CAR_Public/190711.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, July 11, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 138

                            Headlines

2 BROTHERS CAR WASH: Garcia Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
4JLJ LLC: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Edwards FLSA Class Suit
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Tyler Sell Sues over Inadequate Disclosure
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Plaintiffs Agree to Drop Waste Mgmt Merger Suits
ADVOCATE HEALTH CARE: Mehring Files ERISA Suit in N.D. Illinois

AIRSTREAM, INC: Godsey et al. Seek to Certify Class
AMERICAN FEDERATION: NLRB Case Hampers Workers' Fight for Justice
ASSET RECOVERY: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Ruling in Rossi Suit
ATLANTIC CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
B'CAPRI INTERIORS: Torreblanca Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay

BANK OF NEW YORK: Appeals Ruling in Maddox Suit to Second Circuit
BED BATH: Thomas Appeals S.D. New York Ruling to Second Circuit
BRAIN CAPITAL: Guevarez Seeks OT Pay for Auto Body Technicians
CAPITAL ONE: Trepeta Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
CARGO AIRPORT: Court Certifies Class of Cargo Agents

CIOX HEALTH: Sued over Collection of Medical Record Requests Fees
COMENITY BANK: McNeal Sues over Robocalls
CORE VALUES: Underpays Roadside Assistance Technicians, Linz Says
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Decision in Ehrman Suit to 9th Cir.
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Kanowitz Files Class Suit under FDCPA

DAIRYAMERICA INC: Spooner Appeals Ruling in Carlin Class Suit
DELAWARE NORTH: Castillo Suit Alleges ADA Violation
DENIHAM HOSPITALITY: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DEVILS ARENA: Castillo Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Karp Calls SEC Reports False and Misleading

DINO PALMIERI: Torres et al. Allege Wage Theft
DMG MORI: Bebault Seeks to Certifying Class
EASTON DIAMOND: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Wisdom Class Suit
ENAGIC USA: Makaron Suit to Proceed as Class Action
EVANSTON INSURANCE: Church Creek Files Suit in South Carolina

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Abbink Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Calif.
FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action
FAIRLIFE: Class Actions Pile Up Over Alleged Animal Abuse
FASHION NOVA: Sainvil Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Bid to Certify Freem Suit as Class Action Denied

FERGUSON, MO: Debtors Prison Case Plaintiffs Still Await Redress
FLAGSTAR BANK: Kivett Seeks to Certify Class
FOOD MANAGEMENT: Evera Seeks to Certify Class of Tipped Employees
FORSTER & GARBUS: Brill Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
FORSTER & GARBUS: Rhee Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey

FRANK & NINO'S PIZZA: Canelas Seeks OT Premium Pay
GENPACT LLC: Timko Seeks Overtime Pay for Software Trainors
HAYT & HAYT: Barenbaum Seeks to Certify Class
HERTZ CORP: Certification of Location Managers Class Sought
HILLS PET: Mattocks Files Tort Class Suit in Kansas

HOME AWAY: Customers File Class Action Over Scammer Risks
JP MORGAN: Stone Sues over Excess Mortgage Payments
JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Certifies Class of Credit Card Holders
JPMORGAN CHASE: Randy Rosenberg Suit Removed to S.D. New York
KEURIG DR PEPPER'S: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Spring Water

L & H WINE & LIQUOR: Chen Seeks Minimum & Overtime Premium Pay
MAVE HOTEL INVESTORS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAYNARD GROUP: Sued over Monopoly of Online Traffic Schools
MCU HOLDINGS: Garcia Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
MDL 2599: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Airbag Suit

MDL 2741: Graves v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Oleyar v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MEDTRONIC PLC: Litig. over Covidien Acquisition Underway
MERCHANTS HOSPITALITY: Olsen Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
MIDLAND CREDIT: Debt Collection Letters Misleading, Wasiak Says

MIDLAND FUNDING: McCoy Class Certification Bid Denied, Case Tossed
MIDWEST DIVISION: Marquez Sues Over Minimum, Overtime Wages
MT HAWLEY INSURANCE: Church Creek Files Suit in South Carolina
NEW MEXICO: To Limit Child Care Eligibility Following Settlement
NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Pay Overtime to MVOs, Gilmore Says

NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal v. Milord Initiated in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Board of Educ. Appeals Decision v. Brown in Gulino Suit
NEWBOLD SERVICES: Williams Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
NORMAN BARWIN: Subject of Disciplinary Hearing Amid Class Suit
NOTTE & KREYLING: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Wiley Suit

OCWEN LOAN: Homeowners Sue Over Drive-By Inspection Charges
ORTHO ORGANIZERS: Lawrence T. Ryan Sues Over Unsolicited Faxes
PEPSICO INDIA: Farmers May Seek Compensation in Potato Dispute
PORTAGE WORLD-WIDE: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
PURDY'S FARM: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PURPLE SUSHI: Lu Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
PVH CORPORATION: Tripicchio Sues over Phantom Discounts
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Chuha Files PI Suit in W.D. Pa.
RENZAN CORP: Jiang Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
SAVE MART: Stores Fail to Provide Equal Access to Disabled

SIGNAL HILL: Wall, et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Auditors
SIMPLE LABORATORIES: Tran Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
SKORPIOS MIAMI: Valladares Seeks OT, Minimum Pay for Food Runners
SLG 315 WEST: Bunting Files Class Suit Under ADA in New York
SPARK ENERGY: Harty Files Fraud Class Suit in New Jersey

ST. LOUIS, MO: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in Dixon Suit
ST. PAUL ELDER SERVICES: Eckstein Seeks OT Premium Pay
STEARNS LENDING: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Solarski Suit
SWEETGREEN, INC: Glover Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
TENNESSEE: Does File Class Suit v. Gov't. Officials

THRIVE MARKET: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF AMERICA: Cook Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Pay
UNITED STATES: DHS Sued Over Inhumane Immigration Prisons
UNITED STATES: Perry-Bey Files PI Suit in E.D. Virginia
UNITED STATES: Suit by Imprisoned Immigrants Wins Class Status

US BANK: Imholte Files FDCPA Suit in Minnesota
VALERO MARKETING: Bautista Appeals Decertification to 9th Cir.
VIRGINIA: Clarke Appeals Ruling in Scott Suit to Fourth Circuit
VITAMINS BECAUSE: Ginsberg et al. Sue over Deceptive Labeling
VOLKSWAGEN: Sued Over Defective 8-Speed Jetta Transmissions

WEBCOLLEX LLC: Debt Collection Practices Misleading, Patino Says
WIWI 1: Li Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursement for Gloves and Masks
ZIMMER BIOMET: Court Grants Bid for Conditional Class Certification

                            *********

2 BROTHERS CAR WASH: Garcia Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against 2 Brothers Car Wash
Inc., Michael Tricoche and Linda (Last Name Unknown) for alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the New York
Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of
the New York Commission of Labor codified at New York Codes, Rules
and Regulations title 12, Section 142-2.4 (2006). The case is
captioned LUIS GARCIA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against- 2 BROTHERS CAR WASH INC.
(DBA AS 2 BROTHERS CAR WASH) MICHAEL TRICOCHE and LINDA (LAST NAME
UNKNOWN), Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03791 (E.D.N.Y., June 28,
2019).

Plaintiff Luis Garcia was an employee of the Defendants. He was
primarily employed to perform various duties at a car wash, such as
driving cars through the wash, drying cars off once the cars left
the machine, and driving cars after the wash to deliver them to the
clients. Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per
week that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain
accurate recordkeeping of their hours worked, failed to pay
Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked over 40, either at the
straight rate of pay, or for any additional overtime premium.
Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the required "spread of
hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a
day.

Plaintiff now brings this action on behalf of himself, and other
similarly situated individuals, for unpaid minimum wages and
overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA, and for violations of the NYLL
and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commission of Labor.

Defendants own, operate or control a car wash located at 2386
Flatbush Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11234 under the name 2 Brothers Car
Wash. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lina Stillman, Esq.
     STILLMAN LEGAL PC
     42 Broadway, 12th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Website: www.FightForUrRights.com
     Telephone: 212-203-2417


4JLJ LLC: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in Edwards FLSA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Joshua Edwards, Ernesto Flores, Francisco Gutierrez,
Ricky Martin and Humberto J. Morales filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in their lawsuit titled Joshua Edwards, et al. v. 4JLJ,
L.L.C., et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-299, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Joshua Edwards, et al. v. 4JLJ,
L.L.C., et al., Case No. 19-40553, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JOSHUA EDWARDS, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ, HUMBERTO J.
MORALES, RICKY MARTIN and ERNESTO FLORES are represented by:

          James Moulton, Esq.
          MOULTON & PRICE, P.C.
          109 State Highway 110 S.
          Whitehouse, TX 75791
          Telephone: (903) 780-2540
          E-mail: jim@moultonprice.com

Defendants-Appellees 4JLJ, L.L.C., doing business as J4 Oilfield
Services, and JOHN JALUFKA are represented by:

          Roger S. Braugh, Jr., Esq.
          SICO, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH, L.L.P.
          802 N. Carancahua Street
          Frost Bank Plaza
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401-0000
          Telephone: (361) 653-3300

               - and -

          Kenneth W. Bullock, II, Esq.
          Daniel D. Pipitone, Esq.
          MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
          700 Milam Street
          Houston, TX 77002-2806
          Telephone: (713) 222-1470
          E-mail: kbullock@munsch.com
                  dpipitone@munsch.com


ACER THERAPEUTICS: Tyler Sell Sues over Inadequate Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER SELL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACER THERAPEUTICS INC., CHRIS
SCHELLING, and HARRY PALMIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06137
(S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The case is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants
who purchased or otherwise acquired Acer securities between
September 25, 2017 and June 24, 2019, both dates inclusive.

Acer was founded in 2013 and is headquartered in Newton,
Massachusetts. Acer is a pharmaceutical company that purportedly
focuses on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of
therapies for serious rare and life-threatening diseases. Acer's
pipeline includes, inter alia, EDSIVO (celiprolol) for the
treatment of vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome in patients with a
confirmed type III collagen mutation.

vEDS is a rare disease known to cause abnormal fragility in blood
vessels, causing aneurysms, abnormal connections between blood
vessels known as arteriovenous fistulas, arterial dissections, and
spontaneous vascular ruptures, all of which are potentially
life-threatening. According to Acer, "the median survival age of
vEDS patients in the United States is 51 years, with arterial
rupture being the most common cause of sudden death."

In 2004, the French research hospital, Assistance Publique --
Hopitaux de Paris, Hopital Europeen Georges Pompidou ("AP-HP"),
published data on vEDS patients. Based on AP-HP's research,
investigators began assessing the preventive effect of celiprolol
for major cardiovascular events in patients suffering from vEDS
"through a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open trial with
blinded evaluation of clinical events" (the "Ong Trial"). The Ong
Trial was composed of 53 participants "randomized at eight centers
in France and one center in Belgium." The Ong trial's results were
published on October 30, 2010.

On December 13, 2016, Acer Therapeutics Inc. ("Private Acer") -- a
private Delaware corporation and Acer's predecessor -- issued a
press release announcing that it had obtained exclusive rights to
NDA-enabling clinical data from AP-HP for the use of celiprolol in
treating vEDS. Specifically, Private Acer had signed an agreement
with AP-HP, which granted exclusive rights to access and use data
from the Ong Trial. Private Acer announced it would use this data
to support its New Drug Application ("NDA") for celiprolol in the
treatment of vEDS.

On September 19, 2017, Private Acer announced that it had closed a
merger with Opexa Therapeutics, Inc. ("Opexa"), a publicly-traded
Texas pharmaceutical corporation, whereby Private Acer survived as
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Opexa (the "Opexa Merger"). Following
the Opexa Merger, Opexa changed its name to Acer Therapeutics Inc.
and Private Acer's management took control of the combined company.
Immediately prior to the Opexa Merger, Opexa's Board of Directors
and Neil K. Warma ("Warma"), Opexa's then-President, Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO"), Acting Chief Financial Officer, and
Secretary, resigned.

On September 21, 2017, Acer began trading on the NASDAQ under the
ticker symbol "ACER." On December 26, 2018, Acer announced that the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had accepted the
Company's NDA for EDSIVO for the treatment of vEDS in patients with
a confirmed type III collagen mutation, as well as the FDA's grant
of priority review of the NDA and an assigned Prescription Drug
User Fee Act ("PDUFA") target action date of June 25, 2019.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Acer lacked sufficient data to support filing EDSIVO's NDA with
the FDA for the treatment of vEDS; (ii) the Ong Trial was an
inadequate and ill-controlled clinical study by FDA standards, and
was comprised of an insufficiently small group size to support
EDSIVO's NDA; (iii) consequently, the FDA would likely reject
EDSIVO's NDA; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 25, 2019, Acer issued a press release titled "Acer
Therapeutics Receives Complete Response Letter from U.S. FDA for
use of EDSIVOTM (celiprolol) in vEDS Patients" (the "June 2019
Press Release"). In the June 2019 Press Release, Acer disclosed
receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA
regarding its NDA for EDSIVO for the treatment of vEDS. Acer
advised investors that "[t]he CRL states that it will be necessary
to conduct an adequate and well-controlled trial to determine
whether celiprolol reduces the risk of clinical events in patients
with vEDS" and that "Acer plans to request a meeting to discuss the
FDA's response."

That same day, news sources reported that the small group size of
the Ong Trial had raised questions among experts about the adequacy
of EDSIVO's trial results. Following this news, Acer's stock price
fell $15.16 per share, or 78.63%, to close at $4.12 per share on
June 25, 2019.

As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, 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


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Plaintiffs Agree to Drop Waste Mgmt Merger Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Each of the plaintiffs of the class action lawsuits against
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. related to its merger with Waste
Management, Inc., has agreed to dismiss the complaint following the
company's filing of additional disclosures with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Advanced Disposal said in a Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On April 15, 2019 by Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. (the
"Company" or "Advanced Disposal") with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), on April 14, 2019, the Company,
Waste Management, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Waste
Management"), and Everglades Merger Sub Inc., a Delaware
corporation and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste
Management ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (as may be amended from time to time, the "Merger
Agreement") pursuant to which, upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge
with and into the Company (the "Merger" and, collectively with the
other transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, the
"Transactions"), with the Company continuing as the surviving
corporation and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste Management.


On May 10, 2019, Advanced Disposal filed with the SEC a preliminary
proxy statement in connection with the Transactions, and on May 23,
2019, Advanced Disposal filed with the SEC a definitive proxy
statement in connection with the Transactions (the "Definitive
Proxy Statement"), which was mailed to Advanced Disposal's
stockholders of record on or about May 24, 2019.

In connection with the Transactions, two putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the District Court for the District of
Delaware, and one putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit for St. Johns County,
Florida.  

The two lawsuits filed in the District Court for the District of
Delaware are captioned Krieger v. Advanced Disposal Services, Inc.
et al, No. 1:19-cv-00904-UNA (filed on May 14, 2019) (the "Krieger
Complaint") and Sabatini v. Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. et al,
No. 1:19-cv-00919-UNA (filed on May 17, 2019) (the "Sabatini
Complaint").  

The lawsuit filed in Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit
for St. Johns County, Florida is captioned Bushansky v. Advanced
Disposal Services, Inc. Waste Management, Inc., et al, No. 90090027
(filed on May 24, 2019) (the "Bushansky Complaint," all three
complaints, collectively, the "Complaints," and all three lawsuits,
collectively, the “Merger Litigation”).  

The Krieger Complaint and Sabatini Complaint generally allege that
the preliminary proxy statement, filed by Advanced Disposal on May
10, 2019, was materially incomplete and misleading, and therefore
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and other securities
laws, rules and regulations.  

The Bushansky Complaint generally alleges that (i) the directors of
Advanced Disposal breached their fiduciary duties, including by
disseminating the Definitive Proxy Statement, which allegedly was
materially incomplete and misleading, and (ii) Advanced Disposal
and Waste Management aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by the directors of Advanced Disposal.  

Each Complaint generally seeks, among other things, injunctive
relief, including to enjoin the Special Meeting (as defined below)
or completion of the Merger, damages in the event the Merger is
consummated and an award of plaintiffs' costs and disbursements,
including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and expenses.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Complaints are
without merit and that no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable law.  

However, in order to avoid the risk of the Merger Litigation
delaying or adversely affecting the Transactions and to minimize
the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, and
without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company has
determined to voluntarily supplement the Definitive Proxy
Statement.  

Each of the plaintiffs has agreed that, following the filing of
this Current Report on Form 8-K, they will dismiss their respective
actions in their entirety, with prejudice as to the named
plaintiffs only and without prejudice to all other members of the
putative classes.  

The Company specifically denies all allegations in the Merger
Litigation that any additional disclosure was or is required.

A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://urlzs.com/Zm2Ex.

Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. provides non-hazardous solid waste
collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services. The company
was formerly known as ADS Waste Holdings, Inc. and changed its name
to Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. in January 2016. Advanced
Disposal Services, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Ponte Vedra, Florida.


ADVOCATE HEALTH CARE: Mehring Files ERISA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advocate Health Care
Network Disability Income Protection Plan. The case is styled as
Joann Mehring on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Advocate Health Care Network
Disability Income Protection Plan, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04419 (N.D. Ill., July 1, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. Labor for Employee
Benefits.

