered a
loss on their transactions as a result of Defendants' manipulative
conduct, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Gamma transacted in thousands of COMEX Gold Futures,
COMEX Silver Futures, NYMEX Platinum Futures, and NYMEX Palladium
Futures, and options on those futures contracts, throughout the
Class Period and traded at artificial prices proximately caused by
Defendants' unlawful manipulation.

Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc. ("MLCI") is a Delaware corporation
with its headquarters in Houston, Texas. Defendant MLCI operates in
various locations, including New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Vincent Briganti, Esq.
     Christian P. Levis, Esq.
     Raymond P. Girnys, Esq.
     Johnathan Seredynski, Esq.
     Peter Demato, Jr., Esq.
     Amir Alimehri, Esq.
     LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
     44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Phone: (914) 997-0500
     Fax: (914) 997-0035
     Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
            clevis@lowey.com
            rgirnys@lowey.com
            jseredynski@lowey.com
            pdemato@lowey.com
            aalimehri@lowey.com


MIAMI-DADE, FL: Alvarez et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, NATASHA ALVAREZ, et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-22556-JEM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs move the
Court for an order:

   1. certifying a plaintiff class of:

      "approximately 21,000 full-time instructional personnel
      ("teachers") employed by the School Board of Miami-Dade
      County between July 1, 2014 and the present, who have or
      will suffer damages by virtue of Defendant's failure to
      compensate them according to Florida Statute section
      1012.22, the statutorily-mandated minimum amount of
      performance pay for any academic year"; and

   2. certifying two sub-classes:

      "(A) those hired by Defendant before July 1, 2014 and
      employed by Defendant on or after July 1, 2014 (represented
      by all Named Plaintiffs except Michelle Jimenez, Thomas
      Pendola, and Gina Sese); and

      "(B) those hired by Defendant on or after July 1, 2014
      (represented by Named Plaintiffs Michelle Jimenez, Thomas
      Pendola, and Gina Sese).

The Two sub-classes are suggested because the latter is subject to
performance pay. However, as the performance pay of the three Named
Plaintiffs and those prospective Class Members hired on or after
July 1, 2014 is (or should have been) derived from the same
grandfathered salary schedule as applicable to those hired before
July 1, 2014, as explained the two sub-classes have a commonality
of interests, and identical legal and factual issues predominate.

Plaintiff's accounting expert, George Levie, CPA, has identified an
estimated 21,000 class members. Their damages, not including
prospective damages, is the difference between what they were paid
and what they should have been paid pursuant to statute. Mr. Levie
has pegged damages for the proposed class, from July 1, 2014
through the end of the 2017-18 school year, at approximately $90.2
million, plus interest of approximately $4.4 million, the lawsuit
says.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Craig J. Freger, Esq.
          10247 NW 15th Street
          Pembroke Pines, FL 33028
          Telephone: 954-801-9373 Office
          E-mail: fregerlaw@gmail.com

Counsel for the Defendants:

          Thomas E. Elfers, Esq.
          14036 SW 148 Lane
          Miami, FL 33186
          Telephone: 786-232-8074
          E-mail: thomaselfers@comcast.net

               - and -

          David C. Miller, Esq.
          Denise M. Heekin, Esq.
          James C. Croslan, Esq.d
          Ranjiv Sondhi, Esq.
          BRYANT MILLER OLIVE P.A.
          One S.E. Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-374-7349
          E-mail: dmiller@bmolaw.com
                  dheekin@bmolaw.com
                  jcrosland@bmolaw.com
                  rsondhi@bmolaw.com

MICRO KICKBOARD: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Micro Kickboard
Holdings, LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Micro Kickboard
Holdings, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06026 (S.D. N.Y., June
27, 2019).

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

Micro Kickboard is the exclusive US distributor for Swiss company
Micro Mobility's Kick Scooters, Mini Scooters, Micro Scooters, Maxi
Scooters and Kids Scooters.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MISSISSIPPI: Receiver for Foster Care System Sought
---------------------------------------------------
Brandon Richard, writing for WMC Action News 5, reports that
attorneys in a class-action lawsuit have asked a federal court to
put a receiver in charge of Mississippi's foster care system, after
a report found the state largely out of compliance with a court
agreement.

It's the latest development in a case that's more than a decade
old.

Lawyers who represent a group of children in a class-action lawsuit
asked U.S. District Judge Tom Lee for permission to proceed with a
motion that could result in a court-appointed receiver taking
control of the state's foster care system.

"The children of Mississippi have waited more than ten years to
receive the benefits of a constitutional child welfare system,"
said Marcia Lowry, lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "Ten years is
more than enough time. The state is doing no more than making the
same promises it has been making all along, and never living up to
them."

Lowry sued Mississippi in 2004 on behalf of a dozen children she
said the state failed to protect in its custody.

In early June, a federal court monitor issued a report, which found
95 children in state custody were abused or neglected by their
caregivers last year.

The report also found the state in compliance with just 37 of 113
commitments of a court settlement.

The report found the state did not meet performance measures in at
least 35 other areas and did not provide data to the court
monitoring team in 18 areas.

The court monitoring team also said it could not validate
information submitted in 23 other areas.

In a statement, the Mississippi Department of Child Protection
Services (MDCPS) said the welfare agency had made "significant
progress in its efforts to protect the state's at-risk, abused and
neglected children and their families, but acknowledges it needs
more time and money to accomplish all that must be done to satisfy
the measures of the settlement agreement..."

A few weeks before the court monitor report was issued, a
spokeswoman for CPS said the state had reduced the number of kids
in custody, eliminated a backlog, licensed more foster homes and
hired more caseworkers.

"As you go down the checklist of all the things the lawsuit
required, and you go back and look at when the lawsuit was
originally filed, it's night and day," said MDCPS spokeswoman Lea
Anne Brandon. "There's still a great deal of work to be done, but
it doesn't look like the same child welfare system that it was."

MDCPS said a $15 million budget increase it received from lawmakers
this year will not become available until July 1st, and therefore
the improvements it plans to make with this additional funding are
not reflected in the court monitor report.

Wayne Drinkwater, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said the state is
relying on improvements done before the current commissioner took
office.

"In its defense, the state relies on improvements that appear to be
the result of work that was done during the period before
Commissioner Jess Dickinson took office and ignores the fact that
the state continues to fail to meet the requirements of the court
order," said Drinkwater.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they hope to proceed with their
receivership motion as soon as the judge grants permission.

No word on when the judge will make a decision.[GN]


MONEY SOURCE: Martinez Moves to Certify Class of Underwriters
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ROBERTA MARTINEZ, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. THE
MONEY SOURCE, INC., a corporation, Case No. 2:19-cv-00060-SVW-E
(C.D. Cal.), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, moves for
entry of an order:

   (1) granting conditional certification and approving a sixty
       (60) day opt-in period for the following collective:

       All similarly situated current and former hourly
       Underwriters who work or have worked for Defendant at any
       time from January 3, 2016 through judgment;

   (2) requiring Defendant to identify all potential opt-ins
       within 14 days of the grant of conditional certification
       by providing a list in electronic and importable format,
       of the names, job titles, addresses, telephone numbers,
       e-mail addresses, dates of employment, location of
       employment, and date of birth, of each potential opt-in;
       and

   (3) approving the attached proposed form of notice and
       authorizing it to be sent by U.S. Mail and e-mail to all
       potential opt-in plaintiffs, along with a shortened text
       message notifying each individual that the notice form was
       mailed and e-mailed; and

   (4) authorizing sending of a shortened reminder notice via
       e-mail and text message to be sent 30 days thereafter to
       anyone that did not respond.

The Court will commence a hearing on August 5, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Yeremian, Esq.
          DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          535 n. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          Facsimile: (248) 436-8453
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Hosey Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA J. HOSEY, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01832 (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: Shirah Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Diane Shirah, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00451-ALB-SRW (M.D. Ala., 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:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Williams Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHELIA WILLIAMS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-01834 (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

MOTEL 6 HOTEL: Settles Suit Over Release of Guest Lists to ICE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Whitcomb, writing for Reuters, reports that Motel 6 has agreed
to pay $10 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over claims the
budget chain routinely provided guest lists from properties in
Arizona to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents,
court documents showed on June 29.