Advocate Health Care Network ("Advocate") has established this
disability plan, the Advocate Health Care Network Disability Income
Protection Plan (Amended and Restated as of January 1, 2016) (the
"Plan"), to provide eligible team members employed by Advocate and
certain of its affiliated employers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark D. DeBofsky, Esq.
     DeBofsky, Sherman & Casciari, P.C.
     150 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1925
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312) 561-4040
     Email: mdebofsky@debofsky.com


AIRSTREAM, INC: Godsey et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, MATTHEW GODSEY, et al, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
AIRSTREAM, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00107-WHR (S.D.
Ohio.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court pursuant to Section 16(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act to enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying proposed collective FLSA class and
      implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice Named
      Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
      to:

      "all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
      Defendant, who (a) received additional forms of remuneration

      with their base hourly rate of pay during any workweek that
      they worked over 40 hours in any workweek beginning three
      years preceding the filing date of this Complaint and
      continuing through the date of final disposition of this
      case; and (b) did not opt in to or join the FLSA Collective
      in Funk v. Airstream, Inc., et al. from April 29, 2015 36 to

      the present";

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

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

      identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list

      in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses,

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

On April 11, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed their Collective and Class
Action Complaint brought under the FLSA and Ohio law to challenge
Airstream, Inc.'s failure to fully pay Plaintiffs and similarly
situated individuals for all wages earned, including overtime
compensation, at the rate of one-and-one-half times their
respective correct regular rates of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in workweeks when Plaintiffs and those similarly
situated individuals received additional forms of remuneration,
which includes nondiscretionary attendance and AIRPOOL production
bonuses.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated are:

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

               - and -

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

AMERICAN FEDERATION: NLRB Case Hampers Workers' Fight for Justice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Block, writing for Law360, reports that the Trump era has
not been an easy time for workers who want to stand up for
themselves and have a voice in their workplaces and our economy.
This administration has made anti-union appointments to federal
agencies, repealed rules designed to protect workers' lives and
livelihoods, and successfully asked the U.S. Supreme Court to deny
basic workplace rights in cases such as Epic Systems v. Lewis and
Janus v. AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees).

Surprisingly to many, American workers have met the challenge of
the Trump administration with a big wave of activism and collective
action -- teachers marching on state capitols, Uber drivers turning
off the app, and tech workers refusing to develop software used to
repress people in other countries or immigrants at our border.

Often at the forefront of this wave, you will find fast food
workers. The "Fight for $15" has led campaigns to improve the lives
of workers in one of the most underpaid and unsafe industries in
our country. They've staged massive walkouts and supported
innovative legislation across the country.

Recently, 23 McDonald's workers told the company that "Time's Up"
-- they stood together and filed sexual harassment claims with the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and lawsuits against
the company. Another group of workers filed a complaint with the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, asking the federal
agency to hold McDonald's accountable for failing to take
reasonable steps to protect them from on-the-job violence.

In a little-noticed National Labor Relations Board filing, the
Trump administration recently has opened a new front in its war on
American workers aimed squarely at efforts like those taken by
these brave McDonald's workers. The Trump-appointed general counsel
of the NLRB is arguing in a case on remand from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Tarlton and Son Inc., that workers
have no protection under federal labor law if they are fired for
filing a lawsuit or a claim with a federal agency to protect their
rights. If successful, the general counsel's position would mean
that your employer can refuse to pay you and your coworkers the
wages that you are owed and then fire you when you complain to the
U.S. Department of Labor or file a lawsuit to get your money.

The general counsel claims that his position is supported by the
Supreme Court's decision one year ago in Epic Systems v. Lewis. In
that case, the court held that employers can force workers to waive
the right to file class actions and instead require them to go
through individual arbitrations if they think their rights have
been violated. In my opinion, the court was profoundly wrong in
Epic Systems and I believe that the decision is very harmful to
workers' right. It blocks workers' access to the courts and forces
them to use a private system of justice that is often biased
against them. But as bad as the court's decision in Epic Systems
was, it didn't go as far as the general counsel is now arguing.

In Epic Systems, the court had to reconcile two arguably competing
federal laws -- one, the National Labor Relations Act, which says
that employers can't interfere with workers when they act
collectively and another, the Federal Arbitration Act, which says
that courts should enforce arbitration agreements. The court held
that even though filing a class action is a form of collective
action, Congress didn't mean to create an exception to its strong
support for enforcing arbitration agreements when it passed the
NLRA.

The general counsel has taken the court's decision that limited
where and how workers could seek justice and turned it into a
justification for allowing employers to hold workers' path to
justice hostage. For decades, through Democratic and Republican
administrations, the NLRB has recognized the obvious principle that
it is wrong for employers to fire workers who exercise their legal
rights and contrary to the NLRA's protection for worker collective
action -- even if other laws also protect workers from retaliation.


Ms. Block said "I think it is fair to say that the general
counsel's position is an attack on the rule of law. A basic tenet
of how democracy works is that Congress passes laws that confer
rights on us and if those rights are violated, we can appeal to the
government or the courts to vindicate our rights. But, if the price
that you have to pay to vindicate your rights is your job, your
rights aren't really worth very much. Fight for $15 workers have
braved the headwinds created by the Trump administration to strive
for a better life for their families and communities -- the workers
who recently filed claims shouldn't now have to risk losing their
jobs just for the opportunity to ask to be free from sexual
harassment and violence."

Sharon Block is executive director of the Labor and Worklife
Program at Harvard Law School. She previously served as principal
deputy assistant secretary for policy at the U.S. Department of
Labor and senior counselor to the secretary of labor. She was a
member of the NLRB from 2012 to 2013. [GN]


ASSET RECOVERY: Seeks 2nd Circuit Review of Ruling in Rossi Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Joe Rossi v. Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-6454, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed the case under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full service asset recovery
management company.  ARS is a partner to many of the largest credit
issuers in the country.

The appellate case is captioned as Joe Rossi v. Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 19-1874, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Joe Rossi, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

Defendant-Appellant Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, is represented
by:

          Scott Michael Kessler, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          666 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10103
          Telephone: (212) 880-3800
          E-mail: scott.kessler@akerman.com


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned, LORANDA VEIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
ATLANTIC CREDIT AND FINANCE INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-00960 (E.D Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order certifying a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class
representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class
Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief
from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement
that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of
this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896
(7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs."). While the Seventh
Circuit has held that the specific procedure described in
Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement of a class
representative's claims, the same decision cautions that other
methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class. Fulton
Dental, LLC v. Bisco, Inc., 860 F.3d 541, 545-46 (7th Cir.
2017).[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

B'CAPRI INTERIORS: Torreblanca Seeks Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCO TORREBLANCA, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. B'CAPRI INTERIORS FINISHING CORP.,
and PAUL PUMA, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03816 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 1, 2019), seeks to recover damages and equitable relief based
upon Defendants' flagrant and willful violations of Plaintiffs'
rights guaranteed to him by the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Acts; the FLSA's minimum wage provisions; and the
overtime provisions of the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants --
an interior finishing company and its owners/managers. Throughout
his employment, Defendants required Plaintiff to work, and
Plaintiff did work, more than 40 hours per week. However,
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the statutory minimum wage or
pay him at the overtime rate of pay of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for each hour that Plaintiff worked per week in
excess of forty, as the FLSA and the NYLL require.

Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for his spread
of hours in violation of NYLL. Lastly, Defendants failed to furnish
Plaintiff with accurate and/or any wage statements on each payday
as the NYLL requires or provide Plaintiff with a wage notice
containing the criteria enumerated under the NYLL. Defendants paid
and treated of all their non-managerial employees who worked for
them in the same manner, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Amit Kumar, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
          108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 583-7400
          E-mail: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com

BANK OF NEW YORK: Appeals Ruling in Maddox Suit to Second Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., filed an
appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Maddox v. The Bank
of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., Case No. 15-cv-1053, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
(Buffalo).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
allege that, although they have paid off their mortgage loan, BONY
Mellon failed to record a satisfaction of mortgage certificate with
the Erie County Clerk's Office.  The Plaintiffs claim that BONY
Mellon's failure to do so violates New York Real Property Actions
Law Section 1921(1) and New York Real Property Law Section 275(1)
("satisfaction statutes"), both of which impose penalties up to
$1,500, on a strict liability basis, if a mortgagee fails to timely
record a certificate of discharge.

The appellate case is captioned as Maddox v. The Bank of New York
Mellon Trust Company, N.A., Case No. 19-1774, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees Sandra Maddox and Tometta Maddox Holley, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Charles Marshall Delbaum, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Square
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 542-8010
          E-mail: cdelbaum@nclc.org

Defendant- Appellant The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company,
N.A., is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Robbin, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          1271 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 885-5196
          E-mail: jrobbin@blankrome.com


BED BATH: Thomas Appeals S.D. New York Ruling to Second Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Danielle Brown, Rashaun F. Frazer, Eleni Miglis, Cheryl
A. Strycharz, Danyell Thomas and Andrae Whaley filed an appeal from
a Court ruling their lawsuit entitled Thomas, et al. v. Bed Bath &
Beyond Inc., Case No. 16-cv-8160, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas, et al. v. Bed Bath &
Beyond Inc., Case No. 19-1647, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Danyell Thomas, Danielle Brown, Rashaun F. Frazer, Eleni Miglis,
Cheryl A. Strycharz and Andrae Whaley filed an appeal from a
District Court opinion and order entered on February 21, 2018, in
their lawsuit.  That appellate case is captioned as Thomas et al.
v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., Case No. 18-809.

The lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to
pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Danyell Thomas, individually and on behalf of
all other employees similarly situated; Rashaun F. Frazer,
individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated; Andrae Whaley, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated; Eleni Miglis, individually and on
behalf of all other employees similarly situated; Cheryl A.
Strycharz, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated; and Danielle Brown, individually and on behalf
of all other employees similarly situated, are represented by:

          James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com

Defendant-Appellee Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. is represented by:

          Jonathan L. Sulds, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          Metlife Building
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 801-6882
          E-mail: suldsj@gtlaw.com


BRAIN CAPITAL: Guevarez Seeks OT Pay for Auto Body Technicians
--------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO GUEVAREZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BRAIN CAPITAL, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, d/b/a MAACO COLLISION REPAIR & AUTO PAINTING,
and BRIAN CHUMBLER, an individual, jointly and severally,
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01612 (M.D. Fla., July 2, 2019) is a
collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated to him who were formerly or are
currently employed as auto body technicians by Defendants.

From on or about March 2019 until June 13, 2019, Plaintiff worked
more than 40 hours per week during many weeks of his employment,
without being paid the federally mandated wage for overtime.
Specifically, Plaintiff was paid only straight time for all hours
worked, even those hours in excess of 40 per work week. The
Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff for all
overtime hours worked in excess of forty per week at the applicable
time and one-half rate. The Defendants pay all of their hourly wage
employees in the same fashion. There are several other current and
former employees who worked in various positions who were paid only
straight time for overtime hours, and are thus owed the half-time
premium as well, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as an hourly wage auto body technician by
Defendants for their automotive collision repair and painting shop
in Hillsborough County, Florida.

MAACO is a Florida Limited Liability Company doing business within
the Middle District of Florida, and is an enterprise engaged in an
industry affecting commerce.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert S. Norell, Esq.
     ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
     300 N.W 70th Avenue, Suite 305
     Plantation, FL 33317
     Telephone: (954) 617-6017
     Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
     Email: rob@floridawagelaw.com


CAPITAL ONE: Trepeta Sues over Unwanted Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------
ROBERT TREPETA, On behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, vs. CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00485-JAG (E.D. Va.,
July 1, 2019), seeks to recover actual or statutory, and treble
damages pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant allegedly sent text messages to the Plaintiff's
cellular phone using an "automatic telephone dialing system
("ATDS"), as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1), after he
revoked consent to receive such messages as part of the
"established business relationship" he had with Capital One
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(2).

The Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) multiple
times by repeatedly sending the Plaintiff unwanted text messages to
his cellular phone after he revoked consent by following the
specific instructions provided to him by the Defendant to get the
text messages to stop, and after his numerous additional subsequent
communication to the Defendant by telephone calls, email and mail.

Despite the Defendant receiving multiple notifications from the
Plaintiff that he did not want to receive text messages from
Capital One, the Defendant continued to send text messages to the
Plaintiff's cellular phone, the lawsuit says.

Capital One, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers financial products and services such as personal and
business checking, savings accounts, investment, mortgages, issues
credit card, business loans, and commercial banking solutions.
Capital One serves consumers, small businesses, and commercial
clients worldwide.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq.
          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          Tara B. Keller, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
          1800 Diagonal Road, Ste. 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 273-7770
          Facsimile: (888) 892-3512
          E-mail: matt@clalegal.com
                  lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  tara@clalegal.com

CARGO AIRPORT: Court Certifies Class of Cargo Agents
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, BABATUNDE OLADIPO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CARGO
AIRPORT SERVICES USA, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-6165-CLP
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Cheryl L. Pollak entered an order on
July 2, 2019:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of
      the proposed settlement as articulated in the Settlement
      Agreement and grants certification of the class for the
      purposes of settlement:

      "all current and former Cargo Agents, aka Office Or Traffic
      Agents, who were employed by Cargo Airport Services USA, LLC

      or any parent, Subsidiary, predecessor or successor, in
      cargo Buildings 9, 66, 73, 76, 78, and 151 at JFK Airport
      in the State of New York, at anytime from September 20, 2010

      through the date of the Preliminary Approval";

   2. appointing the Law Offices of Louis Ginsberg, P.C. as Class
      Counsel;

   3. approving proposed notice of class action lawsuit;

   4. directing parties to provide the name of the Claims
      Administrator and the procedure for issuing payment to
      participating Class Members by July 15, 2019; and

   5. scheduling Fairness Hearing on September 24, 2019 at 11:00
      a.m., which is more than 75 days from the date of this
      Order, as requested by the parties.

The proposed class will have 30 days after the date the Proposed
Notice is mailed to opt-out of or object to the Settlement
Agreement. To the extent any Notice is returned or otherwise
determined to be undeliverable, such putative Class Members shall
be entitled to 15 days from the date of any subsequent mailing (but
no less than the original 30 days) to opt-out or object to the
Settlement Agreement. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this
Order to the parties either electronically through the Electronic
Case Filing system or by mail.

The Agreement creates a gross settlement sum of $200,000 to
compensate the approximately 600 Class Members for their unpaid
wage 4claims, and includes an award to the Plaintiff, a fee for the
third-party administrator, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Class
Notice directs members who "choose to participate in the
settlement" to "do nothing" and they will receive a payment
calculated by dividing the Class Member's gross earnings into the
total of all Qualified Class Members' earnings and multiplying the
resulting percentage by the Net Settlement Amount to reflect their
length of employment and percentage of earnings relative to the
Class.

The Settlement is non-reversionary; if any Class Members opt out,
their share of the Settlement shall be distributed to the Class
Members. Any uncashed checks will be divided as follows: 75% shall
be returned to the defendant with the remaining 25% donated to a
501(c)(3) organization. The Settlement Agreement contemplates that
Class Counsel will file a motion for an award of attorney's fees,
equal to 33.33% of the Settlement Amount, which equals $66,660.00,
plus reasonable litigation costs and expenses.[CC]

CIOX HEALTH: Sued over Collection of Medical Record Requests Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, TROSHCHIY LAW FIRM, a Professional Corporation,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CIOX HEALTH, LLC, a Georgia
limited liability company, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV22599 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 28, 2019),
targets Defendants' unlawful business practices with respect to
their calculation and collection of fees for medical record
requests.

The Defendants contract directly with medical providers throughout
California to act and serve as the agent of the medical providers
for purposes of obtaining, securing, organizing, compiling,
reviewing, reproducing, and/or copying patients' medical records
when a valid request for release has been received by the medical
provider from an attorney pursuant to California Evidence Code
section 1158.

The Defendants engaged, and continue to engage, in a systemic
business practice whereby they charge unreasonable fees to
attorneys throughout California, like Plaintiff, who submit release
authorizations for their clients' medical records, in excess of the
statutory limitations specified in Evidence Code section.

California Evidence Code section 1158 establishes limitations on
fees charged by medical providers and/or their agents, in making
medical records available to attorneys who present a written
authorization for release of patient records, prior to the filing
of any action of appearance of a defendant in an action.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
          Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
          Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Mark.OzzeIlo@capstonelawyers.com
                  Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                  Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com

               - and -

          Jason K. Feldman, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JASON K. FELDMAN, PC
          270 North Canon Drive, 3rd Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: 844 553-5342
          Facsimile: 310 564-2004

COMENITY BANK: McNeal Sues over Robocalls
-----------------------------------------
ANGELA MCNEAL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. COMENITY BANK, Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-01603-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla., July 2, 2019), asserts that
Defendant "robocalled" her in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Comenity has a corporate policy of repeatedly contacting family and
friends of debtors to leave supposedly "urgent messages" for the
alleged debtor, using this as a tool to humiliate and embarrass
alleged debtors as well as to intentionally cause aggravation and
annoyance to their relatives and friends. Harassment of family
members and friends is not a novel form of debt collection abuse by
any means. Indeed, Comenity is notable for having established an
entire department set up to "skip trace" or otherwise track down
family members and friends of alleged debtors, just so it can
illegally roboblast abusive and deceptive calls to them.
Comenity's illegal tactics are another reason why robocalls
continue to be the #1 complaint in America, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident of Tampa, Florida.

Comenity is a corporation with its principal place of business in
Columbus, Ohio, and conducts business in the State of Florida and
across the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
     THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
     4030 Henderson Boulevard
     Tampa, FL 33629
     Telephone: (813) 500-1500
     Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
     Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


CORE VALUES: Underpays Roadside Assistance Technicians, Linz Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Linz, Cory Davis, and Aaron Kaminsky, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. CORE VALUES
ROADSIDE SERVICE, LLC, and MARK HYNDMAN Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-00529-SJD (S.D. Ohio, July 2, 2019), contends that
Defendant intentionally misclassified Plaintiffs and all other
members of the putative Class as independent contractors.

The Defendants willfully refused to pay a minimum wage; willfully
refused to pay overtime; and reduced employee wages through
unlawful deductions. The Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and numerous state wage and hour
statutes by: (1) misclassifying roadside assistance technicians as
independent contractors; (2) failing to pay roadside assistance
technicians the minimum wage in violation of the FLSA and state
wage and hour laws; (3) knowingly suffering and permitting
Plaintiffs and the putative Class members to work in excess of 40
hours during a workweek without paying overtime compensation at a
rate of one-and-one half times their regular rate; (4) improperly
reducing pay to Plaintiffs and the putative Class members through
unlawful deductions; and (5) adopting and implementing employment
policies which violate the FLSA and state wage and hour laws, says
the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employees of Defendant and worked as roadside
assistance technicians in Ohio and Pennsylvania from 2017 to 2019.

Defendant Core Values Roadside Service, LLC is a roadside
assistance company providing services such as tire changes, jump
starts, fuel delivery, and lockout services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen E. Imm, Esq.
     Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
     FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
     4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225
     Cincinnati, OH 45245
     Email: stephen@finneylawfirm.com
            matt@finneylawfirm.com


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Decision in Ehrman Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Cox Communications, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit titled David Ehrman v. Cox
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:18-cv-01125-JVS-DFM, in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as David Ehrman v. Cox
Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-55658, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The nature of suit is stated as other fraud.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
appealed a decision in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is
entitled David Ehrman v. Cox Communications, Inc., et al., Case No.
18-80195.

The lawsuit (assigned Case No. 30-02018-00992300-CU-MC-CXC) was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Orange to the District Court on June 22, 2018.  The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge James V. Selna.

Cox Communications is an American privately owned subsidiary of Cox
Enterprises providing digital cable television, telecommunications
and Home Automation services in the United States.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that an oral
argument will be held on July 11, 2019, at 09:00 a.m.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee DAVID EHRMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jamin S. Soderstrom, Esq.
          SODERSTROM LAW PC
          3 Park Plaza, Suite 100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 667-4700
          Facsimile: (949) 424-8091
          E-mail: jamin@soderstromlawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellants COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., COXCOM, LLC, and
COX COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC, are represented by:

          Scott Christensen Hall, Esq.
          Philip D.W. Miller, Esq.
          Richard R. Patch, Esq.
          Katharine Tracy Van Dusen, Esq.
          COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS, LLP
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 391-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 989-0663
          E-mail: ef-sch@cpdb.com
                  ef-pdm@cpdb.com
                  rrp@cpdb.com
                  ef-ktv@cpdb.com


CREDENCE RESOURCE: Kanowitz Files Class Suit under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credence Resource
Management LLC. The case is styled as Kevin Kanowitz, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Credence Resource Management LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01118-JCM-VCF (D. Nev., June 26, 2019).

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

Credence Resource Management, LLC provides business solutions to
organizations in order to enhance their service, compliance, and
recovery goals. The company offers services, such as first party
collections, inbound call centers, third party collection, and data
enhancement verification and authentication (DEVA). It provides
services to the healthcare, telecom, utilities, and banking
industries. The company was incorporated in 2014 and is based in
Dallas, Texas and has its additional offices in San Jose,
California; Bellevue Washington; and Pune, India.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert M Tzall, Esq.
   Law Offices of Robert M. Tzall
   1481 Warm Springs Rd, Suite 135
   Henderson, NV 89014
   Tel: (702) 666-0233
   Email: robert@tzalllegal.com




DAIRYAMERICA INC: Spooner Appeals Ruling in Carlin Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Aaron Buchanon, Anthony Bulinski, Frank Furner, Leo
Hafelin, Wayne Meyers and John Spooner filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Gerald Carlin, et al. v.
DairyAmerica, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-EPG, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California,
Fresno.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 19,
2019, Judge Anthony W. Ishii granted the Parties' Motion for Final
Approval of Settlement and Request for Attorney Fees.

In 2009, the Plaintiffs, as purported class representatives,
brought claims against Defendants DairyAmerica and California
Dairies concerning the misreporting of milk prices.  In September
2018, the parties notified the Court of their intent to settle.

The Plaintiffs then moved for final approval of the class action
settlement, asserting the $40 million settlement fund -- for the
benefit of almost 26,000 dairy-farmer claimants -- is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  They also move for attorney fees, costs,
and service awards.

Judge Ishii is convinced that the settlement is fair, adequate, and
free of collusion.  He also finds a 33.3% award from the common
fund of $40 million to be a reasonable percentage, given the
complexity of the case, its lengthy procedural history, and the
extraordinary results achieved for the class.  He further finds
that the Class Counsel's requested reimbursement in the amount of
$823,904.04 is reasonable.  Finally, the Judge finds that a $90,000
service award for each the four current named Plaintiffs goes
beyond ratios described by the Ninth Circuit, given that the
average recovery of unnamed class members is just over $1,000.

Hence, Judge Ishii granted final approval of the Settlement Class
defined as all dairy farmers located in the United States who sold
raw milk that was priced according to a Federal Milk Marketing
Order during the period Jan. 1, 2002 through April 30, 2007.

The appellate case is captioned as Gerald Carlin, et al. v.
DairyAmerica, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-16166, 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 5, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on August 5, 2019;

   -- Appellants Aaron Buchanon, Anthony Bulinski, Frank Furner,
      Leo Hafelin, Wayne Meyers and John Spooner's opening brief
      is due on September 13, 2019;

   -- Appellees California Dairies, Inc., Gerald Carlin,
      DairyAmerica, Inc., John Rahm, Paul Rozwadowski and Diana
      Wolfe's answering brief is due on October 15, 2019; and

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

Objectors-Appellants JOHN SPOONER, ANTHONY BULINSKI, LEO HAFELIN,
AARON BUCHANON, FRANK FURNER and WAYNE MEYERS are represented by:

          Joshua Haar, Esq.
          1495 Paddock Road
          West Edmeston, NY 13485
          Telephone: (315) 825-8106

Plaintiffs-Appellees GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL ROZWADOWSKI and
DIANA WOLFE, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
          George F. Farah, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
                  gfarah@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Mark Adam Griffin, Esq.
          Cari C. Laufenberg, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
                  claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Ron Kilgard, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          3101 North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 248-0088
          E-mail: rkilgard@krplc.com

               - and -

          Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
          Aidan Chowning Poppler, Esq.
          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermantabacco.com
                  apoppler@bermantabacco.com
                  jtabacco@bermantabacco.com

Defendant-Appellee DAIRYAMERICA, INC., is represented by:

          Allison Ann Davis, Esq.
          Sanjay Mohan Nangia, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 276-6500
          E-mail: allisondavis@dwt.com
                  sanjaynangia@dwt.com

               - and -

          Charles M. English, Jr., Esq.
          John D. Seiver, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1919 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20006-3401
          Telephone: (202) 973-4200
          E-mail: chipenglish@dwt.com
                  johnseiver@dwt.com

Defendant-Appellee CALIFORNIA DAIRIES, INC., is represented by:

          Lawrence Michael Cirelli, Esq.
          Megan Oliver Thompson, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777-3200
          E-mail: lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com
                  moliverthompson@hansonbridgett.com


DELAWARE NORTH: Castillo Suit Alleges ADA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Delaware North Companies, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Evelyn Castillo, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Delaware North Companies, Inc. -
Boston doing business as: TD Garden, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-03731 (E.D. N.Y., June 26, 2019).

Delaware North is a global food service and hospitality company
headquartered in Buffalo, New York. The company also operates in
the lodging, sporting, airport, gaming and entertainment
industries. The company employs over 55,000 people worldwide and
has over $3.2 billion in annual revenues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   148 west 24th Street
   Ste 8th Floor
   New York, NY 10011
   Tel: (212) 465-1124
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com




DENIHAM HOSPITALITY: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Denihan Hospitality
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of
Himself And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v.
Denihan Hospitality Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05870
(S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2019).

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

Denihan Hospitality Group is a family-owned American hotel and
hotel management company based in New York City. It also provides
construction and interior design services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com



DEVILS ARENA: Castillo Alleges Violation under ADA in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Devils Arena Entertainment LLC is facing a class action lawsuit
filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
styled as Evelyn Castillo, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Devils Arena Entertainment LLC and
Newark Housing Authority doing business as: Prudential Center,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-03730 (E.D. N.Y., June 26, 2019).

Devils Arena Entertainment LLC is a Sports Field or Stadium
Operator, Promoting Sports Events business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Litigation Group, PLLC
   148 west 24th Street
   Ste 8th Floor
   New York, NY 10011
   Tel: (212) 465-1124
   Fax: (212) 465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Karp Calls SEC Reports False and Misleading
------------------------------------------------------------
SELWYN KARP, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. DIEBOLD NIXDORF, INCORPORATED, ANDREAS W.
MATTES, and CHRISTOPHER A. CHAPMAN, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-06180 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2019) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Diebold
securities between May 4, 2017 and July 4, 2017, 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.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational
and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
Company was experiencing delays in systems rollouts as well as a
longer customer decision making process and order-to-revenue
conversion cycle; (ii) the foregoing issues were negatively
impacting the Company's services business and operations; and (iii)
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 5, 2017, Diebold disclosed that the Company expected a
wider net loss than indicated in its prior guidance for fiscal
2017, from a range of $50 to $75 million to a range of $110 to $125
million net loss. The Company attributed the lowered expectations
to a delay in systems rollouts as well as a longer customer
decision-making process and order-to-revenue conversion cycle.
Following this news, Diebold's stock price fell $6.40 per share, or
nearly 23%, to close at $21.60 per share on July 5, 2017. 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, says the complaint.

Plaintiff acquired Diebold's securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

Diebold provides connected commerce services, software and
technology to enable millions of transactions each day.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


DINO PALMIERI: Torres et al. Allege Wage Theft
----------------------------------------------
Dahina Torres, Dena Marinelli, Chelsea Amata, and Katie Kauble, the
Plaintiffs, vs. Dino Palmieri Salons, Inc.; Dino Palmieri;
John/Jane Does 1-3; and ABC Entities 1-3, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01501 (Common Pleas Ct., Cuyahoga County, July 1, 2019),
alleges that Defendants unlawfully pay their employees less than
they are entitled to under the employees' contract with Defendants,
the Ohio Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the wage theft was done in multiple
ways, all part of a common scheme, aimed at increasing Defendants'
profits, while paying employees less than they are entitled.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees (Trainees)
were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt, hourly employees who
were in Defendants "training" program. In violation of the FLSA and
Ohio Law, the Defendants failed to pay the Trainees any wage for
mandatory training classes, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Marianne B. Stockett, Esq.
          Brian C. Lee, Esq.
          Patrick Kasson, Esq.
          REMINGER CO LPA
          website www.reminger.com
          101 West Prospect Avenue Suite 1400
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: 216 687-1311
          E-mail: mstockett@reminger.com
                  blee@reminger.com
                  pkasson@reminger.com

DMG MORI: Bebault Seeks to Certifying Class
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, BRANDON BEBAULT, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. DMG MORI USA,
INC, an Illinois Corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02373-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court for an Order on August 8, 2019:

   1. certifying case as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
      Rule:

      "all natural persons residing in the United States
      (including all territories and other political subdivisions
      of the United States) who were the subject of a consumer
      report that was procured by Defendant (or that Defendant
      caused to be procured) within five years of the filing of
      this Complaint through the date of final judgment in this
      action under Fair Credit Reporting Act";

   2. authorizing Plaintiff to send Notice pursuant to Rule 23 (in

      a form to be approved by the Court after a conference with
      defense counsel); and

   3. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representatives; and

   4. appointing Desai Law Firm, P.C., and Aashish Y. Desai, as
      class counsel.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3200 Bristol St., Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com
                  adrianne@desai-law.com

EASTON DIAMOND: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Wisdom Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Ricky Wisdom filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Ricky Wisdom v. Easton Diamond Sports, LLC, Case No.
2:18-cv-04078-DSF-SS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is titled Ricky Wisdom v. Easton Diamond Sports,
LLC, Case No. 19-55742, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
appealed a Court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is
captioned as Ricky Wisdom v. Easton Diamond Sports, LLC, Case No.
19-80025.

The lawsuit seeks to stop the Defendants' alleged distribution and
sale of baseball bats that are falsely advertised and mislabeled,
and to seek redress for all those who have been harmed by the
Defendants' misconduct.

The Plaintiff alleges that certain bats that the Defendants have
sold actually weigh significantly more than their labeled and
advertised weight.

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

   -- Appellant Ricky Wisdom's opening brief is due on August 26,
      2019;

   -- Appellee Easton Diamond Sports, LLC's answering brief is
      due on September 26, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant RICKY WISDOM, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Robert Rafael Ahdoot, Esq.
          Bradley Keith King, Esq.
          Theodore Walter Maya, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
                  bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW PC
          55 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com

Defendant-Appellee EASTON DIAMOND SPORTS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, is represented by:

          Thomas Borncamp, Esq.
          Catherine L. Carlisle, Esq.
          James John Yukevich, Esq.
          YUKEVICH CAVANAUGH
          355 S. Grand Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 362-7777
          E-mail: tborncamp@yukelaw.com
                  ccarlisle@yukelaw.com
                  jyukevich@yukelaw.com


ENAGIC USA: Makaron Suit to Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Edward Makaron, the Plainitff v.
Enagic USA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-05145-DDP-E (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson entered an order July 1,
2019, granting the motion to certify class, according to the civil
minutes.

Enagic USA, Inc. distributes water filtration systems and ionizers
to hospitals, restaurants, and homes in the United States. It also
offers accessories, books, bottles, brochures, DVD's, electrolysis
enhancers, filters and cartridges, parts, sprays and parts, and
supplement products through an online store.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff is:

          Thomas Edward Wheeler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St Ste 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367-7104
          Telephone: (216) 220-6496
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          Email: twheeler@toddflaw.com

Attorney for Defendant is:

          Mark T Cramer, Esq.
          BUCHALTER LAW FIRM
          Los Angeles, CA
          Telephone: (213) 891-5067
          E-mail: mcramer@buchalter.com


EVANSTON INSURANCE: Church Creek Files Suit in South Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Evanston Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Church Creek Construction LLC, Kevin
Molony, Larry Elsey, Assignor Plaintiff, Mepkin Place Homeowners
Association LLC, Lavonia Mitchell Assignee Plaintiff, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Andrew Blalock,
Kelly Blalock, Ben Yaschik, Martin Yaschik, S Emory Bull Hiott,
Norma F Callen, Farzan Soodavar, Farzan Soodavar, Robert P Ledford,
Jr, Christopher Mims, Patrick J Mallard, Eric Crotts, Mary Gray,
Nicholas Hargreaves, Jane F Mitchell, Joshua Sears, Julius
McMillan, Linda McMillan, Stephanie Slan, Assignee Plaintiffs, v.
Evanston Insurance Company individually and as successor by merger
with Essex Insurance Company Successor by Merger Essex Insurance
Company, Essex Insurance Company, Insurance Office of America Inc.,
Wood Special Risk Brokers LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-01878-DCN (D. S.C., July 1, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Evanston Insurance Company, through its subsidiaries, provides
insurance products and programs. It offers professional and
products liability, employment practice liability, primary
casualty, property and excess, and umbrella products and
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas Bacot Pritchard, Esq.
     Parker Nelson and Associates
     211 King Street, Suite 107
     Charleston, SC 29401
     Phone: (843) 727-2500
     Fax: (843) 727-2599
     Email: tpritchard@pnalaw.net

          - and -

     Daniel Scott Slotchiver, Esq.
     Slotchiver and Slotchiver LLP
     751 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard, Suite 100
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Phone: (843) 577-6531
     Fax: (843) 577-0261
     Email: dan@slotchiverlaw.com

          - and -

     Gedney M Howe, III, Esq.
     PO Box 1034
     Charleston, SC 29402
     Phone: (843) 722-8048
     Fax: (843) 722-2140
     Email: ghowe@gedneyhowe.com

          - and -

     Ivon Keith McCarty, Esq.
     McCarty Law Firm
     1212 Wappoo Road
     Charleston, SC 29407
     Phone: (843) 793-1272
     Email: ikeithmccarty@gmail.com

          - and -

     John C Hayes, IV, Esq.
     Hayes Law Firm
     180 Meeting Street
     Charleston, SC 29401
     Phone: (843) 805-7003
     Email: jhayes@hayeslaw.org


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Abbink Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Experian Information
Solutions Inc. The case is styled as Bryce Abbink individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Experian
Information Solutions Inc. an Ohio corporation, Lend Tech Loans,
Inc. a California corporation, Unified Document Services, LLC a
California Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-01257-JFW-PJW (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2019).

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

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., an information services
company, provides information, analytical, and marketing services
to organizations and consumers to manage risk and reward of
commercial and financial decisions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taylor T Smith, Esq.
     Woodrow and Peluso LLC
     3900 East Mexico Avenue Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80210
     Phone: (720) 213-0675
     Fax: (303) 927-0809
     Email: tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com

          - and -

     Aaron D Aftergood, Esq.
     The Aftergood Law Firm
     1880 Century Park East Suite 200
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 551-5221
     Fax: (310) 496-2840
     Email: aaron@aftergoodesq.com


FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Ben Popken, writing for NBC News, reports that a lawyer for
Facebook argued on May 29 that its users had no expectation of
privacy when using the social network, pushing for a judge to throw
out a class-action lawsuit related to the Cambridge Analytica
scandal.

"There is no invasion of privacy at all, because there is no
privacy," on Facebook or any other social media site, company
attorney Orin Snyder told U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria.

That may come as a surprise to those who have followed CEO Mark
Zuckerberg's pivot to privacy in recent months. He even wrote a
manifesto for a "privacy-focused vision" of social media in March,
saying he believes the future of communication lies in private,
encrypted services.

But his lawyer's line of reasoning in court echoes what the company
and Zuckerberg previously said both publicly and privately in past
years -- and explains how the company built an online advertising
business that is now rivaled only by Google.

And while some changes to Facebook, such as a broad embrace of
encrypted messaging, have been welcomed by privacy advocates,
others remain concerned that Zuckerberg's "privacy-focused vision"
leaves the company's core business of data-targeted ads mostly
unscathed.