The proposed settlement, outlined in court papers filed in U.S.
District Court in Arizona, calls for Motel 6 to abide by a
three-year consent decree to not give guest information to
immigration authorities without a warrant or subpoena and to
provide training on the issue to workers.

A previous settlement over the Arizona properties reached by the
two sides was rejected in November 2018 by a federal judge who said
it did not go far enough in making sure that the plaintiffs, many
of whom may be in the country illegally, would be found and
compensated.

"Motel 6 fully recognizes the seriousness of the situation and
accepts full responsibility for both compensating those who were
harmed and taking the necessary steps to ensure that we protect the
privacy of our guests. Since this issue emerged, we've taken strong
action to make sure a similar issue never happens again in the
future," a spokesman for the company said in a written statement.

Immigration has become an incendiary issue in U.S. politics amid a
surge of immigrants seeking to enter illegally and moves by
President Donald Trump to step up deportations and build a wall
along the southern border with Mexico.

Local governments dubbing themselves "sanctuary cities" have
resisted cooperating with the Trump administration's crackdown, and
immigration is certain to play a major role in the 2020
presidential campaign.

The lawsuit was filed in January 2018 by the Los Angeles-based
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, on
behalf of Motel 6 guests with Latino names after the Phoenix New
Times newspaper reported that the chain was providing their names
to ICE at two of its properties in Arizona and six in Washington
state.

The new settlement seeks to clarify how the plaintiffs would be
found and paid and sets up a fund for that purpose.

A spokesman for MALDEF could not be reached for comment on June
29.

In April of this year, Motel 6 agreed to pay $12 million to settle
a similar lawsuit filed by Washington state.

Motel 6 is controlled by the private equity firm Blackstone Group
LP, which bought the brand in 2012. [GN]


NATIONAL PLAN: Long Seeks to Facilitate Notice to Insurance Agents
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, ANDERA LONG, JERMARIO GORDON, on
behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL PLAN ADVISORS, INC., a/k/a AMERICAN HEALTH
REFORM SOLUTIONS, LLC, a/k/a SYNERGY MARKETING ASSOCIATES, INC.,
a/k/a FLORIDA PLAN ADVISORS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-61250-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order allowing nationwide notice to be sent to:

   "all Insurance Agents currently employed or previously employed
   -- whether considered an independent contractor or not by
   Defendants -- by Defendants within three years of the filing
   of the complaint.

If notice is granted, the Plaintiffs would request that Defendant
be required to provide names, addresses, phone numbers, email
addresses (if known), and social security numbers within 10 days.

The case was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
specifically the collective action provision of section 216(b). The
Plaintiffs and opt-in Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to
pay them overtime in violation of the FLSA and that failure was
intentional, willful, and/or reckless. The named and opt-in
Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have misclassified them as
independent contractors and/or otherwise failed to properly
classify them as non-exempt employees under the FLSA, including
because all of the Plaintiffs were paid on an hourly basis, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          John P. Salas, Esq.
          Michael G. Green II, Esq.
          SALAS LAW FIRM, P.A.
          8551 West Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 300
          Plantation, FL 33322
          Telephone: (954) 315-1155
          Facsimile: (954) 452 -3311
          E-mail: jp@jpsalaslaw.com
                  michael@jpsalaw.com

Counsel for the Defendant:

          Daniel R. Levine, Esq.
          PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP
          3837 NW Boca Raton Boulevard, Suite 200
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          E-mail: drl@pbl-law.com

NEW YORK: Brady Files Suit v. D'Amato
-------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DRK THIRD AVENUE,
LLC.The case is styled as BRADDY, ARLENE STEPHANIE LIVINGSTON,
ELIZABETH VASQUEZ, JORDAN TOOMER, CHERYL ORR, PETRINA BISHOP AND
OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs v. D'AMATO, GLENN PRESIDENT OF
THE NEW YORK STATE COURT CLERKS ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No.
101008/2019 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., June 28, 2019).

The case type is stated as "ARTICLE 78".

GLENN D'AMATO is the president of the New York State Court.[BN]


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Gorman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Jason Gorman, MD Shahin, Igor
Sidorkin individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,, Plaintiffs v. Northstar Location Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03753 (E.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019).

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

Northstar Location Services, LLC, doing business as The Northstar
Companies, provides receivables debt collection services to
customers in the United States, Canada, and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


O'REILLY MARSH: Lieberman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against O'Reilly, Marsh &
Corteselli P.C. The case is styled as Moshe Lieberman on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
O'Reilly, Marsh & Corteselli P.C., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03796 (E.D. N.Y., June 28, 2019).

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

O'Reilly, Marsh, & Corteselli P.C. is a law firm in Mineola,
NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
     Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
     735 Central Avenue
     Woodmere, NY 11598
     Phone: (516) 668-6945
     Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com



OFFICE DEPOT: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Alvarez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez denies the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit styled Alvin Alvarez v. Office
Depot, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-07220-PSG-AFM (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff moved to certify a class of "all hourly, non-exempt
employees of Office Depot working in warehouse and/or distribution
centers in the State of California from August 28, 2013 through the
date of certification."  He also sought to certify three
subclasses:

   * Rest Break Subclass:

     All Class Members who worked shifts more than 3.5 hours in
     length;

   * Drug-Testing Subclass:

     All Class Members who were required to undergo mandatory
     drug-testing after they accepted an offer of employment with
     Office Depot but before they began working; and

   * Regular Rate Subclass:

     All class members who were paid a Supply Chain Safety Bonus
     for the same workweek that they also received overtime pay,
     a meal period premium and/or a rest break premium.

Because the Plaintiff would not be a member of the Regular Rate
Subclass, the subclass cannot be certified, Judge Gutierrez
explains.  Judge Gutierrez adds that because the Plaintiff's motion
to certify the Rest Period Subclass is based on a theory that is
not contained in the operative First Amended Complaint, the motion
is denied.  The Plaintiff's request to amend the complaint to
include this theory is denied as well.

The Court also concludes that essential issues on both of the
Plaintiff's theories of liability on his drug testing claims cannot
be adjudicated on a class-wide basis.  The Plaintiff's assertions
of consistent policies on both theories are not supported by the
evidence that has been put forward.  The motion to certify the
Drug-Testing Subclass is, therefore, denied.[CC]


OSHKOSH DEFENSE: Marquette Seeks to Certify Collective Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, FARRAH MARQUETTE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
OSHKOSH DEFENSE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-1719-WCG (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a collective class of:

      "all persons who are or have been employed by Oshkosh
      Defense as production and/or maintenance employees at
      Oshkosh Defense plants located in Wisconsin and who are or
      were paid on an hourly basis at any time since October 30,
      2015";

   2. appointing Plaintiff's Counsel of record as collective
      action counsel;

   3. approving the form and content of the Notice of Pendency of
      Lawsuit to be sent to the conditionally certified collective

      class via U.S. Mail, email, and/or text message within seven

      days of receiving the collective action members' contact
      information from Defendant;

   4. prohibiting the Defendant or any third-party from
      communicating with the conditionally-certified class's
      members about this lawsuit in any way from the date of the
      Court's order on this motion through the close of the notice

      period other than to direct inquiring putative collective
      action members to contact Collective Action Counsel as set
      forth in the Notice;

   5  directing the Defendant to provide collective action counsel

      a list identifying all persons known to Defendants to meet
      the above definition, including their first names, last
      names, last known street address, city, state, zip code,
      phone numbers, email addresses, and dates of employment in a

      Microsoft Excel spreadsheet within 10 days on the Court's
      Order granting this Motion;

   5. permitting the putative collective action members 75 days
      from the mailing of the Notice of Collective Action to opt
      in to this lawsuit; and

   6. setting oral argument on this Motion at a date and time
      following the Parties' completion of briefing of this
      motion.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.P.O.
          Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  tmaynard@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com

P.T. AUTOMOTIVE: Arellano Hits Missed Breaks, Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ARELLANO individually and on behalf of similarly aggrieved
employees, Plaintiff, v. P.T. AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a California
Corporation; P.T. AUTOMOTIVE, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
19STCV22565 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 27, 2019) is a
representative action case under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") on behalf of the State of
California, Plaintiff and other aggrieved current and former
non-exempt employees, who worked in the State of California for
Defendants to remedy Defendants' illegal wage payment policies and
practices during the relevant statutory periods, for which
Plaintiff seeks civil penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies deemed just and proper under
California law.