Internal company emails from 2011 to 2015, leaked as part of a
lawsuit by a photo app developer against Facebook and previously
the subject of a report by NBC News, underscore the wide variety of
ways the company initially considered monetizing its users' data --
with privacy concerns rarely mentioned. Central to those
discussions were the kinds of developers that would eventually land
Facebook in the middle of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which
an app that connected to Facebook was able to harvest the
information of millions of people.

Some of Facebook's early ideas to make money off its data centered
on these kinds of apps, with Zuckerberg even offering up a guess at
how much a single person might be worth to outside developers.

"-$0.10/ user each year," he wrote in 2012. Which "might even be
too low," he added.

A Facebook spokesperson responded to a request for comment by
sharing a link to a Facebook post where Zuckerberg wrote, "We've
never sold anyone's data." The spokesperson also referred to the
company's previous statements calling the leaked emails
"cherrypicked" as part of a lawsuit.

"The developer platform is free for developers to use," the
statement read. "We explored multiple ways to build a sustainable
business . . . we ultimately settled on a model where developers
did not need to purchase advertising to access APIs."

The emails offer a rare, inside look at how Zuckerberg and top
Facebook executives thought about how to create a profitable
business off user data.

Among them, Zuckerberg floated the idea of turning Facebook into a
kind of "information bank" in which developers would rack up a debt
to Facebook based on how much user data they accessed, which would
be paid off by buying ads.

He also suggested inventing a mandate that developers "must keep
data fresh and update their data each month." Every time they
"refreshed" their data, Facebook could charge them for how much
data they accessed.

Even the degree of closeness between different users had potential
currency for marketers, according to an email. Internally, Facebook
termed this metric the "coefficient."

Antonio García Martínez, director of Facebook's Ad Exchange from
2011 to 2013, said the emails reflect the company's efforts to
consider a variety of ideas in building its business.

He added that the emails may look shocking to outsiders but have to
be considered in context.

"A call went out to 'give us all your crazy ideas,'" he said. "The
company was stumbling around in the dark trying to launch and
monetize the product at the same time."

"This is every conversation every data driven company has," he
added.

The plans to charge developers were eventually scrapped in favor of
something more profitable: selling highly targeted mobile ads
derived from that user data as well as data collected from a
variety of other tools.

Ashkan Soltani, a former chief technologist for the Federal Trade
Commission, the U.S. government's business watchdog that is
expected to levy a multi-billion-dollar fine fine against Facebook,
said the emails reflected the company's mindset when figuring out
its business model.

"There is not a lot of consideration to the ethics of consumer
data," Soltani said. "The company is exploring to create value, or
the illusion of value, by providing access to user data." [GN]


FAIRLIFE: Class Actions Pile Up Over Alleged Animal Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Watson, writing for Food Navigator, reports that four class
action lawsuits have already been filed against high-protein milk
brand fairlife, its founders, and JV partner Coca-Cola over alleged
animal abuse at its flagship dairy farm in Indiana, but this could
be just the beginning of the company's legal problems, predict
experts. [GN]


FASHION NOVA: Sainvil Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
JACKSON SAINVIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FASHION NOVA, INC., a California
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61620-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
June 28, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets
its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Fashion Nova is a fashion online retailer of clothes and
accessories, with five retail locations throughout Southern
California and touts itself as "the no. 1 most-searched fashion
brand on Google in 2018". (Defendant's website,
https://www.fashionnova.com/pages/about-us, viewed on June 27,
2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Seth Lehrman, Esq.
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com
          EDWARDS POTTINGER LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954-524-2820
          Facsimile: 954-524-2822

FEDERAL EXPRESS: Bid to Certify Freem Suit as Class Action Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, MITCHELL FREEM, the Plainitff, vs.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION ET AL, the Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-00445-DOC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David O. Carter
entered and order on July 2, 2019, denying without prejudice
Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify the case as a
collective action and to provide notice to the collective class.

The Plaintiff may again move to conditionally certify a Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action on or before August 1, 2019, or may
request additional time to do so, the Court says.

The Plaintiff has not provided the Court with substantial
allegations that FedEx's hourly-paid technicians throughout
California are subject to a statewide decision, policy or plan, and
thus are "similarly situated." Mitchell Freem's declaration alleges
that he worked more than eight hours in any given day, more than 40
hours in any given week, and did not receive lawful rest or meal
periods; Freem thus alleges that "it is impossible to take breaks"
and concludes "I am informed and believe it is the same at the
worksites across the state of California." The Plaintiff then
states that he and other employees worked off the clock and without
pay.

Freem also states that he was instructed by management to record
inaccurate hours in FedEx's computer database so as not to incur
overtime. However, as Defendant notes, Plaintiff worked at the
FedEx facility in Irvine, and thus reported to management of
FedEx's "Southern California District." The Plaintiff's alleges
that management instructed employees to record hours inaccurately,
yet Plaintiff merely states that this was done at "upper level
management's direction;" Plaintiff does not indicate that any
individual with statewide authority made this decision, nor does he
provide the Court with any allegation of a single decision that
accomplished such manipulation of hours statewide.

Accordingly, despite the fairly lenient standard for conditional
certification, Plaintiff has not alleged a single decision, policy
or plan by FedEx at the level that would affect all relevant
employees in California; thus, Plaintiff has not shown that
technicians across the state are "similarly situated," and the
Court cannot grant conditional certification on a statewide
basis.[CC]

FERGUSON, MO: Debtors Prison Case Plaintiffs Still Await Redress
----------------------------------------------------------------
Topher Sanders, writing for ProPublica, reports that in January
2014, Tonya DeBerry was driving through an unincorporated area of
St. Louis County, Missouri, when a police officer pulled her over
for having expired license plates.

After discovering that DeBerry, 51, had several outstanding traffic
tickets from three jurisdictions, the officer handcuffed her and
took her to jail.

To be released, she was told, she would have to pay hundreds of
dollars in fines she owed the county, according to her account in a
federal lawsuit. But after her family came up with the money,
DeBerry wasn't released from custody. Instead, she was handed over
to the municipalities of Ferguson and Jennings, and in each city,
she was told she would be released only after she paid a portion of
the fines she owed them, according to the lawsuit.

It was as if she were being held for "ransom," her lawyer would
later say.

The Supreme Court ruled almost 50 years ago that a person can't be
jailed for not being able to pay a fine. But like so many people in
Missouri, DeBerry had ended up cycling through a succession of
jails for that very reason, caught up in what critics have called
modern-day "debtors prisons," used by towns to keep fines flowing
into municipal coffers.

"It's a cat-and-mouse game," said her daughter, Allison Nelson, who
has also spent time in jail for not being able to pay traffic
fines.

If DeBerry and her family were exasperated by the heavy-handed
collection efforts, they would learn how hard it would be to hold
the authorities accountable, especially in Ferguson, even after the
killing of Michael Brown later that year drew national attention to
the city's troubled criminal justice system.

The city slowly stopped jailing people for not being able to pay
fines as the news media showed the victims were primarily black and
the Justice Department made clear that what Ferguson had been doing
was wrong. But four years after a federal class-action suit was
filed against the city on behalf of thousands of people who claimed
they were jailed for their inability to pay fines, the plaintiffs
are still waiting for redress.

The city has sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, filing a
succession of motions, arguing among other reasons that instead of
suing the city, the plaintiffs should be suing the municipal
division of the state court. All three of the motions have been
denied by the judge, Audrey G. Fleissig, of the U.S. District Court
in St. Louis, though one of the rulings was appealed and that took
about a year to resolve.

One issue has proved to be particularly frustrating to the
plaintiffs: whether the city of Ferguson is even insured for a
class action.

In March 2016, the lawyer representing Ferguson sent an email to a
representative of the city's insurer, saying that the scope of the
lawsuit had expanded, and that concern about the case "grew" after
a similar suit was settled for what was believed to be a
"substantial amount of money."

The five-sentence email concluded with the lawyer, Peter Dunne, of
the St. Louis firm Pitzer Snodgrass, saying that legal action may
be necessary to resolve the question of whether the city was
covered for a class action.

"We believe a DJ [declaratory judgment] suit to determine coverage
may be necessary," Dunne wrote.

Three months later, the insurance trust filed a declaratory
judgement suit against Ferguson in St. Louis County Circuit Court,
asking a judge to find that the city did not have insurance
coverage for class actions.

Dunne's role was not publicly known until September, when St. Louis
Post-Dispatch columnist Tony Messenger reported Ferguson's
allegation that Dunne had violated his duty to the city. The email
documenting Dunne's discussion of a lawsuit with the insurer was
first obtained by ProPublica. Dunne, one of the firm's principals,
did not respond to requests for comment. The other principals did
not respond to emails or to a call to the firm's office.

Suggesting legal action involving his own client was a breach of
legal ethics, some experts said, and the revelation has only
deepened the sense among the plaintiffs and their supporters that
the deck is stacked.

"No matter where the citizens of Ferguson go in the legal system,
justice is really hard for them to obtain," said Vincent
Southerland, executive director of New York University School of
Law's Center on Race, Inequality and the Law. "It's another example
that we have a legal system that was not built to protect and
vindicate the rights of the most vulnerable among us."

The killing of Brown by a police officer in August 2014 and the
unrest that followed thrust Ferguson into the middle of a growing
national debate over race and law enforcement. But for black people
in Ferguson and the surrounding North County region, racial
discrimination had long defined their relationship with the local
police and courts.

Even as the rest of the country moved on from Ferguson, the people
seeking a judgment against the city found themselves mired in the
machinations of an insular legal system and an overburdened
insurance carrier.

Ferguson, a city of about 21,000 people, was insured through a
cooperative of 25 municipalities called the St. Louis Area
Insurance Trust, commonly referred to as SLAIT.

The trust has operated largely out of the public eye. It took the
persistence of Messenger, who won a Pulitzer Prize this year for
his columns on "debtors prisons" in rural Missouri, to make the
trust comply with open government laws.

Messenger said the rural courts ensnared whites, while in Ferguson
and elsewhere in North County, it was blacks who were victimized.
"But it's the same concept," he said. "It's policing on the poor,
it's jurisdictions that don't have a tax base anymore looking to
the judicial system as a fundraising tool and judges allowing
themselves to be tax collectors rather than purveyors of justice."

The trust hired Dunne to provide Ferguson's defense of the
class-action lawsuit. But his firm, Pitzer Snodgrass, was also
providing the trust with legal advice on insurance coverage issues,
according to a court filing by Ferguson. That set up what Ferguson
said in the filing was a conflict that the city had not been made
aware of.

Even if city officials wanted to settle the case, the trust claims
in court filings there isn't coverage and it won't pay out. The
insurance trust's lawsuit will determine whether there is
coverage.

Michael Downey, a law professor at Washington University in St.
Louis and an expert on legal ethics, said that unless Dunne had
Ferguson's permission, Dunne should not have talked to the insurer
about the possibility of a lawsuit over coverage.

"A breach of the duty of confidentiality basically to encourage a
party to take action against your client is a pretty serious
violation of the rules," Downey said.

Even if Dunne thought he was conveying something that the insurer
already knew, the exchange was still concerning, Downey said.

The trust, through its lawyer, declined to comment.

Michael Frisch, Georgetown University Law Center's ethics counsel,
said that, were the bar to pursue an investigation, any punishment
would not be severe. A reprimand -- at most, he said.

"It's the kind of a thing that would not draw that much of a
response from the bar," Frisch said. "Lawyers tend not to get
suspended for things like this."

New York University law professor Stephen Gillers, who specializes
in legal ethics, said that regardless of any punishment, Dunn's
actions are significant.

"It's a big deal, because clients are entitled to loyalty," he
said. "If you can't be equally loyal to both clients, then you have
a conflict and you have to withdraw entirely or from one or the
other client."

For lawyers hired by insurance companies to represent
policyholders, the question of who is the client was for many years
unsettled ethical terrain, experts say.

Lawyers can feel a sense of obligation to the insurance companies
that hire them -- and that can provide a steady stream of business
-- said William Barker, co-author of "Professional Responsibilities
of Insurance Defense Counsel."

Barker, a Chicago lawyer with the firm Dentons, said that until the
1970s, lawyers hired by insurance companies to represent a
policyholder typically thought of the company as their chief
client. But a series of court decisions since then established that
the lawyer owes undivided loyalty to the policyholder, and that is
why the lawyer's actions in the Ferguson case appear to be
troubling, Barker said. "That's something that the defense lawyer
ought not to be doing," he said. "The lawyer who is handling the
defense ought not to be involved, certainly in advising the
insurance company on coverage issues."

Michael-John Voss, a lawyer for the ArchCity Defenders, the civil
rights group that brought the lawsuit against Ferguson, expects to
case to drag into 2020.

"The relief and the remedy has been a long time coming, and there's
no clear end in sight," he said. "And it reemphasized to me the way
that these larger structures are put in place to avoid
accountability and to perpetuate a system of social control."

ProPublica asked the insurance trust if it had instructed Dunne to
act as he did, but the trust's lawyer said the organization would
not answer any of ProPublica's questions because of the ongoing
lawsuits.

The insurance cooperative was created in the 1980s to help small
St. Louis-area municipalities share the cost of liability insurance
and health care. The arrangement worked for the occasional
slip-and-fall claim and other routine municipal litigation. But it
has not held up well in the face of payouts to cops injured on duty
and for actions by the police and the courts.

Most notably, the trust paid $1.5 million to Brown's family in 2017
to settle a wrongful death claim against Ferguson. But that was
hardly the only big hit in recent years. In 2016, a jury awarded $3
million to the family of Jason Moore, an unarmed 31-year-old man,
who died after a Ferguson police officer delivered several shots
from a Taser.

A state audit released in February showed the organization's fund
balance dropped to $3.8 million in 2018 from $12.2 million in 2016.
Like many insurers, the trust also has its own coverage, known as
reinsurance, and it turned to those carriers to help with the Moore
verdict. But the companies have told the trust that they won't
cover the judgment in the Moore case because the companies allege
the trust improperly notified them of the claim. The trust is suing
the companies.

Dunne and his firm are no longer working on the Ferguson case. The
firm was disqualified by the judge after it hired a lawyer from the
ArchCity Defenders who represented one of the lawsuit's plaintiffs
in court.

De'carlon Seewood, who stepped down in March after three and a half
years as Ferguson's city manager, said resolving the lawsuit will
help the community move beyond the abuses and the notoriety that
came with them.

"It is important to kind of move forward and show that new face,
that better face," Seewood said this year, before he left Ferguson
to become the city manager in Fairburn, Georgia, just outside
Atlanta. Jeffrey Blume, Ferguson's interim city manager, directed
questions to the city's attorney, who declined to answer.

Seewood said the city had hoped the insurance trust would take care
of the settlement the way the insurer for the city of Jennings had.
But Jennings was in a very different position. Its insurer was
Travelers, the country's sixth-largest property and casualty
insurer. By contrast, the insurance trust is a small cooperative
with dwindling funds.

"The insurance [trust] looked at the enormity of what's being asked
and they said that's it's outside their [coverage] of the city, and
so the city finds itself fighting with its insurance company about
[coverage]," Seewood said.

According to a memo written by the trust's claims administrator,
the plaintiffs originally asked for $27.5 million but during
mediation in April 2016 reduced the demand to $9.5 million. That
amount is what the plaintiffs believe, based on the policies, is
the total coverage limit of Ferguson's insurance.

Alexandra Lahav, a professor at the University of Connecticut
School of Law and an expert in civil litigation, said a case like
this typically would be resolved in about two years and said the
insurance dispute was slowing the process.

"This really shouldn't be a very complicated class action," Lahav
said.

Lisa Soronen, executive director for the State and Local Legal
Center, a Washington organization that supports states and local
governments in legal disputes that rise to the U.S. Supreme Court,
said the dispute between the trust and Ferguson didn't leave the
city with many sound options other than fighting the case
mightily.

"As a practical matter, Ferguson's a really small city that has no
money," she said. "If there's no insurance coverage and there's a
huge judgement, I don't know how it would pay."

John Rappaport, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School
who has studied the impact insurance can have on police practices
and policies, said insurance trusts have a reputation for being
less likely than commercial insurers to settle case involving
police officers.

"The risk pools or the trusts, they see themselves as extensions of
the cities themselves," he said. "Their reluctance to settle
litigation against the police would seem [to be] a kind of loyalty
to their members -- their cities."

Rappaport said commercial insurers often see the issues as purely a
matter of dollars and cents.

"Whereas if the city either is in a risk pool or the city
represents itself, they see it as more of like a moral issue, like
we have to stand up for our officers," he said.

Even after the Ferguson suit is resolved, litigation in Missouri
over "debtors prison" practices won't be. ArchCity Defenders has
lawsuits pending in six other cities, with more in the pipeline
stretching beyond North County.

DeBerry, the Ferguson woman who was a named plaintiff in the
Ferguson class action, was also a plaintiff in the lawsuit against
neighboring Jennings, which settled for $4.8 million less than a
year and a half after the suit was filed.

But the suit in Ferguson has dragged on longer than DeBerry could
wait.

She died in April 2018.

"And now she will never even get a piece of this justice because
she's no longer here," said Nelson, her daughter. "That's sad,
that's really sad. It's actually pathetic because it should have
never come to that. It hurts." [GN]


FLAGSTAR BANK: Kivett Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, WILLIAM KIVETT, individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. FLAGSTAR
BANK, FSB, a federal savings bank, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-05131-WHA (N.D. Cal., Filed August 22,
2018), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order on September
12, 2019:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons who on or after April 18, 2014 had mortgage
      loans serviced by Flagstar Bank FSB ("Flagstar") on 1-4 unit

      residential properties in California and paid Flagstar money

      in advance to hold in escrow for the payment of taxes and
      assessments on the property, for insurance, or for other
      purposes relating to the property, but did not receive
      interest on the amounts held by Flagstar in their escrow
      accounts (excluding, however, any such persons whose
      mortgage loans originated on or before July 21, 2010)";

   2. appointing his attorneys Thomas E. Loeser of Hagens Berman
      Sobol Shapiro LLP and Peter B. Fredman of the Law Office of
      Peter Fredman PC as counsel for the Class; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Class.

The Plaintiff asserts that Flagstar did not pay interest on escrow
("IOE") on those loans as required by section 6 2954.8(a) of the
California Civil Code ("section 2954.8") and alleges that this
constitutes unlawful and unfair business practices within the
meaning California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
sections 17200, et seq.  On behalf of himself and the Class,
Plaintiff seeks restitution of all unpaid IOE accruals within the
four-year statute of limitations, pre-judgment interest, and an
injunction against Flagstar's continued flouting of section
2954.8.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiff for himself and persons similarly situated
are:

          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          E-mail: toml@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Peter B. Fredman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN PC
          2550 Ninth Street, Suite 111 (South Hall)
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 868-2626
          E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com

FOOD MANAGEMENT: Evera Seeks to Certify Class of Tipped Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, DONNA VAN EVERA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the PLAINTIFF, vs. FOOD
MANAGEMENT PARTNERS, INC., and FMP-FRESH PAYROLL, LLC, the
DEFENDANTS, Case No. 5:18-cv-00727-FB (W.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's Motion for conditional certification
      of:

      "all tipped employees for Defendants on or after July 13,
      2015";

   2. directing Defendants to produce contact information of the
      putative class members no later than one week after the date

      of the entry of the Order granting the current motion;

   3. approving the Notice and Motion for Approval and
      Distribution of Notice;

   4. approving sending of the Notice and Consent, and
      Plaintiff's Original Complaint and Defendants' Answer;

   5. approving the distribution of the Postcard;

   6. approving notice through U.S. Mail, email, and text message;

   7. granting counsel a period of 90 days from the date
      Defendants fully and completely releases the potential
      class members' contact information during which to
      distribute the Notice and to file Consent forms.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Raven R. Applebaum, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS,NASH,
             SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          112 East Pecan Street, Suite 2700
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: 210-354-1300
          E-mail: Raven.applebaum@ogletree.com

FORSTER & GARBUS: Brill Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as David L Brill, Ralph John Lucci
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Forster & Garbus, LLP, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-03637 (E.D. N.Y., June 21, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiffs are 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


FORSTER & GARBUS: Rhee Files FDCPA Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus,
LLP. The case is styled as HIESEOK RHEE individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus,
LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-14528 (D. N.J., July 1, 2019).

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     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: csanders@barshaysanders.com


FRANK & NINO'S PIZZA: Canelas Seeks OT Premium Pay
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Frank & Nino's
Pizza Corp d/b/a Nona's Pizza, Naim Elezaj, Fidaim Elezaj, and
Fazlija Elezaj for the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law. The case is captioned RAMON O. CANELAS, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
FRANK & NINO'S PIZZA CORP d/b/a Nona's Pizza; NAIM ELEZAJ a/k/a
Nino Elezaj and a/k/a Nona Elezaj, FIDAIM ELEZAJ a/k/a Frank
Elezaj, and FAZLIJA ELEZAJ, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06105
(S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2019). Plaintiff Ramon O. Canelas alleges that
the Defendants failed to compensate him and the collective class
members the statutory overtime rate of time and one half for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per week. In addition, Plaintiff
Canelas also claims that the Defendants failed to keep full and
accurate records of Plaintiff's hours and wages.

Frank & Nino's Pizza Corp is a domestic business corporation
organized under the laws of the state of New York with a principal
address at 6100 Riverdale Avenue, Bronx, NY 10471. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENPACT LLC: Timko Seeks Overtime Pay for Software Trainors
-----------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN TIMKO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GENPACT LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00557 (M.D.
Tenn., July 1, 2019), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, by failing to pay Plaintiff and the
putative collective members to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without properly compensating them for overtime premium rates for
non-travel hours worked, and for failing to pay anything for
out-of-town travel time during regular business hours.

Ms. Timko is an Ohio resident who worked for Defendant in 2018,
providing training to new users on how to use commercial software.
The new users of the software were employees of Genpact's clients.
Timko worked for Genpact in several states, including Tennessee,
Georgia and Washington. Timko has been an employee who was employed
within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 203(e) and (g).

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in the States of Tennessee,
Georgia and Washington during the applicable statute of limitations
periods under the FLSA. The Plaintiff estimates that the putative
Class, including both current and former employees over the
relevant periods, will include over one 100 similarly situated
workers. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated workers were
compensated by Defendant on an hourly basis. They were not paid on
a salary basis and worked over 40 hours during the regular
workweek, the lawsuit says.

Defendant is an information technology firm that provides training
and support to employees of hospitals and other medical facilities
as those employees begin to learn how to use new commercial
software.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
are:

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

HAYT & HAYT: Barenbaum Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, DANIEL BARENBAUM, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HAYT, HAYT &
LANDAU, LLC and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2:18-cv-04120-BMS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff will move the Court at
a date and time to be set by the Court, for an order certifying the
case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.

HHL is a debt collection agency. Midland Funding LLC provides debt
collection services. The company was incorporated in 2005 and is
based in San Diego, California.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

HERTZ CORP: Certification of Location Managers Class Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, DANIEL FIGUEROA and GRANT SCHROEDER,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees,
the Plaintiff, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION and DTG OPERATIONS, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00326-SPC-UAM (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   a. conditionally certifying a collective of, and permitting
      Court-supervised notice to:

      "all similarly situated employees who have worked as
      Location Managers, Functional Managers, and/or similarly
      titled positions ("LMs") for Defendant The Hertz Corporation
      ("Hertz") and/or Defendant DTG Operations ("DTG")
      (collectively, Defendants) at any Hertz, Dollar, Thrifty,
      or Dollar/Thrifty branded car rental location in the United
      States during the period between May 17, 2016, through the
      date of the Court’s Order on this Motion (the "FLSA
      Collective"), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act"

   b. requiring Defendants to produce in an electronic or
      computer-readable format the full name, address(es), work
      and personal telephone number(s), and e-mail address(es)
      (including personal email addresses to the extent they are
      available) for each member of the FLSA Collective;

   c. authorizing notice with a form of Consent to Join to the
      members of the FLSA Collective, disseminated by U.S. Mail,
      email and via website (returnable via mail, email, fax,
      or via website;

   d. authorizing reminder notices halfway through the 60-day
      notice period; and

   e. granting any further relief that this Court deems just and
      proper.

Hertz is a vehicle rental business which operates the Hertz, Dollar
and Thrifty vehicle rental brands throughout the United States and
abroad, and is one of the largest worldwide vehicle rental
companies. DTG is a subsidiary of the Hertz Corporation. Hertz
branded employees routinely perform work for the Dollar/Thrifty
brand and Dollar/Thrifty employees routinely perform work for the
Hertz brand.

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as LMs in different states
throughout the United States. As part of its workforce in its
airport locations, Defendants employ LMs which it classifies as
exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements. Plaintiffs contend
that, notwithstanding the fact that LMs primarily performed as
their primary duties non-exempt tasks which should have made them
overtime eligible, including waiting on customers at the vehicle
rental counter, driving vehicles from one location to another,
washing vehicles, handling vehicle returns, and general customer
service, Defendants' common corporate policy is to not pay LMs any
wages for overtime hours worked.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Collective are:

          Gregg I. Shavitz., Esq.
          Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
          Tamra C. Givens, Esq.
          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888

HILLS PET: Mattocks Files Tort Class Suit in Kansas
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hill's Pet Nutrition,
Inc. The case is styled as Jack Blaser, Ellen Embry, Joseph
Esposito and Joseph Mattocks, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02345 (D. Kan., June 26, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Tort Product
Liability over Diversity-Property Damage.

Hill's Pet Nutrition, Inc, marketed simply as "Hills", is an
American pet food company that produces dog and cat foods. The
company is a subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lynn R. Johnson, Esq.
   Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd. - KCMO
   2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 550
   Kansas City, MO 64108
   Tel: (816) 474-0004
   Fax: (816) 474-0003
   Email: ljohnson@sjblaw.com


HOME AWAY: Customers File Class Action Over Scammer Risks
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims
Home Away negligently fails to protect customers from sending money
to scammers who post phony listings.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

         https://is.gd/G4qc45


JP MORGAN: Stone Sues over Excess Mortgage Payments
---------------------------------------------------
DENNIS DANIEL STONE, 184 Sleighride Road Willow Grove, PA 19090,
FOR HIMSELF AND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiff, vs. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NA 1111 Polaris Parkway
Columbus OH, 43240; and MIDLAND MORTGAGE CO. 999 NW Grand Blvd.,
Oklahoma City, OK 73118, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02852-GAM
(E.D. Pa., June 27, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated the
federal and state laws by engaging in illegal and deceptive
business practices.

According to the complaint, the Dependants have wrongfully charged
and/or attempeted to wrongfully charge Plaintiff's mortgage account
for charges that are not authorized by law or contract, or both.
The Defendants attempted to collect excess monthly mortgage
payments and failed to credit Plaintiff for payments made.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational investment
bank and financial services company headquartered in New York City.
Midland Mortgage is a division of a federally chartered savings
association headquartered in Oklahoma City.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Stuart A. Eisenberg, Esq.
          Carol B. McCullough, Esq.
          MCCULLOUGH EISENBERG, LLC
          65 West Street Road, Suite A-204
          Warminster, PA 18974
          Telephone: (215) 957 6411
          Facsimile: (215) 957 9140
          E-mail: mcculloghheisenberg@gmail.com

JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Certifies Class of Credit Card Holders
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, GARY and ANNE CHILDRESS, et al., the
Plaintiffs, vs. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 5:16-CV-298-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence W. Boyle
entered an order on July 2, 2019:

   1. certifying a plaintiffs' motion to certify class of:

      "all persons who, at any time on or after January 1, 2005
      (the "Class Period"), received reduced interest and/or fee
      benefits from defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. on a credit
      card obligation or account because of an obligor's military
      service, but excluding persons who have executed a release
      of the rights claimed in this action";

   2. appointing Plaintiffs Gary Childress, Russell Ho, and
      Michael Clifford as the class representatives;

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel law firms Shanahan McDougal,
      Smith and Lowney, and Keller Rohrback as class counsel;

   4. directing Plaintiffs to show cause within 14 days of the
      date of entry of the order why the remaining defendants
      should not be dismissed;

   5. directing Plaintiffs to provide to the Court their plan for
      providing the best notice practicable to the Rule 23(b)(3)
      class within 14 days of the date of entry of the order;

   6. denying Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of
      Arthur Olsen;

   7. granting Defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of
      Jonathan Shefftz;

   8. denying without prejudice Defendants' motion to exclude
      damages evidence;

   9. granting Defendants' motion for leave to file a surreply and

      considering the surreply in deciding the motion for  class
      certification;

   10. denying as moot motion for a hearing and granting consent
       motion for leave to file excess pages; and

   11. allowing motion to seal.[CC]

JPMORGAN CHASE: Randy Rosenberg Suit Removed to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action styled as Randy Rosenberg, D.C., P.A. a/a/o
Danielle Russell, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 655788/18 was removed from Supreme Court, County of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
June 21, 2019, and assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05834.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase Bank, is a
national bank headquartered in Manhattan, New York City, that
constitutes the consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the
U.S. multinational banking and financial services holding company,
JPMorgan Chase & Co.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

     Brian A. Herman, Esq.
     Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (New York)
     101 Park Avenue
     New York, NY 10178
     Phone: (212) 309-6000 x6909
     Fax: (212) 309-6273


KEURIG DR PEPPER'S: Faces Class Action Over Tainted Spring Water
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims
that Keurig Dr Pepper's Penafiel Mineral Spring Water "has been
contaminated by toxic levels of arsenic for many years."

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

         https://is.gd/yzprhM


L & H WINE & LIQUOR: Chen Seeks Minimum & Overtime Premium Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against L & H Liquor, Inc.,
Longhua Lin, and Jianhao Ren for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The
case is captioned JINXU CHEN, on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. L & H WINE & LIQUOR, INC
d/b/a L & H Wine and Liquor; LONGHUA LIN a/k/a Long Hua Lin, and
JIANHAO REN a/k/a Jian Hao Ren, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06115
(S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2019).

Plaintiff Jinxu Chen alleges that the Defendants have violated the
FLSA and the NYLL by engaging in pattern and practice failing to
pay its employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour
worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek. Plaintiff Chen also contends that the Defendants have
violated NYLL and New York State Department of Labor regulations
Section 146-1.6 by failing to pay Plaintiff spread-of-hours pay and
by failing to maintain, establish and preserve Plaintiff's weekly
payroll records for a period of not less than six years.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Chen seeks to recover from the Defendant:
unpaid wage and unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and or attorney's fees and
cost.

L & H Wine and Liquor is a domestic business corporation organized
under the laws of the state of New York with a principal address at
2557 Third Avenue, Bronx, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAVE HOTEL INVESTORS: Lopez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mave Hotel Investors
LLC. The case is styled as Victor Lopez, On Behalf of Himself And
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Mave Hotel
Investors LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-05876 (S.D. N.Y., June
21, 2019).

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

Mave Hotel Investors LLC manages hotel operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


MAYNARD GROUP: Sued over Monopoly of Online Traffic Schools
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE DISTANCE LEARNING COMPANY, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, vs. THE MAYNARD GROUP; CHONG FONTES AND
ACREE LLC; STEVEN KIM LOW; NO BRAINER TRAFFIC SCHOOL LLC; TRAFFIC
BIZ; BETHANY SUSAN MAYNARD; DERICK GENE MAYNARD; and DOES 1-100
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-03801-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
June 28, 2019), alleges that the Defendants, owners and operators
of online traffic schools in California, have, and are currently,
engaging in an illegal scheme to monopolize the marketplace for
online traffic schools, and are colluding with one another to drive
lower priced traffic schools out of the marketplace in order to
control the price.  The lawsuit seeks treble damages, injunctive
relief, and attorney's fees and costs resulting from Defendants'
violation of the Sherman Act, The Cartwright Act, and California's
Unfair Competition Law.

The California DMV maintains a list of driving schools, both online
and in hard copy that are distributed in traffic courts. California
State Law requires that online home study traffic school programs
also be included on the list through the DMV authorized program.
The schools that appear on the list need not spend any money on
advertising or other marketing costs, because the state law
requires that the DMV add them to the list of approved traffic
schools.

Specifically, the DMV allows any company to pay the $450
application fee, and set up a new traffic schools. Schools are
required to have a course curriculum, place of business, operator,
instructor, and a bond.

Further, the current DMV statute/regulations have a "loophole" that
is being abused by the Defendants, which prevents the DMV from
enforcing the use of a legitimate business office by the
multi-school owning Defendants. These Defendants are thus able to
register hundreds of school to operate out of the same single
office space, which oftentimes does not even have a sign or
appropriate business operating hours.

As a result, Defendants have together colluded to set up as many
"different" schools as possible, in order to flood the DMV's list
with many schools which are all operated by the same few
owner/operators. These schools, in many cases, have different
names, but utilize the exact same website, place of business,
curriculum, and instructor, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff is the owner of TrafficSchoolOnline.Com, an online
traffic school fully approved by State DMVs, courts, and insurance
companies. The Plaintiff charges $19.95 for its basic course, with
free same day processing, and $5.95 for transmittal of the
completion certificate to the State DMV. The total for the full
program is $25.90. [BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

MCU HOLDINGS: Garcia Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MCU Holdings, LLC.
The case is styled as Jesse Garcia individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCU Holdings, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-03648 (E.D. N.Y., June 21, 2019).

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

MCU Holdings is a consumer debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2599: Court Narrows Claims in Defective Airbag Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned
N RE: TAKATA AIRBAG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO ALL ECONOMIC LOSS TRACK CASES MDL No. 2599, Master File
No. 15-02599-MD-MORENO, Economic Loss No. 14-24009-CV-MORENO. (S.D.
Fla.).

This cause comes before the Court upon Defendant FCA's Motion to
Dismiss, Defendant General Motors's Motion to Dismiss, Defendants
Mercedes's and Volkswagen's Motion to Dismiss and Defendant
Mercedes's Separate Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing.

The Plaintiffs are consumers of the Defendants' vehicles that are
equipped with Takata airbags containing the propellant ammonium
nitrate. The Plaintiffs allege ammonium nitrate is an innately
volatile and unstable propellant that imposes an unreasonable risk
of serious foreseeable harm or death upon drivers of the
Defendants' vehicles. The crux of the Plaintiffs' legal claims is
that the Defendants knew or should have known of these defects
prior to installing the Takata airbags in their vehicles, and that
the Defendants concealed from, or failed to notify, the Plaintiffs
and the general public of the full and complete nature of the
defect, despite being aware of problems arising during the design
and testing process, and through various rupture incidents and
recalls.

STANDING

Mercedes and Volkswagen, and separately General Motors, move to
dismiss in full on standing grounds the Puhalla and Whitaker
Complaints. Mercedes and Volkswagen argue Plaintiffs fail to
sufficiently plead the injury in fact" and fairly traceable
elements of the standing test established by the United States
Supreme Court in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.
555(1992).

INJURY IN FACT

Mercedes and Volkswagen

Mercedes and Volkswagen2 argue that the Plaintiffs have not
established they suffered an injury in fact because the Plaintiffs
only allege possibly future injury, which is not a certainly
impending injury. Mercedes and Volkswagen further argue that
Plaintiffs fail to establish an economic injury in fact because all
Plaintiffs will receive a replacement inflator as soon as parts arc
available, at no cost to them.

a) Manifestation of Defect

Mercedes and Volkswagen assert that there is no injury in fact
because Plaintiffs do not allege that any Takata inflator at issue
in this case ruptured in any vehicle sold by Defendants, and thus,
Plaintiffs have alleged only non-actionable hypothetical harm.