The DEFENDANTS employed PLAINTIFF and AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES pursuant
to employment agreements that were partly written, partly oral, and
partly implied. In perpetrating the acts and omissions alleged
herein, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, acted pursuant to, and in
furtherance of, their policies and practices of not paying
PLAINTIFF and AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES all wages earned and due through
methods and schemes which include, but are not limited to, failing
to timely provide compliant meal periods (or to pay compensation
for a lack thereof); failing to timely provide compliant rest
periods (or to pay compensation for a lack thereof); failing to pay
all minimum wages due; failing to pay all overtime wages due;
failing to timely pay all wages due during employment; failing to
timely pay all wages to due at time of discharge or quitting;
failing to provide accurate itemized statements; failing to
maintain accurate records; and failing to indemnify PLAINTIFF and
AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES for necessary expenditures in violation of the
California Labor Code and the applicable Welfare Commission ("IWC")
Orders, says the complaint.

PLAINTIFF was a resident of the State of California and an employee
of DEFENDANTS.

P.T. AUTOMOTIVE, INC. is, and at all times relevant to this action
was, a limited liability company organized and existing under the
laws of the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Matem, Esq.
     Joshua D. Boxer, Esq.
     Roy K. Suh, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
     1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Phone: (310) 531-1900
     Facsimile: (310) 531-1901


PETROLEUM WHOLESALE: Class of SMs & ASMs Certified in Hradil Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David Alan Ezra grants the parties' Agreed Motion for
Conditional Certification and Notice to Class in the lawsuit titled
ANGIE HRADIL, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED v. PETROLEUM WHOLESALE, L.P., & SUNMART, INC., Case No.
5:19-cv-00102-DAE (W.D. Tex.).

The Court conditionally certifies a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and authorizes the Plaintiff's counsel,
Lawrence Morales II, Esq., and Allison S. Hartry, Esq., of The
Morales Firm, P.C., to issue opt-in notices and consent forms to
this Class:

     All Store Managers and Assistant Store Managers that worked
     for SunMart, Inc. that were paid a salary and classified as
     exempt from [two years prior to the date the notice is
     issued] to the present.

The Notice to be sent shall be in the form of the notice attached
to the Motion as Exhibit 1.  The consent form to be sent shall be
in the form of the consent form attached to the Motion as Exhibit
2.

The Court further orders the Defendants to produce to the
Plaintiffs' counsel in a usable electronic format no later than 10
days from the entry of the Court's Order: the names, last-known
residential addresses, last-known personal e-mail addresses, if
any, and dates of employment ("Employee Information") of all
employees who meet the parameters of the Class.  If the Defendants
fail to provide the Employee Information within 10 days of the
entry of this Order, the statute of limitations is tolled for each
day after the tenth (10th) day that Defendants fails to provide the
Employee Information.

The Court authorizes that the Notice and Consent to Join may
immediately be issued to the Class Members.  The putative class
members shall be provided sixty (60) days after the Notice and
Consent to Join are initially sent to file a Consent to Join form
opting in to this litigation ("Opt-In Period").[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Morales II, Esq.
          Allison S. Hartry, Esq.
          THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
          6243 W. Interstate 10
          San Antonio, TX 78201
          Telephone: (210) 819-5341
          Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
          E-mail: lawrence@themoralesfirm.com
                  ahartry@themoralesfirm.com


PHILADELPHIA ENERGY: Employees of Burnt Refinery File Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CBS3 Staff reports that there is more trouble for Philadelphia
Energy Solutions after plant employees filed a class action lawsuit
against the company.  The company announced that it was closing the
South Philadelphia refinery following the massive fire and
explosion that happened last June 28.

The 1,000 employees who were terminated because of the closure
alleged that PES did not provide them with a 60-day notice, which
they say violates a federal workers act.

PES says the fire at the refinery complex has made it impossible
for them to continue operations.

"We are grateful that the fire resulted in only a few minor
injuries," PES CEO Mark Smith said in a statement on June 26. "I
want to thank our employees for their hard work and dedication and
to thank the Philadelphia community for their support. We are
committed to an orderly process to safely wind down our
operations."

Smith went on to say the company will position the refinery for a
sale and restart.[GN]


PHILADELPHIA ENERGY: Rutkowski & Harper Sue over Mass Layoff
------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN RUTKOWSKI and MARTIN HARPER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. PHILADELPHIA ENERGY
SOLUTIONS, L.L.C. and PHILADELPHIA ENERGY SOLUTIONS REFINING AND
MARKETING, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02849-MMB (E.D.
Pa., June 28, 2019), seeks to recover back pay and benefits
pursuant to the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act,
and Chapter 9-1500 of the Philadelphia Code, based upon the course
of conduct by Defendants that resulted in the termination of their
employees without proper legal notice as part of a mass layoff
scheduled for July 1, 2019.

According to early reports, over 1,000 employees are expected to be
laid off, including approximately 614 union steelworker employees.
PES' mass layoff deprived these "workers and their families some
transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to
seek and obtain alternative jobs and, if necessary, to enter skill
training or retraining that will allow these workers to
successfully compete in the job market."  The Defendants failed to
provide these terminated employees with the statutory 60 days
advance written notice required by the WARN Act.

On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff was one of many PES employees called
into a meeting where he and his colleagues were informed that they
were being terminated from their employment at PES en masse
effective July 1, 2019. Plaintiff was not provided with 60-days
notice of his termination under the WARN Act, and was provided with
no severance pay as part of his termination.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members were either full time employees of
PES, or temporary employees other than part‐time employees, and
are to be counted in determining that the threshold requirements of
the WARN Act are met.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have been damaged by
Defendants' conduct and are entitled to the notice and back pay
required by the WARN Act. 29 U.S.C. section 2101(1)(A).

PES, L.L.C., is or was an oil refining company headquartered in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and incorporated under the laws of the
state of Delaware, with a registered agent located at Corporation
Trust Center, 1209 Orange St., Wilmington, DE 19801. According to
its website, the PES Refining Complex operates two domestic
refineries -- Girard Point and Point Breeze -- in South
Philadelphia, and processes approximately 335,000 barrels of crude
oil per day (42 U.S. gallons per barrel), making it the largest oil
refining complex on the United States eastern seaboard. Also
according to its website, PES operates or operated in Philadelphia
at two locations: PES headquarters, located at 1735 Market Street,
11th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103, and the PES Refining Complex,
located at 3144 West Passyunk Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19145.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

           Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
           Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
           Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
           CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER
              & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
           361 W. Lancaster Avenue
           Haverford, PA 19041
           Telephone: (610) 642-8500
           E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
                   awf@chimicles.com
                   amk@chimicles.com

PIVOTAL SOFTWARE: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
August 19, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of Pivotal Software, Inc. ("Pivotal
Software" or the "Company") (NYSE: PVTL) investors who purchased
(1) common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration
Statement") issued in connection with Pivotal Software's April 2018
initial public offering (the "Offering" or "IPO"); and/or (2)
securities between April 24, 2018 and June 4, 2019, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Pivotal Software investors have
until August 19, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

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

In April 2018, Pivotal Software completed its initial public
offering ("IPO") in which it sold more than 42 million shares of
its common stock at $15.00 per share.