Upon close review of the Puhalla Complaint, the Court finds that
Plaintiffs sufficiently allege an injury in fact. Plaintiffs allege
that all Takata airbags at issue in this litigation share a common,
uniform defect: the use of ammonium nitrate, a notoriously volatile
and unstable compound, as the propellant in Defendants' defectively
designed inflators. Plaintiffs then plead several issues with
Takata airbags that were installed in Mercedes's and Volkswagen's
vehicles, stemming from the use of ammonium nitrate.

As to Volkswagen, the Plaintiffs allege Volkswagen had repeated
quality issues with Takata, including failed airbag modules during
testing and airbag tearing. Plaintiffs then plead that Volkswagen
later reported the torn airbag to Takata and expressed concern over
a flame that occurred during testing, and apparent cushion
ruptures. Plaintiffs also allege incidents of Takata airbag issues
during testing conducted by Volkswagen, such as ammonium-nitrate
inflators [coming] apart during bonfire testing and an inflator
rupture in Brazil during testing.

Notwithstanding the Plaintiffs' allegations that Mercedes and
Volkswagen experienced a series of performance issues with Takata
airbags installed in their vehicles, which were defective because
they contained innately unstable ammonium nitrate, Mercedes and
Volkswagen contend that the Plaintiffs merely allege non-actionable
hypothetical harm because they do not allege that any Takata
inflator at issue in this case ruptured in any vehicle sold by
Defendants.

This argument attempts to relitigate the same manifestation of
defect argument the Court already rejected earlier in this
litigation. Previously, Mazda moved to dismiss certain claims
arguing the plaintiffs did not allege that any other Mazda model,
or any Mazda vehicle for model years 2003-2007 ever manifested the
alleged defect. The Court rejected this argument and explained that
if Takata had installed grenades in its airbags that may or may not
explode on impact, a court would not require an explosion to
demonstrate manifestation of a defect.

Here, the Plaintiffs allege the airbags installed in Mercedes's and
Volksagen's vehicles arc defective because they contain innately
unstable ammonium nitrate, and thus create an unreasonable and
imminent risk of injury to vehicle occupants. Consistent with this
Court's prior rulings in In re Takata and Tershakovec, the Court
finds these allegations sufficiently plead injury in fact.

Economic injury

Mercedes and Volkswagen also argue that Plaintiffs fail to allege
any economic injury in fact. Specifically, Mercedes and Volkswagen
argue Plaintiffs cannot have suffered an economic injury because
the recall notices make clear that Plaintiffs will receive a
replacement inflator as soon as parts arc available, at no cost to
them.

And earlier in this litigation, the Court rejected the very
argument advanced by Mercedes and Volkswagen here, ruling that the
plaintiffs adequately pleaded an economic injury in fact.
Previously, Takata moved to dismiss RICO claims arguing that the
plaintiffs did not allege any specific loss, and that any loss
related to the inflator defect [could] be alleviated if a consumer
availed] himself of a free replacement airbag offered as part of
the recall arrangement.

The Court denied Takata's motion to dismiss on this ground, finding
sufficient the plaintiffs' allegations that they overpaid for
vehicles based on misinformation regarding vehicle safety, they
overpaid for airbags within the vehicles, and the vehicles they
purchased diminished in value after the public learned about the
airbag defect.  

Like their predecessors, the Plaintiffs here assert they suffered
economic injuries and are entitled to damages comprising the value
they overpaid for their vehicles based on misinformation about
vehicle safety, and for the diminution in value of the vehicles
following the negative publicity about vehicle safety.

In short, the Plaintiffs' allegations are identical to those the
Court previously found sufficient. Accordingly, the Court finds
that Plaintiffs sufficiently allege an economic injury in fact as
to Mercedes and Volkswagen.

General Motors

General Motors argues the Plaintiffs have not established they
suffered an injury in fact because they do not (and cannot) allege
a manifest defect. General Motors further argues Plaintiffs cannot
establish an economic injury in fact because the Plaintiffs whose
vehicles did not manifest a defect cannot have cognizable claims
based on allegations that the vehicles have a diminished resale
value.

Manifestation of Defect

Despite acknowledging that the Court previously deferred ruling on
manifest defect arguments until the summary judgment stage, General
Motors maintains that Plaintiffs do not and cannot allege a
manifest defect and thus each and every plaintiff should be
dismissed.

The Plaintiffs allege that General Motors began equipping its
vehicles with Takata's airbags in the early 2000s and that all
Takata airbags at issue in this litigation share a common, uniform
defect: the use of ammonium nitrate, a notoriously volatile and
unstable compound, as the propellant in their defectively designed
inflators. Plaintiffs further allege Takata airbags made for
General Motors's vehicles ruptured during testing on numerous
occasions and that General Motors also experienced at least three
field ruptures, which on one occasion left the driver "completely
blind in one eye. Plaintiffs allege these ruptures, or energetic
disassemblies, involve an explosion of the inflator that causes the
inflator to break apart and fire metal particulate out of the
airbag.

After reviewing the Whitaker Complaint, the Court finds, as it did
with the allegations against Mercedes and Volkswagen that
Plaintiffs sufficiently allege injury in fact with respect to
General Motors.

Economic Injury

General Motors also asserts that Plaintiffs fail to allege any
economic injury in fact. Unlike Mercedes and Volkswagen, General
Motors argues that there is no economic injury in fact because the
plaintiffs whose vehicles did not manifest a defect cannot have
cognizable claims based on allegations that the vehicles have a
diminished resale value.

Here, unlike the alleged risk of future harm in Cahen, the Whitaker
Complaint sets forth numerous allegations of a universal vehicle
defect (i.e. the airbags are inherently dangerous because they
contain innately unstable ammonium nitrate), which are further
supported by numerous alleged instances of General Motors's
vehicles experiencing airbag ruptures during testing and in the
field. Taking these allegations as true, the Court finds Plaintiffs
credibly allege a risk of future harm sufficient to establish
standing. And as explained above regarding Mercedes and Volkswagen,
Plaintiffs' claims for economic damages resulting from the
diminution of value caused by the allegedly defective Takata
airbags installed in their vehicles, constitute an economic injury
in fact for purposes of standing.  

Therefore, General Motors's Motion to Dismiss the WhitakerComplaint
for lack of standing is DENIED.

FAIRLY TRACEABLE

Next, Mercedes and Volkswagen advance several arguments that the
Plaintiffs have not pleaded that their injuries are fairly
traceable to Mercedes's and Volkswagen's actions. Each argument is
addressed in turn.

Volkswagen Sub-Class Claims and Audi Sub-Class Claims

First, Volkswagen argues the Court should dismiss any claims
asserted against Volkswagen by purchasers or lessees of Audi
vehicles, and any claims asserted against Audi by purchasers or
lessees of Volkswagen vehicles, on grounds these Plaintiffs cannot
establish their alleged injuries are fairly traceable to
manufacturers that they did not purchase or lease vehicles from.

In their Opposition, Plaintiffs argue their allegations, that VW
America, Audi AG, and Audi America are 'wholly owned
subsidiar[ies]' of Volkswagen AG and that Volkswagen and Audi
together engineered, designed, developed, manufactured or installed
the Defective Airbags in the Volkswagen- and Audi-branded Class
Vehicles and approved the Defective Airbags for use in those
vehicles are sufficient to confer standing.

In the Eleventh Circuit, it is well-settled that prior to the
certification of a class the district court must determine that at
least one named class representative has Article III standing to
raise each class subclaim. This means each claim must be analyzed
separately, and a claim cannot be asserted on behalf of a class
unless at least one named plaintiff has suffered the injury that
gives rise to that claim.

The Plaintiffs also argue that courts have consistently certified
classes against VW represented by class representatives with an
Audi vehicle and vice versa. But this argument relics exclusively
on non-binding out-of-circuit authority, which is far outweighed by
the consensus of authority in the Eleventh Circuit that a named
plaintiff in a consumer class action cannot raise claims relating
to products that he or she did not purchase. The Court finds no
basis to break away from the weight of authority that has rejected
the sufficient similarity approach.

Finally, because Article III standing must he established on a
claim-by-claim basis, deferring the standing determination to the
class certification stage will yield no different result. Thus, the
Court declines Plaintiffs' invitation to defer on this standing
objection.

For these reasons, Mercedes's and Volkswagen's Motion to Dismiss
the claims brought by the purported Audi sub-classes against
Volkswagen, and the claims brought by the purported Volkswagen
sub-classes against Audi, is GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims
asserted by the Alabama, Michigan, and Virginia sub-classes against
Volkswagen; and all claims asserted by the Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, and Wisconsin sub-classes against Audi, are
DISMISSED.

Remaining Fairly Traceable Arguments

Next, Mercedes and Volkswagen argue all claims should be dismissed
because Plaintiffs have merely pleaded that they have been harmed
by the risk of rupture and that such risk is supported only by
allegations relating solely to incidents in other vehicles
manufactured by other parties.

In support of this argument, Mercedes and Volkswagen ask the Court
to take judicial notice of the Takata Plea Agreement, which they
claim demonstrates that any fraudulent conduct purportedly
experienced by Plaintiffs stemmed from Takata's actions, not
Defendants. Additionally, Mercedes separately moves to dismiss all
claims against them on grounds they are uniquely situated because
Takata sent multiple letters providing specific reassurances" that
the Takata inflators in Mercedes's vehicles were not defective and
thus Plaintiffs cannot plead the fairly traceable element.

The Takata Plea Agreement

Plaintiffs' Fairly Traceable Allegations

Even without the Takata Plea Agreement, Mercedes and Volkswagen
maintain Plaintiffs have not pleaded their injuries are fairly
traceable to Mercedes's and Volkswagen's conduct because the
Plaintiffs merely plead that they have been harmed by the risk of
rupture and that such risk is supported only by allegations
relating solely to incidents in other vehicles manufactured by
other parties.

Reviewing the Puhalla Complaint, the Court finds Plaintiffs
sufficiently allege their injuries are fairly traceable to
Mercedes's and Volkswagen's conduct. Plaintiffs allege that
Mercedes and Volkswagen were intimately involved in the design and
testing of the airbags that contained the Inflator Defect and that
prior to installing the Defective Airbags in their vehicles,
Mercedes and Volkswagen knew or should have known of the Inflator
Defect, because Takata informed them that the Defective Airbags
contained the volatile and unstable ammonium nitrate.

The Plaintiffs further allege Mercedes and Volkswagen concealed
from, or failed to notify, the Plaintiffs, Class members, and the
public of the full and complete nature of the Inflator Defect" even
though Mercedes and Volkswagen were made aware through problems
arising during the design process, testing, ruptures and other
adverse events, public reports of ruptures and adverse events, and
regular recalls starting no later than 2008.

Specific to Mercedes, the Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that
Mercedes: regularly audited and reviewed Takata's manufacturing
processes, including visits to, and checks of, Takata's facilities,
closely reviewed proposed airbag designs from Takata, and employed
extensive design and product validation processes and was aware of
Takata's use of ammonium nitrate, including all technical details
of allegedly phase stabilized ammonium-nitrate inflators, prior to
its approval of the Defective Airbags for use in Mercedes Class
Vehicles.

The Plaintiffs further allege Mercedes had specific concerns'
regarding the performance of the Defective Inflators prior to
approving them for use in the Class Vehicles which included issues
with module cover tearing, cushion tearing, and the module having
integrity during and post-deployment. Plaintiffs also allege the
defective Takata Airbags failed to meet Mercedes's own requirements
for approval and allege several instances of performance issues to
support this claim.  

Finally, Plaintiffs allege that notwithstanding recalls and notices
by other manufacturers, and Mercedes's awareness of the risks
and/or dangers presented by ammonium-nitrate dependent inflators,
Mercedes buried its head in the sand, claiming it did not become
aware of the issues requiring recalls of the Class Vehicles until
2016.  

Specific to Volkswagen, Plaintiffs allege Volkswagen approved the
airbags for use in its vehicles even though it knew not only that
the airbags used ammonium nitrate propellant, but that propellant
degradation could cause a loss of the inflator's structural
integrity.

The Plaintiffs further allege persistent quality problems and
disturbing test results provided further warning to Volkswagen,
including a number of inflators coming apart during testing in
2004, and ruptures during testing in February 2009, which was
punctuated by a rupture in April 2009 that led Volkswagen and
Takata to directly discuss precisely the failure mechanisms and
risks.

The Plaintiffs allege Volkswagen had repeated quality issues with
Takata including: failed airbag modules during testing; reporting a
torn airbag to Takata; experiencing airbag tearing; expressing
concern over a flame that occurred during testing, and apparent
cushion ruptures. Plaintiffs also allege Volkswagen experienced
incidents of ammonium-nitrate inflators coming apart during bonfire
testing conducted by Volkswagen, and an inflator rupture in Brazil
during testing by Volkswagen.

These allegations sufficiently plead that the alleged injuries in
fact (i.e. the risk of physical injury, and actual economic
injuries) are fairly traceable to Mercedes's and Volkswagen's
conduct, because Mercedes and Volkswagen knew or should have known
of the alleged inflator defect. Even when considering the fact
Takata pleaded guilty to providing the Original Equipment
Manufacturers with materially false, fraudulent, and misleading
test information and data relating to the airbag inflators
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged Mercedes and Volkswagen had
independent knowledge of the risks posed by installing Takata
airbags in their vehicles.

Therefore, Mercedes's and Volkswagen's Motion to Dismiss all claims
against them, on grounds that Plaintiffs fail to allege the fairly
traceable element of the Lujan standing test, is DENIED.

The Takata Letters

Finally, Mercedes separately moves to dismiss all claims against
them on grounds they are uniquely situated because Takata sent
multiple letters providing specific reassurances that the Takata
inflators in Mercedes's vehicles were not defective and thus
Plaintiffs cannot plead the fairly traceable element. Mercedes
factually attacks the basis for standing by presenting the Court
with three letters from Takata.

A motion to dismiss for lack of standing is treated as a motion for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1).

Here, the thrust of Mercedes's standing challenge is that they did
not install defective airbags in any of their vehicles, which is
confirmed by Takata's correspondence with them, and thus Mercedes
did not defraud any consumers. In order words, any purported harm
Plaintiffs suffered can be traced only to Takata's fraudulent
conduct and not Mercedes's conduct Mercedes's challenge directly
implicates the merits of the case because it attacks the
Plaintiffs' theory of fraud: that Mercedes was intimately involved
in the design and testing of the airbags and so they knew, and
certainly should have known, that the Takata airbags installed in
millions of vehicles were defective and thus Mercedes is liable for
having concealed their knowledge of the nature and extent of the
defect from the public, while continuing to advertise their
products as safe and reliable.  

Because Mercedes's Separate Motion to Dismiss implicates the merits
of Plaintiffs' case, the Court must treat the motion as a motion
for summary judgment under Rule 56 and refrain from deciding
disputed factual issues. Defendants maintain the three Takata
letters absolve them of liability. Plaintiffs argue these letters
arc clearly not the entire universe of communications between
Takata and Mercedes and maintain that Mercedes is liable for a host
of violations of federal and state law.  In a multidistrict
litigation case spanning several years and entailing voluminous
records, the Court finds it premature to decide factual issues and
dismiss the entire lawsuit against Mercedes on the basis of three
letters containing unsworn hearsay statements, without the benefit
of a fully developed factual record. Once that record is developed,
the Court will entertain the expected motions for summary judgment.
At this stage, however, Mercedes's Separate Motion to Dismiss for
lack of standing based on these Takata letters is denied as
premature.

A full-text copy of the District Court's June 20, 2019 Order is
available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxjx8ybz from Leagle.com.

Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, Plaintiff, represented
by Christopher K. Eppich , Covington & Burling, LLP, pro hac vice.

Ryan K. Stumphauzer, Special Master, pro se.

Daniel S. Silva, James Herron, Leslie Flaherty, Holly Ruth, M&K
Used Auto Parts, Inc., Robert Barto, John Meiser, Charles & Vickie
Burd, Eugennie Sinclair, Quarno's Auto Salvage, Daniel Thies,
Rigsby's Auto Parts & Sales, Inc., Darla Spies, Vickie Burd, Dana
Talamantes, Alicia Benton, Justin S. Birdsall, Loren Petersen, Eric
Rosson, Teresa Woodard, Ella Ragan, Madilyn Fox, Jennifer Manfrin,
Whid Noori, Sinan Kalaba, Charles and Christina Cochran, William
James, David Brown, Mark Schmidt, Joan Overmyer, Brian Calderone,
Charon Berg, Richard McCormick, Richard Wright, Frank Mason, Lucy
Jackson, Matt Dean, Frank Smith, Walter and Vicky Askew, Agaron
Tavitian, Krystal Shelby, Travis Poper, Christopher Kosherzenko,
Carolyn Gamble, Harold Caraviello, Eleanor & Anthony Settembrino,
Mary Anne Pownall, Errol Jacobsen, Mark Dieckman, Hayley Wells,
Gary Guadagno, John Huff, Robert & Angela Dickie, Julean Williams,
Sue Radoff, Juan Lugo, Milton Hanks, Jr., Elizabeth Pelayo, Angie
Alomar, Farrell Moskow, Gerald Ordonio, James Mancuso, Amy Roy,
Andrew King, Rudolph Otto, Jr., Bernard Cyrus, Jr., Brandon Hines,
Nicholas Kinney, Joe Emanus, Sheila Torregano, Victoria Barbarin,
Brad Hays, Tekeisha Washington, Enefiok Anwana, Valescia Starks,
William Reedy, Arthur and Yolanda Glynn, Jr., Kevin Roberts, Ty
Kline, Matthew Long, Ivana Smith, Kristin Petri, Kenisha
Eron-Jones, Arlan Albright, Randall Hall, Regina Tate, Boyd Cantu,
Arthur Hegewald, Subhija Imamovic, Thomas & Carolyn Adkins, Judy
Vice, Dianne Albright, Bernadette Heard, Joseph Przybszewski,
Walter Heinl, Catherine Davenport, Yolanda Dillard, Michael Etter,
Patricia Dumire, Janice LaPlante, Robert Carobene, Jean Zimmerman,
Doreen Kehoe, Vanessa Harris, Keith Marsden, Susan Ginsberg, Cody
Jacobs & George Agustin, Sr., Plaintiffs, represented by Peter
Prieto , Podhurst Orseck, P.A., SunTrust International Center, One
S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300, Miami, Florida 33131

Mary Hasley, Pamela Wilsey, Doreen Dembeck, Helen Klemer & Lisa
Peterson, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian Morrison, Labaton
Sucharow, LLP, 140 Broadway, New York, NY 10005, pro hac vice,
Matthew Weinshall, Podhurst Orseck & Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck,
P.A., SunTrust International Center, One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite
2300, Miami, Florida 33131

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian D. Glueckstein --
gluecksteinb@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice,
Elizabeth A. Rose -- rosee@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
Matthew J. Porpora -- porporam@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP, Nicole Danielle Duga Walsh -- nicole.walsh@hwhlaw.com -- Hill
Ward Henderson, Susan Kathleen Allen -- sallen@staffordlaw.com --
Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, pro hac vice, Terrence C. Thom --
tthom@staffordlaw.com -- Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher Shawn Branton -- chris.branton@hwhlaw.com -- Hill Ward
& Henderson, Douglas Bruce Brown -- dbrown@rumberger.com -,
Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell, Martin Leonard Steinberg --
marty.steinberg@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US, LLP.