On June 4, 2019, after the market closed, the Company conveyed its
first quarter 2019 financial and operating results, which were
negatively impacted by "sales execution and a complex technology
landscape." Also, Wedbush Securities analyst Daniel Ives asserted
in addition to the "disastrous" operating results, that the
Company's management team, "does not have a handle on the
underlying issues negatively impacting its sales cycles and the
activity in the field which gives us concern that this quarter will
be the start of some ‘dark days ahead' for Pivotal (and its
investors)."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.65, or more than
41%, to close at $10.89 per share on June 5, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to
state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) Pivotal was facing major problems with
its sales execution and a complex technology landscape; (2) 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 Software's principal products
because the Company's products were outdated, inadequate, and
incompatible with the industry-standard platform; and (3) that, as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased shares of Pivotal Software during the Class Period
you may move the Court no later than August 19, 2019 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action 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 action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters please contact:

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


PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS: 2nd Class Action Filed Over A-Plant
-------------------------------------------------------
Tony E. Rutherford, writing for HNN Huntingtonnews.net, reports
that a second proposed class action stemming from the contamination
from the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant that closed Zahn's
Corner Middle School after finding enriched uranium and neptunium
on the school site.

According to the complaint:

"Residents who live in the vicinity of the A-Plant have also
experienced more than their share of cancer and other diseases, and
animals and plants nearby were found to contain harmful
contaminants. A local residents group identified 247 cancer cases
within a six-mile radius of the A-Plant. Tests on deer killed by
cars showed uranium isotopes in the livers of the deer. Traces of
uranium were found in milk and egg samples from area farms and from
vegetables in the gardens of residents in the vicinity of the
A-Plant. And, fish from area waterways were found to contain
uranium and plutonium."

This Complaint concerns the failure of legislators, regulators,
protection agencies, businesses, and numerous others to prevent,
mitigate and/or stop the contamination of miles of land, schools,
water, air, buildings and people in Pike County, Ohio. Through the
negligent and  reckless operation of the 3,777 acre site known as
the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, or "APlant" as it is known
locally (referred to herein as the "A-Plant"), the Defendants have
contaminated Pike County, Ohio with toxic contaminants and
taxpayers are paying for the cleanup. The contaminates that the
Defendants discharged upon Pike County include dangerous,
radioactive materials and metals that are some of the most harmful
contaminants known to mankind.

Unbeknownst to the residents of Pike County, Ohio, the A-Plant has
been discharging highly dangerous radioactive materials and metals
upon Pike County for over 40 years. The A-Plant was opened in
approximately 1954, as a uranium enrichment operation that provided
enriched uranium for nuclear bombs. In the Cold War years, the
intense focus on building bombs superseded concerns of safe
handling of waste and contamination of the nearby properties. As
Brian Blair, an Ohio EPA supervisor who participated in the state's
first inspection of the site in 1986, told the Dayton Daily News
about the years prior to 1986, "[t]hey were not managed even
according to the best technology available at that time."

Defendants, through their silence as well as their aggressive
public relation efforts, have falsely reassured the public and
Plaintiffs that their operations have not contaminated nearby
properties. Defendants made misrepresentations that were meant to
assure Plaintiffs that the APlant presents absolutely no danger to
public health and underreported the seriousness of contamination
leaked into the vicinity of the A-Plant. 62. Defendants
fraudulently concealed the omissions of harmful contaminants from
the A-Plant. Defendants falsely represented that all safety
precautions were taken, residents were in absolutely no danger, and
any emissions would be promptly and accurately reported to the
residents. Contrary to the Defendants' fraudulent concealment,
Defendants did not follow proper safety precautions, residents were
in grave danger and emissions were purposely not reported and/or
underreported. As a result of the Defendants' fraudulent
concealment of the facts known only to the Defendants, any statutes
of limitations applicable to the claims of Plaintiffs and Class
Members are tolled. Plaintiffs and other Class Members did not know
and could not have known of the dangers caused by the emissions
from the A-Plant.

Until the late 1980s the Department of Energy (DOE) was not subject
to environmental regulation. Environmental regulators such as the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ("Ohio EPA"), had no
jurisdiction over the A-Plant. Even today, national security
concerns limit the scope of regulation by environmental
regulators.

The suit is filed on behalf of RAY PRITCHARD and SHARON MELICK and
those similarly situated.

Leist & Warner, PLLC of Columbus, Ohio filed the suit June 28 in US
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Case No.:
19-2777.[GN]


PRICESMART INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of PriceSmart, Inc. (PSMT) from October 26, 2017 through
October 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for PriceSmart investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the PriceSmart class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1581.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) PriceSmart's omni-channel business strategy had failed to
reach key operating goals; (2) PriceSmart's South America
distribution strategy had failed to realize key cost saving goals;
(3) PriceSmart 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
PriceSmart's internal controls over financial reporting; (7)
increasing competition negatively impacted PriceSmart's revenue and
profitability; and (8) as a result, PriceSmart's 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 action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 22,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1581.html

To discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action
please contact:

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


PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN KIRKPATRICK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00335 (E.D. Va., June 27, 2019) is a
class action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
against Defendant pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly
or indirectly, debts owed or due, or asserted to be owed or due,
another. In connection with the collection of the Debt, Defendant
sent Plaintiff two letters dated November 8, 2018. The November 8,
2018 letters were Defendant's initial communications with Plaintiff
with respect to the Debt. The Defendant's second letter dated
November 21, 2018 states that "this notice is to advise you that we
have verified your employment with" and then identifies the name
and address of Plaintiff's employer.

The Defendant was aware that Plaintiff's employer is a debt
collector, as his employer is a publicly traded company and one of
the largest debt buyers in the nation. Upon receiving Defendant's
November 21, 2018 letter, the least sophisticated consumer could
fear that Defendant had contacted and/or disclosed the Debt to his
employer. Upon information and belief, Defendant had not contacted
his employer at the time it sent the November 21, 2018 letter.
Thus, Defendant's November 21, 2018 letter contains a false,
deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the
collection of a debt. The Defendant had no plans to contact
Plaintiff's employer at the time it sent the November 21, 2018
letter. The natural consequence of Defendant's November 21, 2018
letter is to harass, oppress, or abuse the consumer in connection
with the collection of a debt, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who is allegedly obligated to pay a
debt.

Defendant is an entity who at all relevant times was engaged, by
use of the mails and telephone, in the business of attempting to
collect a "debt" from Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth McLeod, Esq.
     505 6th St. SW Unit 119
     Roanoke, VA 24016
     Phone: (425) 269-0516
     Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
     Email: KMcLeod@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com

          - and -

     Thompson Consumer Law Group, PLLC
     5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
     Mesa, AZ 85206
     Email: tclg@conusmerlawinfo.com


PURDUE PHARMA: First Opioid Crisis Case Trial Begins in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the first trial
in the nation over an epidemic of overdoses and deaths tied to
opioids began on May 28 in Oklahoma. Ms. Bronstad covered the trial
between Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter and Johnson &
Johnson, which ended up being the sole defendant after Purdue
Pharma settled in March for $270 million and Teva Pharmaceuticals
reached an $85 million deal.

The lawyers had a lot of colorful charts and slogans. Hunter and
three other lawyers made opening statements for the state, which
has asked for tens of billions of dollars in abatement costs. Brad
Beckworth -- bbeckworth@nixlaw.com -- (Nix Patterson) repeated the
phrase, "If you oversupply, people will die." Michael Burrage and
Reggie Whitten (Whitten Burrage) also gave opening statements for
the state. Johnson & Johnson attorney Larry Ottaway --
LarryOttaway@OklahomaCounsel.com -- (Foliart Huff Ottaway & Bottom)
capped his presentation with: "Why are we here? Because when you're
right, you fight."

Why is the case important? Because looming in the background are
more than 1,600 other lawsuits by states, cities and counties,
against opioid manufacturers and distributors. Earlier in May, a
judge dismissed one of them, brought by the state of North Dakota,
in a major victory for Purdue. "The state's effort to hold one
company to account for this entire, complex public health issue
oversimplifies the problem," wrote South Central Judicial District
Judge James Hill. [GN]


PURELINE TREATMENT: Scott Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
ROBERT SCOTT, et al., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PURELINE TREATMENT SYSTEMS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00156 (W.D. Tex., June 27, 2019) is a
collective action to recover overtime compensation and all other
available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the
"FLSA").

Pureline Treatment Systems, LLC is an oil and gas company
specializing in implementation of chlorine dioxide solutions.
Plaintiff Robert Scott worked for Defendant as a water treatment
specialist.

During his time with Defendant, Plaintiff typically worked at least
80 or more hours per week, often seven days per week. Defendant had
a company-wide policy whereby it only paid its workers overtime if
they worked more than 12 hours per day. This resulted in Plaintiff
and other workers for Defendant being denied overtime for most of
the overtime that they worked every week. For at least three years
prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendant willfully
committed  widespread violations of the FLSA by failing to pay
these employees for overtime hours worked in excess of forty hours
per week at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Borsellino, Esq.
     Morgan Scott, Esq.
     Borsellino, P.C.
     1020 Macon St., Suite 15
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Phone: (817) 908-9861
     Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
     Email: josh@dfwcounsel.com
            morgan@oilfieldovertime.com


RAYDON CORPORATION: Woznicki Seeks to Cert. ESOP Participants Class
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled STEPHANIE WOZNICKI, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. RAYDON CORPORATION,
DONALD K. ARIEL, DAVID P. DONOVAN, THE ESOP COMMITTEE OF THE RAYDON
CORPORATION EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN, LUBBOCK NATIONAL BANK,
DAVID P. DONOVAN 2012 TRUST, ARIEL FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 18,
2012, PAMELA W. ARIEL, VERNA L. DONOVAN 2012 TRUST, DAVID P.
DONOVAN, JR., IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 25, 2008, LORI L. WEISS
IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 25, 2008, and NIKI J. DUNCAN
IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED JULY 25, 2008, Case No.
6:18-cv-02090-CEM-GJK (M.D. Fla.), moves for an order certifying
the case as a class action on behalf of this class:

     All participants in the Raydon Corporation Employee Stock
     Ownership Plan (the "ESOP" or "Plan") from September 30,
     2015 or any time thereafter who vested under the terms of
     the Plan and those participants' beneficiaries.

     Excluded from the Plaintiff Class are Defendants and their
     immediate family (including any person defined as a relative
     under ERISA Section 3(15)), any fiduciary of the Plan; the
     officers and directors of Raydon Corporation ("Raydon" or
     the "Company") or of any entity in which a Defendant has a
     controlling interest; and legal representatives, successors,
     and assigns of any such excluded persons.

Ms. Woznicki also asks the Court to appoint her and Class Member
Briana Nicole Tatum as the Class representatives and to appoint R.
Joseph Barton, Esq., of Block & Leviton LLP and Daniel Feinberg,
Esq., of Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP as Co-Lead Class
Counsel and Sam Smith, Esq., and Loren Donnell, Esq., of Burr &
Smith LLP as Liaison Class Counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          Colin M. Downes, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          1735 20th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 734-7046
          E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com
                  colin@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Sam J. Smith, Esq.
          Loren B. Donnell, Esq.
          BURR & SMITH, LLP
          111 2nd Avenue N.E., Suite 1100
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (813) 253-2010
          E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
                  ldonnell@burrandsmith.com

               - and -

          Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
          Berkeley, CA 94704
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com


RCI HOSPITALITY: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc. (RICK) and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court,
for the Southern District of Texas, and indexed under 19-cv-02318,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired RCI
securities between August 10, 2017, and May 10, 2019, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased RCI securities during the
class period, you have until July 22, 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.

RCI, through its subsidiaries, owns and operates gentlemen's clubs
and restaurants in locations throughout the United States.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
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
defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company
engaged in numerous transactions with the CEO, including lending
him significant sums of money; (2) that these practices were
reasonably likely to lead to regulatory scrutiny of the Company;
(3) that, as a result of investigations into the Company's
governance, the Company would be unable to timely file its
financial statements; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
the defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 10, 2019, the Company filed a Form 12b-25 with the SEC that
stated it could not timely file its Form 10-Q for the Fiscal 2019
second quarter because of an ongoing SEC inquiry and internal
review.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.67 per share, or over
7.5%, to close at $20.48 per share on May 13, 2019, damaging
investors. Trading volume on that date was unusually high.

Contact:

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


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Class Certification Sought in Bronson Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Hardin, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled
ALEXIS BRONSON AND CRYSTAL HARDIN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Case No. 3:18-cv-02300-WHA (N.D.
Cal.), moves the Court for an order granting class certification
of:

     California residents who purchased (in California) and
     currently own Samsung plasma televisions model numbers
     manufactured since 2013.

Specifically, the Plaintiff contends that the Court should certify
an injunctive relief class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, which addresses Samsung's violation of
Cal. Civ. Code 1793.03(b) and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200,
et seq. ("UCL"); where Samsung is alleged to have failed to make
functional a PDPs available to their Authorized Service Centers in
California for seven years.

Ms. Hardin also asks the Court to approve her as class
representative and Paul S. Rothstein, Esq., and Kyla V. Alexander,
Esq., as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on August 22, 2019, at 8:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul S. Rothstein, Esq.
          Kyla V. Alexander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL S. ROTHSTEIN
          626 N.E. First Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601
          Telephone: (352) 376-7650
          Facsimile: (352) 374-7133
          E-mail: PSR@Rothsteinforjustice.com
                  Kyla.tm@rothsteinforjustice.com

               - and -

          Alan J. Sherwood, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALAN J. SHERWOOD
          26755 Contessa Street
          Hayward, CA 94545
          Telephone: (510) 409-6199
          E-mail: alansherwood@earthlink.net


SANDALS: To Vigorously Defend Class Action Over Unpaid Taxes
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandals on May 29 said the Class Action lawsuit recently filed
against the company in the US District Court for the Southern
District of Florida is baseless, both in fact and law, and will be
vigorously defended by Sandals.

Sandals said "The assertion that Sandals has not paid taxes due to
the government is categorically false. We are proud to be the
Caribbean's largest private employer and in many of the countries
in which we operate, we are the biggest economic contributor and
taxpayer."

"Our operations in all territories have been subject to regular
audits that have, without exception, always delivered clean
reports.

"Class action lawsuits are often intended to coerce a company into
settlement to avoid high litigation costs and negative publicity.
We have never imposed unlawful and inappropriate charges on our
guests and will not cower to false tactics that claim otherwise.

"In this digital age -- when anybody can say anything, however
untrue -- trust and track record remain paramount. Our reputation
and relationships with our valued guests are four decades in the
making, which is why our guests continue to put their faith in us,
year after year."

"For these reasons, Sandals intends to fight this lawsuit to the
end as nothing less than a clean slate will do." [GN]


SAPORITO FINISHING: Smart Sues Over Unlawful Use of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Smart, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SAPORITO FINISHING CO., Defendant, Case No.
2019CH07728 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., June 27, 2019) is a
Class Action Complaint against Defendant, to stop Defendant's
unlawful collection, use, storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs and
the proposed Class's sensitive, private, and personal biometric
data.

As an employee/worker of Defendant, Plaintiff was required to
"clock in" and "clock out" of work shifts by having his hand
scanned by a biometric timeclock which identified each employee,
including Plaintiff. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act
expressly obligates Defendant to obtain an executed, written
release from an individual, as a condition of employment, in order
to capture, collect, and store an individual's biometric
identifiers or biometric information, especially a fingerprint or
hand geometry scan, and biometric information derived from it.