MDL 2741: Graves v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD GRAVES and LOIS E. GRAVES, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Tennesse, Case No.
1:19-cv-00107 (Filed April 17, 2019) to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Francisco) on July 3,
2019. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:19-cv-03858-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. Richard
Graves'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 Graves 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:

          Daniel V. Parish, Esq.
          WOLFF ARDIS, P.C.
          5810 Shelby Oaks Drive
          Memphis, TN 38134
          Telephone: (901) 763-3336
          Facsimile: (901) 763-3376
          E-mail: dparish@wolffardis.com

               - and -

          Jason Edward Ochs, Esq.
          OCHS LAW FIRM, PC
          690 US 89, Ste. 206
          PO Box 10944
          Jackson, WY 83001
          Telephone: (307) 739-3959
          Facsimile: (307) 235-6910
          E-mail: Jason@ochslawfirm.com

MDL 2741: Oleyar v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
LORETTA OLEYAR, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Tennesse, Case No. 1:19-cv-00107 (Filed
April 17, 2019) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on July 3, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03859-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 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 Plaintiffs brings this action for personal injuries sustained
by exposure to Roundup (TM), which contains the active ingredient
glyphosate and the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA).
As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, the
Plaintiff developed diffuse Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel V. Parish, Esq.
          WOLFF ARDIS, P.C.
          5810 Shelby Oaks Drive
          Memphis, TN 38134
          Telephone: (901) 763-3336
          Facsimile: (901) 763-3376
          E-mail: dparish@wolffardis.com

               - and -

          Jason Edward Ochs, Esq.
          OCHS LAW FIRM, PC
          690 US 89, Ste. 206
          PO Box 10944
          Jackson, WY 83001
          Telephone: (307) 739-3959
          Facsimile: (307) 235-6910
          E-mail: Jason@ochslawfirm.com

MEDTRONIC PLC: Litig. over Covidien Acquisition Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 21, 2019, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit related to the Covidien plc
acquisition.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien plc.

The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the
Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and
alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to
shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition.

On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also
seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien
acquisition.

In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were
consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction.

On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued an order and opinion
granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case.

In May of 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January of
2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, and
reversed in part.

On April 19, 2016, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the
Company's petition to review the issue of whether most of the
original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative
under Minnesota law.

In August of 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, sending the
matter back to the trial court for further proceedings, which are
ongoing.

Medtronic said, "The Company has not recognized an expense related
to damages in connection with this matter, because any potential
loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S.
GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate
the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters."

Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells
device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians,
clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four
segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies
Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company
was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.


MERCHANTS HOSPITALITY: Olsen Asserts Breach of Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merchants Hospitality, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Merchants Hospitality, Inc. doing
business as: Cachet Boutique NYC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06001
(S.D. N.Y., June 26, 2019).

Merchants Hospitality, Inc. develops, owns, operates, and manages
real estate including restaurants and hotels. The company also
develops offices, retail buildings, and residences. Merchants
Hospitality, Inc. was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in New
York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDLAND CREDIT: Debt Collection Letters Misleading, Wasiak Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA WASIAK, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-22704-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 30, 2019),
alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act in that its
debt collection letter is filled with misleading language and
innuendo that fails to make clear that the statute of limitations
has ended. More critically, the Collection Letter does not inform
the consumer that paying any amount of the Consumer Debt will
service to revive the statute of limitations.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

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

MIDLAND FUNDING: McCoy Class Certification Bid Denied, Case Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, Cheryl McCoy, the Plaintiff, vs.
Midland Funding, LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01035
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman entered an order denying
as moot Plaintiff's class certification motion.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on July 2, 2019,
Defendants' summary judgment motion is granted. The Plaintiff's
summary judgment motion is denied, and Plaintiff's class
certification motion is denied as moot. The status hearing set for
July 9 is stricken and the civil case is closed.

Midland Funding LLC provides debt collection services. The company
was incorporated in 2005 and is based in San Diego, California.
Midland Funding LLC operates as a subsidiary of Midland Portfolio
Services, Inc.[CC]

MIDWEST DIVISION: Marquez Sues Over Minimum, Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
TAMMIE MARQUEZ, NEESHA PEREZ, and JOSIAH CHUMBA, On behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIDWEST
DIVISION MMC, LLC, HEALTHTRUST WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS LLC, HEALTH
MIDWEST MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and HEALTH MIDWEST VENTURES GROUP,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02362-DDC-JPO (D. Kan., July 2,
2019) is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid minimum and/or overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and
others similarly situated; and a class action under common law for
unjust enrichment and quantum meruit to recover unpaid compensation
for all hours worked owed to Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated.

Pursuant to their company-wide policies and procedures, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for all
hours worked and in violation of federal mandated minimum wage
and/or overtime wage, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs performed work directly for Defendants.

Defendants predominantly provide health care services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ryan M. Paulus, Esq.
     Brittany C. Mehl, Esq.
     CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
     8350 N. St. Clair Ave., Ste. 225
     Kansas City, MO 64151
     Telephone: (816) 581-4040
     Facsimile: (816) 741-8889
     Email: r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com
            b.mehl@cornerstonefirm.com


MT HAWLEY INSURANCE: Church Creek Files Suit in South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mt Hawley Insurance
Company. The case is styled as Church Creek Construction LLC, Kevin
Molony, Larry Elsey, Assignor Plaintiff, Mepkin Place Homeowners
Association LLC, Lavonia Mitchell Assignee Plaintiff, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Andrew Blalock,
Kelly Blalock, Ben Yaschik, Martin Yaschik, S Emory Bull Hiott,
Norma F Callen, Farzan Soodavar, Farzan Soodavar, Robert P Ledford,
Jr, Christopher Mims, Patrick J Mallard, Eric Crotts, Mary Gray,
Nicholas Hargreaves, Jane F Mitchell, Joshua Sears, Julius
McMillan, Linda McMillan, Stephanie Slan, Assignee Plaintiffs, v.
Mt Hawley Insurance Company, Insurance Office of America Inc., Wood
Special Risk Brokers LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01877-DCN
(D. S.C., July 1, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.

Mt. Hawley Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of RLI
Insurance Company, Inc. RLI Corp. is an American property and
casualty insurance company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas Bacot Pritchard, Esq.
     Parker Nelson and Associates
     211 King Street, Suite 107
     Charleston, SC 29401
     Phone: (843) 727-2500
     Fax: (843) 727-2599
     Email: tpritchard@pnalaw.net

          - and -

     Daniel Scott Slotchiver, Esq.
     Slotchiver and Slotchiver LLP
     751 Johnnie Dodds Boulevard, Suite 100
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
     Phone: (843) 577-6531
     Fax: (843) 577-0261
     Email: dan@slotchiverlaw.com

          - and -

     Gedney M Howe, III, Esq.
     PO Box 1034
     Charleston, SC 29402
     Phone: (843) 722-8048
     Fax: (843) 722-2140
     Email: ghowe@gedneyhowe.com

          - and -

     Ivon Keith McCarty, Esq.
     McCarty Law Firm
     1212 Wappoo Road
     Charleston, SC 29407
     Phone: (843) 793-1272
     Email: ikeithmccarty@gmail.com

          - and -

     John C Hayes, IV, Esq.
     Hayes Law Firm
     180 Meeting Street
     Charleston, SC 29401
     Phone: (843) 805-7003
     Email: jhayes@hayeslaw.org


NEW MEXICO: To Limit Child Care Eligibility Following Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that New Mexico's child welfare
department is proposing to limit income eligibility for child care
assistance, saying the agency didn't get the legislative funding
needed to keep a higher limit in place. A public hearing on the
Children, Youth and Families Department's proposed regulation to
place the cap at 160% of the federal poverty line or about $41,200
for a family of four is set for this month in Santa Fe.It comes
after the agency agreed to a significantly higher income cap of
200% of the poverty level following a class-action settlement.
Parents last year sued the agency, accusing it under former
Republican Gov. Susana Martinez of denying aid to families without
providing proper notice or establishing proper policy for lowering
income requirements for aid. [GN]


NEW YORK, NY: Fails to Pay Overtime to MVOs, Gilmore Says
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against the City of New
York for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act in
connection with its unlawful deprivation of the right to overtime
compensation pay. The case is captioned DWAYNE GILMORE, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06091 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2019).
Plaintiff Dwayne Gilmore has been employed by the New York City
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as a motor vehicle
operator (MVO). While working as an MVO, the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated routinely work over 40 hours a week.
However, the City of New York fails to compensate Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated for all hours worked over 40 in a
workweek at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay. Specifically, the City fails to compensate Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated for hours worked before the start of
their scheduled shifts, after the end of their scheduled shifts,
and during their 30-minute unpaid meal periods.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the
environmental protection and regulatory agency that manages the
city's combined sewer system. The agency also carries out federal
Clean Water Act rules and regulations, handles hazardous materials
emergencies and toxic site remediation, oversees asbestos
monitoring and removal, enforces the city's air and noise codes,
bills and collects on city water and sewer accounts, and manages
citywide water conservation programs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
     Sara Faulman, Esq.
     McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
     1101 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20005
     Telephone: (202) 833-8855
     E-mail: slf@mselaborlaw.com

             - and -

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


NEW YORK: 2nd Circuit Appeal v. Milord Initiated in Gulino Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
issued on April 25, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 14, 2019, the
Board of Education filed several appeals from the District Court's
ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1506, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Marceau Milord is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEW YORK: Board of Educ. Appeals Decision v. Brown in Gulino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed an appeal from the District Court's judgment
issued on April 25, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 14, 2019, the
Board of Education filed several appeals from the District Court's
ruling against several Plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs originally filed a class action complaint on
November 8, 1996, alleging that the LAST-1 exam violated Title VII.
The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, alleged that the Defendant,
the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of
New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring the Plaintiffs to pass
certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to
obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools.

The appellate case is captioned as Gulino, et al. v. Board of
Education, et al., Case No. 19-1522, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Dachka Brown is represented by:

          Joshua S. Sohn, Esq.
          STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
          180 Maiden Lane
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 806-1245
          E-mail: jsohn@stroock.com

Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the New York City School
District of the City of New York is represented by:

          Zachary W. Carter, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 356-1000
          E-mail: zcarter@law.nyc.gov


NEWBOLD SERVICES: Williams Files FLSA Suit in M.D. Tennessee
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newbold Services,
LLC. The case is styled as Craig Williams Individually, and on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated,  Plaintiff v.
Newbold Services, LLC a South Carolina Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00522 (M.D. Tenn., June 24, 2019).

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

Newbold Services is a facilities management company based in
Greenville SC. They offer janitorial services to businesses,
hospitals, warehouses and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
     J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
     Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq.
     Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
     Jackson, Shields, Yeiser & Holt (Memphis)
     262 German Oak Drive
     Memphis, TN 38018
     Phone: (901) 754-8001
     Fax: (901) 759-1745
     Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
            rbryant@jsyc.com
            nbishop@jsyc.com
            rturner@jsyc.com


NORMAN BARWIN: Subject of Disciplinary Hearing Amid Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Payne, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that the
conduct of former Ottawa fertility doctor Norman Barwin will be the
focus of four days of hearings by the disciplinary committee of the
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The College has come under fire from former patients and others for
failing to take more serious action against the disgraced fertility
doctor when complaints were made about his practice beginning
decades ago.

Barwin is accused of medical incompetence for failing to ensure the
correct sperm was used in his artificial insemination practice and
for using his own sperm to inseminate patients.

Barwin, who was awarded an Order of Canada (since revoked) for his
work in women's health and the LGBTQ community, is also the subject
of a class-action lawsuit involving dozens of former patients and
their families. The lawsuit contends he is the biological father of
at least 11 children of his former patients.

The lawsuit has yet to be confirmed in court, but numerous
half-siblings have confirmed through genetic testing that Barwin,
who was their parents' fertility doctor, is their biological
father. Others do not know who their biological fathers are because
of mix-ups at the clinic.

The hearing, from June 24 to 27 in Toronto, is the result of the
College's third investigation into Barwin's practice.

In about 1994, after receiving a complaint about an error at
Barwin's clinic, Barwin was notified and said he took steps to
ensure such errors did not happen again.

Other sperm mix-ups at Barwin's clinic came to the attention of the
College, but it was "unable to identify any evident errors in the
conduct of the artificial inseminations or in Dr. Barwin's office
policies and procedures," according to College disciplinary records
from a 2013 disciplinary hearing. He acknowledged his errors
resulted in his failure "to provide his patients with offspring
from their intended biological fathers."

As a result of the 2013 investigation, involving three incidents
between 1985 and 2007, Barwin's licence was suspended by the
College for two months. He was also reprimanded and fined $3,650.
Barwin voluntarily resigned his membership in 2014.

During the 2013 disciplinary hearing, chairman Dr. William King
told Barwin his errors condemned his former patients to "social and
psychological pain and their offspring to ignorance of their
genetic carriage. "It is hard to imagine a more fundamental error
in the practice of your former specialty, than the failure to
impregnate the right woman with the right sperm," King said.

One former patient among those involved in the class action suit
against Barwin told this newspaper that the college's actions were
"too little, too late" and that his licence should have been
revoked earlier.

In a written notice of the hearing, the College says it intends to
enter medical records and hospital charts among other evidence.

Dr. Nancy Whitmore, registrar and CEO of the College of Physicians
and Surgeons of Ontario, said the College had an obligation to
investigate when it was "made aware of allegations that a physician
has breached the public trust.

"If the allegations are confirmed, it is our responsibility to
apply measures that are consistent with the specific issue. In the
most significant cases, the physician is not only removed from
practice in Ontario, but the CPSO also takes steps to ensure that
other jurisdictions are aware of the disciplinary findings and
associated sanctions."

The actions of the disciplinary arm of the College, which regulates
physicians in Ontario, are limited to revoking a licence, censure
and ordering a physician to pay hearing costs if the allegations
are confirmed.

The actions would have limited impact on Barwin since he has
already resigned from the College. The College could go further and
negotiate an agreement that he never again apply for a license.

However, the hearing, at a time when Barwin is again in the
spotlight because of the class-action lawsuit and some family
members are speaking publicly, could make a statement.

Paul Harte, a Toronto lawyer who has been a critic of the College,
told this newspaper that he also believed Barwin's membership
should have been revoked earlier.

Still, Harte said, there would be deterrence value in revoking
Barwin's licence after the fact to send a message that such
behaviour would not be tolerated. [GN]


NOTTE & KREYLING: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in Wiley Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Tiffany Wiley filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Tiffany Wiley v. Notte & Kreyling, P.C., et al.,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02098-SCJ, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect debt.

The appellate case is captioned as Tiffany Wiley v. Notte &
Kreyling, P.C., et al., Case No. 19-12228, 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 July 22, 2019;

   -- The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of
      the appellant's brief; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before July 8, 2019, as to Appellee Notte & Kreyling,
      P.C.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant TIFFANY WILEY, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jonathan Braxton Mason, Esq.
          MASON LAW GROUP, LLC
          1100 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 920-8040
          Facsimile: (404) 920-8039
          E-mail: jmason@atlshowbizlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee NOTTE & KREYLING, P.C., is represented by:

          Viraj Prashant Deshmukh, Esq.
          ALDRIDGE PITE, LLP
          3575 Piedmont Rd., Suite 500
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 998-7482
          E-mail: vdeshmukh@aldridgepite.com

               - and -

          Bret T. Thrasher, Esq.
          THOMPSON O'BRIEN KEMP & NASUTI, PC
          40 Technology Pkwy. S, Suite 300
          Norcross, GA 30092
          Telephone: (770) 925-0111
          E-mail: bthrasher@tokn.com


OCWEN LOAN: Homeowners Sue Over Drive-By Inspection Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class action accuses Ocwen
Loan Servicing of charging homeowners for drive-by "inspections,"
even when there was no report to show that an inspection occurred,
in Palm Beach County Court.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

         https://is.gd/Ay3yXa


ORTHO ORGANIZERS: Lawrence T. Ryan Sues Over Unsolicited Faxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE T. RYAN, D.D.S., P.C., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ORTHO ORGANIZERS, INC.
d/b/a Henry Schein Orthodontics, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-11981-PDB-SDD (E.D. Mich., July 2, 2019) is an action
against Defendant on behalf of a class of all persons or entities
that Defendant sent one or more telephone facsimile messages
("faxes") promoting its property, goods, or services, seeking
statutory damages for each violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), trebling of the statutory damages if the
Court determines Defendant's violations were knowing or willful,
injunctive relief, compensation and attorney fees (under the
conversion count), and all other relief the Court deems appropriate
under the circumstances.