The Defendant captured, collected, received through trade, and/or
otherwise obtained and biometric identifiers or biometric
information of their Illinois employees, like Plaintiff, without
properly obtaining the above-described written executed release,
and without making the required disclosures concerning the
collection, storage, use, or destruction of biometric identifiers
or information. Additionally, Plaintiff and the Class members are
aggrieved because Defendant improperly disclosed employees'
biometric data to out-of-state third-party vendors in violation of
BIPA, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff began working for Defendant in April 2019 and ended
employment with Defendant in May 2019.

Saporito Finishing Co. is an Illinois limited liability
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
     Phone: 314-833-4825
     Email: bwise@pwcklegal.com
            plesko@pwcklegal.com


SEA-NY.COM INC: Olsen Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sea-NY.com Inc. The
case is styled as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sea-NY.com Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06102 (S.D. N.Y., June 29, 2019).

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

Sea designs clothing for the effortless, optimistic, romantic, and
boyish modern woman through its spirited and wearable
collections.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
     Lipsky Lowe LLP
     630 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Phone: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: chris@lipskylowe.com


SIMON BROTHERS: Gregg Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------
GEORGE GREGG, on behalf of himself and those similarly-situated,
Plaintiff, v. SIMON BROTHERS, INC., a Domestic Profit Corporation,
and GEORGE R. SIMON, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00513 (W.D. Mich., June 27, 2019) is an action against
Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee for Defendants, and was paid an
hourly rate of pay for the hours worked. However, Defendants
implemented illegal pay procedures that deprived Plaintiff of
proper overtime compensation for his hours worked in excess for 40
hours each week, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant to work as a non-exempt truck
driver employee for Simon Brothers located in Fowler, Michigan in
2009.

Simon Brothers was, and continues to be, a Domestic Profit
Corporation. Simon Brothers was engaged in business in Michigan
with a principle place of business in Clinton County,
Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
     Mari S. Yokhana, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
     Southfield, MI 48075
     Phone: (313) 251-1399
     Email: mhanna@forthepeople.com
            myokhana@forthepeople.com


SOUTH DAKOTA: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in Stanko Civil Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Rudy Butch Stanko filed an appeal from the District
Court's order and partial judgment both issued on June 11, 2019, in
the lawsuit titled Rudy Stanko v. State of South Dakota, et al.,
Case No. 5:18-cv-05088-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Dakota - Rapid City.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Rudy Stanko v. State of South
Dakota, et al., Case No. 19-2302, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Rudy Butch Stanko, individually, and on behalf
of similarly situated non Indian residents on the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation and border towns, of Gordon, Nebraska, appears pro
se.[BN]

Defendants-Appellees State of South Dakota; Marya Vrooman
Tellinguissen, individually, and in her self-appointed official
capacity/jurisdiction to hold court for misdemeanor allegations
made by Indians on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation against
non-Indians in an alien jurisdiction, venue and vicinage in Fall
River County; and Carol Foster, individually, and in her official
capacity as a self-appointed magistrate to set cash bonds for
misdemeanor allegations made by Indians against non-Indians on the
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in an alien Fall River jurisdiction,
venue and vicinage, are represented by:

          Robert B. Anderson, Esq.
          MAY, ADAM, GERDES & THOMPSON LLP
          503 S. Pierre Street
          P.O. Box 160
          Pierre, SD 57501-0160
          Telephone: (605) 224-8803
          E-mail: rba@magt.com

Defendants-Appellees Jailer Brandon Luther, in his official
capacity as a guard at the Fall River County jail, and James Sword,
individually, and as a hired attorney for the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation; as a private attorney with a Hot Spring office; and in
his official capacity as an elected Fall River County Attorney in
an alien jurisdiction, venue and vicinage; and Defendant Jailer
Brandon Luther, in his individual capacity, are represented by:

          Rebecca L. Mann, Esq.
          Ryan C. Sutton, Esq.
          GUNDERSON, PALMER, NELSON, AND ASHMORE LLP
          506 Sixth Street
          P.O. Box 8045
          Rapid City, SD 57709-8045
          Telephone: (605) 342-1078
          E-mail: rmann@gpna.com
                  rsutton@gpna.com

Defendant Austin Chafin, individually, and in his official capacity
as a Hot Springs policeman, is represented by:

          Thomas E. Brady, Esq.
          LYNN, JACKSON, SHULTZ & LEBRUN, P.C.
          135 E. Colorado Boulevard
          Spearfish, SD 57783-0000
          Telephone: (605) 722-9000
          E-mail: tbrady@lynnjackson.com

               - and -

          Kassie McKie Shiffermiller, Esq.
          LYNN, JACKSON, SHULTZ & LEBRUN, P.C.
          909 St. Joseph Street
          Rapid City, SD 57701-3301
          Telephone: (605) 342-2592
          E-mail: kshiffermiller@lynnjackson.com


SOUTH FLORIDA RACING: Lawrence's Class Certification Bid Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, SADIKI LAWRENCE, the Plaintiff, vs.
SOUTH FLORIDA RACING ASSOCIATION, LLC, the Defendant, Case
1:18-cv-24264-RS (S.D. Fla.), the Court entered an order denying
Plaintiff's motion for class-action certification on June 28,
2019.

The Plaintiff sought to certify a class consisting of:

   "all persons in the United States who, at any time between
   April 4, 2016 and April 4, 2018 (the "Class Period"), performed

   a cash-access transaction at Hialeah Park casino with a debit
   card or credit card associated with Visa USA, Incorporated,
   Visa International, or MasterCard International Incorporated
   that was processed via technology provided by Everi Payments,
   Inc., formerly known as Global Cash Access, Inc."

The Court said, "Lawrence has not explained or discussed how
self-identification would be administratively feasible and not
otherwise problematic. Class certification is improper where, as in
this case, the class is not ascertainable without conducting
individualized inquires. See Bouton, 322 F.R.D. at 696 (collecting
cases); Guarisma v. Hyatt Equities, LLC, No. 1:17-CV-20931-UU, 2017
WL 6949266, at 7 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2017) (denying certification
where the court would need to determine whether each individual
putative class member was, in fact, a member of the class, as that
process would render the "proposed class entirely unmanageable and,
based on Eleventh Circuit precedent, not ascertainable under Rule
23(a).").  The Court concludes that the proposed class is not
ascertainable and, therefore, should not be certified."[CC]

SPECIALTY COMMODITIES: Initial Approval of Quiruz Suit Deal Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beth Labson Freeman denied without prejudice the
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement in the lawsuit captioned ANDREW QUIRUZ v. SPECIALTY
COMMODITIES, INC., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-03300-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Freeman notes that the Plaintiff's Motion is denied without
prejudice for the reasons stated at the hearing on June 27, 2019.

Of particular concern to the Court, the settlement is intended to
release a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act which has not
yet been pled, although the Plaintiff has indicated that a second
amended complaint adding such a claim will be filed, according to
the Order.  Additionally, the Court has not been provided with a
copy of the signed settlement agreement.

The Plaintiff's counsel stated at the hearing that these and the
other deficiencies in the motion will be rectified in a renewed
motion for preliminary approval.[CC]



STUDENT ASSISTANCE: Foley Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, JENNIFER FOLEY, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case
No. 17-cv-01702-LA (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons in the States of Wisconsin, Illinois, and
      Indiana who were the subject of a letter Student Assistance
      Corporation sent on or after December 6, 2016, requesting
      their email address from a third party";

      Excluded from the class are SAC, any entity in which SAC has

      a controlling interest, each of their officers or legal
      representatives, and any Judge assigned to this action,
      including his or her immediate family.

   2. appointing the Plaintiff as the class representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

SAC engaged in a form letter campaign seeking borrower e-mail
addresses from third parties in violation of section 1692c
(prohibiting contact with third parties, except to acquire consumer
"location information" -- a definition that excludes e-mail
addresses).[CC]

Attorneys for the Jennifer Foley, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons are:

           Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
           Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
           Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
           Mara A. Baltabols, Esq.
           BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
           134 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1000
           Chicago, IL 60602
           Telephone: (312) 658-5500
           Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
           E-mail: service@classlawyers.com

SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Horowitz Sues Over Securities Act Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID HOROWITZ, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY GROUP, TONGBO LIU,
YIPENG LI, JIANHONG YIN A/K/A PENG OU, LU LU, MICHAEL MINHONG YU,
YANG WANG, GOLDMAN SACHS (ASIA) L.L.C., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES
(USA) LLC, AND J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-03744 (E.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019) is a securities class
action on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Sunlands securities 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 "Offering"), seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

Sunlands offers various degree and diploma-oriented post-secondary
courses, including preparation courses for the self-taught higher
education examination ("STE") 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 Depository Share ("ADS") 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, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased Sunlands ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the
IPO and was damaged thereby.

Sunlands provides online education services in the People's
Republic of China ("PRC").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
            lrosen@rosenlegal.com


SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a
purchaser of Sunlands Technology Group (STG) has filed a class
action complaint against the company for alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 pursuant to its March 2018 initial public
offering ("IPO"). Sunlands provides post-secondary and professional
educational services.

According to the complaint, Sunlands held its initial public
offering in March 2018, offering 13,000,000 American Depository
Shares ("ADSs") at $11.50 per share. In its Registration Statement,
Sunlands touted its rapid growth in net revenue and gross billings,
which it attributed to its fast-growing student enrollment as a
result of its transition to online courses. However, this statement
proved to be materially false and misleading as Sunlands' financial
results from its filed May 2019 Form 6-K revealed a 34% decrease in
new student enrollment and a 28.6% decrease year-over-year in gross
billings. Since Sunlands' IPO, the ADSs have plummeted almost 80%
from its IPO price, currently trading at about $2.40 a share.

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact:         

         Leo Kandinov, Esq.
         Robbins Arroyo LLP
         5040 Shoreham Place
         San Diego, CA 92122
         Phone: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free: (800) 350-6003
         Website: www.robbinsarroyo.com
         Email: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN]


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Pomerantz Investing Investors' Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (NYSE: TAK).  Such investors
are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether Takeda and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.

On May 14, 2019 , Takeda forecast an unexpected operating loss for
the current year, citing costs associated with the Company's $59
billion purchase of Shire Plc.

On this news, Takeda's American depositary receipt price fell $1.57
per share, or 8.06%, to close at $17.92 on May 14, 2019 .

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


TATE & KIRLIN: Mann Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TATE & KIRLIN
ASSOCIATES, INC. The case is styled as REGINALD MANN, PLEADING ON
HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
CONSUMERS, Plaintiff v. TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-02865-GAM (E.D. Pa., June 28, 2019).

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

Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc. provides debt collection services.
The company's clientale ranges from financial and retail credit
communities to the medical and commercial industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     NICHOLAS J. LINKER, ESQ.
     ZEMEL LAW LLC
     1373 Broad St., SUITE 203-C
     Clifton, NJ 07013
     Phone: (862) 227-3106
     Email: nl@zemellawllc.com


TENNESSEE: Certification of Offenders Classes Sought in Does Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JOHN DOES #1–3, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WILLIAM B. LEE,
Governor of the State of Tennessee, and DAVID B. RAUSCH, Director
of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, and TONY C. PARKER,
Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Corrections, in their
official capacities, Case No. 3:19-cv-00532 (M.D. Tenn.), move the
Court to certify two classes for purposes of seeking declaratory
and injunctive relief:

   1. Ex Post Facto Class:

      (a) Who has been convicted of a "sexual offense" or
          "violent sexual offense" as de-fined by T.C.A. Section
          40-39-202 against a victim under the age of twelve;

      (b) Whose qualifying offense occurred prior to May 10,
          2019; and

      (c) Who is the parent of a minor child; and

   2. Due Process Class:

      (a) Who has been convicted of a "sexual offense" or
          "violent sexual offense" as de-fined by T.C.A. Section
          40-39-202 against a victim under the age of twelve; and

      (b) Who is the parent of a minor child.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint their counsel as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Justin Adams, Esq.
          BONE MCALLESTER NORTON PLLC
          511 Union Street, Suite 1600
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 238-6300
          E-mail: wjadams@bonelaw.com

               - and -

          Kyle F. Mothershead, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF KYLE MOTHERSHEAD
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 982-8002
          E-mail: kyle@mothersheadlaw.com

               - and -

          Benjamin K. Raybin, Esq.
          RAYBIN & WEISSMAN, P.C.
          424 Church Street, Suite 2120
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 256-6666
          E-mail: braybin@nashvilletnlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick T. McNally, Esq.
          WEATHERLY, MCNALLY & DIXON, PLLC
          424 Church Street, Suite 2260
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 986-3362
          E-mail: pmcnally@wmdlawgroup.com


TRIUS TRUCKING: Mondrian Seeks Proper Wages for Truck Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Augutus Mondrian, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRIUS
TRUCKING, INC., a California Corporation, and Does 1 through 50,
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 16CECG01501 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Fresno Cty., June 27, 2019) seeks to recover all the compensation
that Defendant is required by law to provide, but failed to
provide, to Plaintiff and the other California Class Members under
California law.

The work required to be performed by Plaintiff and the other
California Class Members was manual labor consisting of driving
Defendant's trucks and transporting goods in accordance to
Defendant's policies and practices. As a result of this work,
Plaintiff and the other California Class Members were involved in
providing day to day routine transportation of goods specified by
Defendant and this work was executed by the performance of manual
labor within a defined skill set. However, Plaintiff and the other
California Class Members were not compensated through monthly
salary. Plaintiff and the other California Class Members employed
these manual tasks but were not paid the minimum wages to which
they were entitled because of Defendant's systematic policies and
practices failing to correctly record all time worked, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant in California from February of 2016
to April of 2016 as a Truck Driver.

TRIUS is a transportation company that provides dry and temperature
controlled hauls and boats more than one hundred trucks operating
in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
     Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
     Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
     JEFFREY C. BLUMENTHAL CHARTERED
     2255 Calle Clara
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Phone: (858) 551-1223
     Fax: (858) 551-1232
     Website: www.bamlawca.com


UNITED STATES: Hernandez Files Bid for Writ of Habeas Corpus
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Alberto Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Petitioner v. Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and its office of Enforcement and Removal
Operations (ERO), Unit Chief ICE/ERO Law Enforcement Support Center
(LESC), ICE/ERO Director California Field Office, Respondents, Case
No. 4:19-cv-01016-LSC-SGC (N.D. Ala., June 28, 2019)

The nature of suit is stated as Mandamus & Other for Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus.

United States Secretary of Homeland Security is the head of the
United States Department of Homeland Security, the body concerned
with protecting the U.S. and the safety of U.S. citizens.[BN]

The Petitioner appears pro se:

     Jose Alberto Hernandez, Esq.
     827 Forrest Avenue
     Gadsden, AL 35901
     Phone: 094-447-896
     Etowah County Detention Center
     PRO SE

The Respondents are represented by:

     U S Attorney CV, Esq.
     U S Attorneys Office Southern District of California
     880 Front Street, Suite 6253
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 557-5662
     Fax: (619) 557-7122
     Email: Efile.dkt.civ@usdoj.gov


VIRGINIA: Driver's License Suit Not Dismissed by Judge
------------------------------------------------------
Frank Green, writing for The Daily Progress, reports that a federal
judge on June 28, 2019, denied a request to dismiss a class-action
lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Virginia's law that
automatically suspends the driver's licenses of persons who cannot
afford to pay court costs and fines.

The Virginia attorney general's office sought the dismissal in
light of a one-year freeze on court-debt driver's license
suspensions created by a budget amendment passed by the General
Assembly earlier this year. The freeze takes effect on July 1 and
expires July 1, 2020.

In a ruling on June 28, U.S. District Judge Norman K. Moon, of
Charlottesville, wrote that, "although the Budget Amendment may
indeed reflect shifting political winds ... future enforcement of
[the driver's suspension law] remains reasonably possible such that
this case is not moot."

Instead of dismissing the suit, Moon postponed the trial, set for
August, to give the General Assembly a chance to pass a permanent
fix during the current one-year freeze.

The suit, Stinnie v. Holcomb, was filed in 2016 by the Legal Aid
Justice Center and McGuireWoods LLP. It challenges the
constitutionality of Virginia's law automatically suspending
driver's licenses for failure to pay court costs and fines.

The case was earlier dismissed, but was revived by the 4th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals last year when the appeals court allowed
plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

Angela Ciolfi, executive director of the Legal Aid Justice Center,
said in a statement on June 28 that, "The Plaintiffs would have
preferred to have their day in court this August and end this civil
rights crisis permanently. But if the Commonwealth will not take
responsibility for decades of violating people's constitutional
rights, we will continue to fight in the General Assembly to fix it
for the future."[GN]


WATCHES OF SWITZERLAND: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Watches Of Switzerland LLC.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Watches Of Switzerland LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06022 (S.D. N.Y., June 27, 2019).

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

Watches of Switzerland is a British retailer of Swiss watches, with
16 stores in the United Kingdom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLS FARGO: Does not Pay Proper Wages, Popal Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
MERYAM POPAL, an individual, on behalf of herself and other current
and former employees, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., and
DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00025570-CU-OE-CTL
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., June 27, 2019) is an action
seeking reimbursement, wages, penalties, restitution, injunctive
and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees, and costs.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' wage statements failed
to include the appropriate gross wages earned and the net wages
earned because the wage statements failed to include Plaintiff and
Class Members' proper entitlement to meal break premiums, rest
break premiums, and overtime. The Defendants further failed to keep
records. Plaintiff alleges the failure to keep and provide these
records violates Labor Code section 226 and Applicable IWC Wage
Orders.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants during which time she was paid by
the hour, on a bi-weekly basis, and was considered nonexempt.

Defendants are multinational financial services institution.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alex Asil Mashiri, Esq.
     MASHIRI LAW FIRM
     A Professional Corporation
     11251 Rancho Carmel Drive #500694
     San Diego, CA 92150
     Phone: (858) 348-4938
     Fax: (858) 348-4939
     Email: alexmashiri@yahoo.com


WINCO FOODS: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Johnson Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alfred Johnson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Alfred Johnson v. Winco Foods, LLC, et al., Case
No. 5:17-cv-02288-DOC-SHK, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Riverside.

The nature of suit is stated as other labor litigation.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on November 9, 2017.

WinCo Foods is a privately held, majority employee-owned American
supermarket chain based in Boise, Idaho with retail stores in
Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah,
and Washington.

The appellate case is captioned as Alfred Johnson v. Winco Foods,
LLC, et al., Case No. 19-55716, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 22, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on August 19, 2019;

   -- Appellant Alfred Johnson's opening brief is due on
      September 30, 2019;

   -- Appellees Winco Foods, LLC and Winco Holdings, Inc.'s
      answering brief is due on October 30, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant ALFRED JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Liana Carter, Esq.
          Robert Drexler, Jr., Esq.
          Ryan Wu, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          E-mail: Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com

Defendants-Appellees WINCO FOODS, LLC, a Delaware limted liability
company, and WINCO HOLDINGS, INC., an Idaho corporation, are
represented by:

          Kristina M. Launey, Esq.
          Julie G. Yap, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          E-mail: klauney@seyfarth.com
                  jyap@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Simon Lee Yang, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 270-9664
          E-mail: syang@seyfarth.com


YGRENE ENERGY: Woolley et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, GEORGE W. WOOLLEY, TAMMY S. WOOLLEY,
ANTHONY LOOK, JR., KIMBERLY LOOK, ALEJANDRO MARCEY, and FELICIA
MARCEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. YGRENE ENERGY FUND, INC.; YGRENE
ENERGY FUND FLORIDA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01258-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court for an order on August 22, 2019, certifying the
lawsuit as a class action.

The plaintiffs -- on behalf of a national class and California and
Florida subclasses -- sue Ygrene Energy for fraud relating to
home-improvement loans.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq.
          Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
          Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq.
          KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
          360 East 2 nd Street, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: 213-254-4800
          Facsimile: 213-254-4801
          E-mail: kkasdan@kasdancdlaw.com
                  glippsmith@klwtlaw.com
                  janderson@klwtlaw.com

               - and -

          Sophia Goren Gold, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          KALIEL PLLC
          1875 Connecticut Avenue NW, 10th Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20009
          Telephone: 202-350-4783
          E-mail: sgold@kalielpllc.com
                  jkaliel@kalielpllc.com

[*] Law Commission Green Lights Litigation Funding Review
---------------------------------------------------------
LawFuel reports that the Law Commission is proceeding with its
review of litigation funding, after a period with some high profile
cases that have created a higher-than-ever interest in what
litigation funding means for litigants.

Recent high profile class action-type cases in New Zealand include
the recent case taken against the directors of Mainzeal, the PSA
kiwifruit action, the action against the former Feltex directors
and the action taken by Fair Play on Fees against banks on behalf
of over 21,000 bank customers over alleged excessive fees. It was
deemed the biggest class action in New Zealand legal history at the
time.

Law Commission senior legal policy advisor Jenny Ryan says the
review was suspended in May last year due to resource constraints,
but Justice Minister Andrew Little has requested that the
Commission recommence its work on class actions and litigation
funding.

"The Commission is now in the early stages of reactivating the
project. We intend to revisit the Terms of Reference to see whether
they are still appropriate for the review."

Tiimely Review
The commission says that while class actions have been common
internationally for some time, litigation funding is a more recent
phenomenon, particularly with cases over the past decade. There are
at least seven litigation funding firms now operating in New
Zealand.

Justice Minister Andrew Little (right) says he's aware that class
actions and litigation funding is an issue that is on the work
programme of the Law Commission. He supports the review which he
says is an important part of the wider access to justice
conversation.

Law firm Bell Gully said this week that although the Australian
Federal Court accepted in 2016 that it has the power to make common
fund orders, there are two pending challenges to this ruling
currently before the Australian courts.

"The Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has proposed to codify
the current law allowing common fund orders to be made, which would
mean that the current challenges to common fund orders would be
rendered moot.

"We are aware of a recent application for a common fund order in a
class action in New Zealand. However, that application has not yet
been considered by the Court. Given the differences between the New
Zealand and Australian class action regimes, it is hard to see that
there is a basis for a common fund order under our current class
action laws."

The firm says that the New Zealand Law Commission's review of class
actions will therefore be critical and outlined the key points the
Commission had indicated it would be looking at in March 2018
including --

    * To what extent should the law permit class actions and
litigation funding, and are the current rules adequate?

    * Should the courts have a role in supervising, managing or
approving class actions and litigation funding arrangements?

    * When should class actions be permitted, who should be able to
bring a class action, and how should the class be defined?

    * What is the appropriate procedure for determining class
actions, and how should issues that are not common to all parties
be resolved?

    * What, if any, regulatory framework should apply to commercial
litigation funders, conditional fee arrangements and crowdfunding
of class actions?

    * How should costs, settlement and the payment of claims be
dealt with?

"If it adopts the ALRC's approach and recommends the courts be
given the power to make common fund orders, we could see a radical
change from the current basis on which litigation funders operate
in New Zealand."

Sir Douglas White Views

Retired Law Commission president Sir Douglas White QC (left) said
last year "Litigation funding plays an important role in
facilitating class actions, which would often be unable to proceed
without third party funding. The previous Minister agreed that the
Commission should consider both class actions and litigation. The
new Minister, Hon Andrew Little has now confirmed that reference.

". . . (litigation funding) may, however, be particularly important
in such cases. In the absence of a funder, there may not be a lead
plaintiff who is willing or able to take on the burden of funding
the litigation," White said.

He said class actions are important in cases where the amount
recovered by each claimant will not be great, but the total sum
recovered by the group is likely to be significant. In such cases
often the cost of bringing an individual claim wouldn't be
justified by the amount received in the settlement.

"Consumer protection and investor claims often fall into this
category," White said.



                            *********

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 ***