The Defendant sent advertisements by facsimile in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the regulations the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC") has prescribed thereunder
(collectively, the "TCPA"). The Defendant sent Plaintiff at least
two advertisements by facsimile and in violation of the TCPA.
Exhibit A. Plaintiff did not grant Defendant prior express
invitation or permission to send any advertisement to Plaintiff by
facsimile. Moreover, Defendant's faxes do not contain an opt-out
notice, making any "established business relationship" irrelevant
in this case. The Defendant's unsolicited faxes damaged Plaintiff
and the other class members. Unsolicited faxes tie up the telephone
lines, prevent fax machines from receiving authorized faxes,
prevent their use for authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear
and tear on the recipients' fax machines, and require additional
labor to attempt to discern the source and purpose of the
unsolicited message, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a medical provider of dental healthcare services.

Defendant is a for-profit provider of orthodontic and related
healthcare services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
     David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
     Mara A. Baltabols, Esq.
     Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC
     134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 658-5500
     Email: service@classlawyers.com


PEPSICO INDIA: Farmers May Seek Compensation in Potato Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe C Mathew, writing for Business Today, reports that PepsiCo
India, a subsidiary of the $64 billion snack food and drinks major
PepsiCo Inc., USA, announced a decision to withdraw all the cases
it had filed against some farmers of Gujarat for unauthorised use
of a potato variety developed by the company.

Four days later, the company withdrew the first case -- against two
of the 11 farmers it had sued -- as it came up for hearing in a
local court in Deesa, Gujarat. On May 10, PepsiCo obtained early
hearing in its cases against four others in the Commercial Court of
Ahmedabad and five in the District Court of Modasa and withdrew
those legal suits too.

Given the severe criticism PepsiCo had to face from civil society
groups, farmers' organisations and political parties of all hues,
which in the first place compelled the company to review its legal
position, the company decision was on predicable lines.

PepsiCo India says it was compelled to take the litigation route to
protect its registered variety of potato called FL-2027 or FC-5 to
safeguard the larger interests of hundreds of farmers associated
with the company through a collaborative potato farming programme.
The company had authorised these farmers to cultivate the potato
seed variety it supplied to them, and to harvest and re-sow it, on
the condition that the produce is sold to the company, which uses
it as the key raw material for its potato chips, Lays. The company
took the litigation route after it found that 11 farmers -- who
were not part of its collaborative farming initiative -- were also
cultivating and selling the FC-5 variety potatoes in the open
market. The company says this is a violation of its intellectual
property rights (IPRs) as it took years of research to develop this
variety (see Journey of the Seed) for which it enjoys a
registration under the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers
Rights Act (PPV & FR) Act 2001.

The fact that two of the farmers (the cases against them have been
withdrawn now) had direct business and investment interests in cold
storages and food processing units, including a local potato chip
manufacturing company, indicates that the company, in addition to
the loss of market exclusivity to its registered seed, also feared
loss of business to competition. The potato chips segment, where
PepsiCo's Lays is the leading brand, is a significant component of
the Rs 27,000 crore (annual sales) potato snacks market in India.
Haldiram and ITC are other major organised players in the segment.

Ram Kaundinya, Director General of the Federation of Seed Industry
of India (FSII), considers this (litigation) to be "a trendsetter,
because nobody has done it so far. The practice of (dishonoring
contract farming agreements) is rampant in India. So this might
actually set a good legal interpretation."

"Farmers are not allowed to sell branded seed. In that context and
in the context of contractual cultivation, now the courts will
interpret the law, which will be interesting to see," adds
Kaundinya.

The public outcry that followed the litigation, which sought a
penalty of Rs 1.05 crore on some of these farmers, was something
which PepsiCo could not manage, and hence the 'unconditional'
withdrawal of the cases. The official explanation given by PepsiCo
is that it is withdrawing from the cases on the basis of "its
discussions with the Gujarat government to find a long-term and an
amicable solution of issues around its seed protection".

Not the End

Meanwhile, the mystery surrounding this agreement (PepsiCo has
declined to reveal the details) with the Gujarat government may
trigger a second round of fighting between PepsiCo and farmers.
Instead of the company suing the farmers, it may be the other way
round this time.

"This development (on May 10th) in no way means that the public
campaign is over. While the defendant farmers at least have the
profit-hungry MNC off their back in court, the battle is only half
won on the field. The government of India had maintained an ominous
silence on the legal situation in the country on farmers' seed
freedoms, taking cover of the matter being sub judice. Now it must
make it amply clear that such litigation is not acceptable", the
civil society groups who were supporting the farmers' cause said in
a statement.

"PepsiCo has withdrawn the suits on the basis of what has
transpired behind the curtain between PepsiCo and the State of
Gujarat in the context of ongoing parliamentary elections as is
reflected in its withdrawal application. Therefore, this withdrawal
is not unconditional but appears to be motivated and malicious.
Farmers of Gujarat, I say as a lawyer, must not feel protected and
above any further pernicious prosecution and litigation. Unless the
government of Gujarat makes it clear in writing what transpired
between them and PepsiCo and gives an assurance that it shall not
allow multinational companies to litigate against its own farmers,
the future may not be very bright for the farmers," Anand Yagnik,
the legal counsel for the farmers, told BT.

These cases have also put the spotlight on the law itself. "They
raise matters of immense significance not just for the sued potato
farmers in Gujarat but for the seed freedoms of all Indian farmers.
There was a clear legislative intent behind the creation of the PPV
& FR Act 2001. Many farmers' groups, civil society organisations,
intellectual property experts, public interest lawyers, agriculture
scientists, plant breeders and even seed industry representatives
were involved in the shaping of the statute in India. Our lawmakers
reiterated the need to protect farmers' rights as cultivators (of
both crop and seed), using seed from even varieties protected by
IPR. This legislative intent is very important to note in any
interpretation of farmers' legally guaranteed rights in this," says
Shalini Bhutani, a Delhi-based legal expert.

It is known that a loose coalition of farmers groups, civil society
activists and legal experts will meet the 11 farmers from three
districts of Gujarat to chart out their next course of action in
the coming weeks.

"First of all we need to understand the farmers who are affected
and are likely to be affected. Once they express their concerns,
they can be articulated. We will announce our action plan only
after the interaction. The farmers will decide what they want to do
with the help of lawyers and activists," says Yagnik.

According to him, a class action suit against PepsiCo in the US can
be contemplated. Indian farmers can seek compensation for the
trouble PepsiCo has caused to them. "The farmers can file a Public
Interest Litigation in India. Possibility of personal litigations
is also there. We may also think of seeking an interpretation of
Section 39 (this specific section of the PPV & FR Act provides
entitlement to farmers of India to cultivate any variety that they
would like to, including PVP-registered varieties), says Yagnik.

PepsiCo can only hope that the farmers will choose not to
retaliate. [GN]


PORTAGE WORLD-WIDE: Crosson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portage World-Wide,
Inc. The case is styled as Aretha Crosson Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Portage World-Wide, Inc. doing business as: Manhattan Portage,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03818 (E.D. N.Y., July 1, 2019).

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

Manhattan Portage offers original messenger bags, shoulder bags,
laptop bags, backpacks, mini bags, ipad cases, ipad sleeves from
New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


PURDY'S FARM: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purdy's Farm, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz And On Behalf of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Purdy's Farm, LLC,
Purdy's Farm, LLC, Gramercy Farmer & The Fish, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-05915 (S.D. N.Y., June 24, 2019).

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

Purdy's Farm is located next to their restaurant Purdy's Farmer &
The Fish in North Salem and supplies all of their restaurants
produce. They aim to grow and serve the freshest, most nutrient
packed, and sustainable food around.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
     150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Phone: (212) 228-9795
     Fax: (212) 982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com


PURPLE SUSHI: Lu Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purple Sushi, Inc.
The case is styled as Qiang Lu on their own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Yongbing Qu on their own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, ADR provider, v.
Purple Sushi, Inc. doing business as: Matsu Sushi, Yami Yami, Inc.
doing business as: Matsu Sushi, Jianfu Zhuo also known as: Jian Fu
Zhuo, Mingjie Wang also known as: Ming Jie Wang, Xing Chen, Zen An
Li also known as: Zenan Li, Pei Guan Zuo also known as: Peiguan
Zuo, John Doe also known as: Abule Doe, Defendants,  Case No.
1:19-cv-05828 (S.D. N.Y., June 21, 2019).

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

Purple Sushi, Inc. doing business as: Matsu Sushi restaurant has
been offering creatively and traditionally prepared sushi in New
York City since 2004.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PVH CORPORATION: Tripicchio Sues over Phantom Discounts
-------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT TRIPCCHIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PVH CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06147-JGK (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2019), seeks injunctive,
declaratory, monetary and statutory relief for himself and the
proposed classes to end a reference price tag policy under the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The case is class action brought on behalf of a proposed class New
Jersey citizens who purchased purportedly-discounted consumer good
from Defendant's physical Tommy Hilfiger Company Stores in New
Jersey, and who were victims of the Defendant's unlawful uniform
advertising, marketing, and sales practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has a uniform policy of
assigning and displaying a "reference" price on the price tag of
every item offered for sale in its Stores in New Jersey. This
tagged "reference" price is not the actual selling price of the
item. Indeed very few -- if any -- items in Defendant's Stores are
ever sold or offered for sale at the reference prices displayed on
their price tags, the lawsuit says.

PVH Corp., formerly known as the Phillips-Van Heusen Corporation,
is an American clothing company which owns brands such as Van
Heusen, Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, IZOD, Arrow, Warner's, Olga,
True & Co., and Geoffrey Beene.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
          315 Madison Avenue, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 979 3642
          E-mail: rschmierer@denittislaw.com

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Chuha Files PI Suit in W.D. Pa.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
INCORPORATED. The case is styled as CHERYL CHUHA individually and
on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA
HOLDINGS, OPTUM360, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00742-CB
(W.D. Pa., June 21, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated is an American clinical laboratory
founded in 1967 as Metropolitan Pathology Laboratory, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     Carlson Lynch, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com



RENZAN CORP: Jiang Files FLSA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Renzan Corp. The case
is styled as Wen Jiang on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Renzan Corp. doing business as: Tenzan
Japanese Cuisine, Wei Xing Lin, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv 06141
(S.D. N.Y., July 1, 2019).

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

Renzan Corp. doing business as: Tenzan Japanese Cuisine is a
neighborhood Japanese restaurant offers sushi, sashimi &
traditional cooked fare for lunch & dinner.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     Troy Law, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Blvd. Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324
     Fax: (718) 762-1342
     Email: johntroy@troypllc.com


SAVE MART: Stores Fail to Provide Equal Access to Disabled
----------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, Defendant, Case No.
RG19025488 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., July 2, 2019) is a class
action complaint on behalf of Plaintiff and a Class of mobility
impaired/wheelchair-bound persons, alleging that Defendant is in
violation of the anti-discrimination state statutes of California,
the Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act"), and the California
Disabled Persons Act ("CDPA").

Both the CDPA, which was enacted in 1968, and the Unruh Act, which
was amended in 1987 to cover persons with disabilities, prohibit
discrimination on the basis of disability and require full and
equal access to services, facilities and advantages of public
accommodations. Despite an extended period of time in which to
become compliant and despite the extensive publicity the COPA and
Unruh Act have received over the years, Defendant continues to
discriminate against people who are disabled, in ways that block
them from equal access to, and use of their supermarkets, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California, is domiciled in
Fairfield, CA, and qualifies as an individual with disabilities.
Plaintiff requires a wheelchair to move about.

Defendant operates at least 20 supermarkets in California.
Defendant's supermarkets that are located in the State of
California are required to comply with California state law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: (877) 534-2590
     Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
     Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com


SIGNAL HILL: Wall, et al. Seek Overtime Pay for Auditors
--------------------------------------------------------
BRENT WALL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plantiff, vs.SIGNAL HILL TELECOM SERVICES U.S., INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00465-BSM (E.D. Ark., July 1,
2019), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable
attorney's fees, as a result of Defendant's commonly applied policy
and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant determined the hours
worked by Plaintiff, the manner in which he performed his job
duties, and the manner in which other auditors performed their
jobs. The Defendant has control over its employees, including power
to supervise, hire and fire, establish wages and wage policies, and
set schedules for its employees. the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed violations of the FLSA

The Plaintiff and other auditors received the same day rate
regardless of the number of hours they worked in a day or work
week. The Defendant did not permit Plaintiff or other employees in
the position of technician, trainer, or auditor to hire or fire
employees, to use managerial discretion, to control their workflow,
or to control their own schedules.

The Plaintiff and other auditors were required to work over 40
hours per.  The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff or other auditors
an overtime premium for week hours that they worked over 40 hours
per week, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant provides telecom and auditing services to individuals
and companies, both in person and online.[BN]

Attorneys for Brent Wall, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are:

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

SIMPLE LABORATORIES: Tran Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LONG TRAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SIMPLE LABORATORIES, LLC Defendant, Case No.
2019CH07937 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., July 2, 2019) is a class
action complaint against Defendant for its violation of the
Illinois Biometric Privacy Act ("BIPA").

Recognizing the need to protect citizens from these risks, Illinois
enacted the BIPA to regulate companies that collect and store
biometric information, such as fingerprints. Despite this law,
Simple Laboratories disregarded its employees' privacy rights,
unlawfully collecting, storing, and/or using their biometric data
in violation of the BIPA. Specifically, Simple Laboratories
violated the BIPA by failing to: Inform its employees in writing
that it was storing their fingerprint information; inform its
employees in writing of the specific purposes and length of time
for which it was collecting, storing, and using their fingerprints;
provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for
permanently destroying its employees' fingerprints; or obtain
written releases from its employees allowing it to collect,
capture, or otherwise obtain their fingerprints, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Simple as an information technology staff
beginning August 21, 2018.

Simple Laboratories is a limited liability company headquartered in
Chicago that sells blood test services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
     Michael Hilicki, Esq.
     Keogh Law, Ltd.
     55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: 312-726-1092
     Fax: 312-726-1093
     Email: keith@keoghlaw.com
            mhilicki@keoghlaw.com


SKORPIOS MIAMI: Valladares Seeks OT, Minimum Pay for Food Runners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Skorpios Miami,
LLC, and Sami Kohen for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The case is captioned FRITZ VALLADARES, and other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. SKORPIOS MIAMI, LLC,
a Florida Limited Liability Company, and SAMI KOHEN, individually
Defendants, Case No. 91856295 (Fla. 11th Jud. Cir., Miami-Dade
Cty., June 28, 2019). Plaintiff Fritz Valladares performed work for
Defendants from on or about March 16, 2018 through on or about
September 2018 as a food runner. However, during the course of his
employment, Plaintiff Valladares was not paid for the last four
weeks of work, which includes wages and tips owed to him.
Accordingly, Plaintiff Valladares seeks to recover from Defendants
unpaid overtime and minimum wage compensation, as well as an
additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorney's fees.

Skorpios Miami, LLC is a Florida limited liability company located
in Miami-Dade County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter M. Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
     Nathaly Saavedra, Esq.
     Erin L. Haney, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Telephone: (305) 416-5000
     Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
     E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com
             ns@rgpattorneys.com
             eh@rgpattorneys.com


SLG 315 WEST: Bunting Files Class Suit Under ADA in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
SLG 315 West LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Rasheta
Bunting, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. SLG 315 West LLC doing
business as: The Olivia, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03712 (E.D.
N.Y., June 26, 2019).

The Olivia at 315 West 33rd Street is a mixed-use, residential and
commercial office skyscraper in Midtown, Manhattan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Dan Shaked, Esq.
   Shaked Law Group, P.C.
   14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
   Scarsdale, NY 10583
   Tel: (917) 373-9128
   Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com



SPARK ENERGY: Harty Files Fraud Class Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spark Energy, LLC.
The case is styled as Michael Harty individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Spark Energy, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-14114 (D. N.J., June 21, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Spark Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent retail energy services company in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard R Gordon, Esq.
     Robert Carl Thomas, Esq.
     Gordon Law Offices, Ltd.
     111 W. Washington Ave, Suite 1240
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 332-5200

The Defendant is represented by

     Ezra D. Church, Esq.
     Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Llp
     1701 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 963-5000

          - and -

     Michelle D. Pector, Esq.
     Veronica Jean Lew, Esq.
     Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
     1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 890-5455

          - and -

     Tinos Diamantatos, Esq.
     Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
     77 West Wacker Drive, 5th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312) 324-1145


ST. LOUIS, MO: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in Dixon Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Rex Burlison, Elizabeth B. Hogan, David Roither and
Thomas McCarthy filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit
titled David Dixon, et al. v. City of St. Louis, et al., Case No.
4:19-cv-00112-AGF, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of this class:

     all arrestees who are or will be detained in the Medium
     Security Institution (referred to as "the Workhouse") or the
     City Justice Center ("CJC"), operated by the City of St.
     Louis, post-arrest because they are unable to afford to pay
     a monetary release condition.

The appellate case is captioned as David Dixon, et al. v. City of
St. Louis, et al., Case No. 19-2254, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before July 29, 2019;

   -- Appendix is due on August 8, 2019;

   -- Brief of Appellants City of St. Louis, Dale Glass, Rex
      Burlison, Elizabeth B. Hogan, Thomas McCarthy and David
      Roither is due on August 8, 2019;

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

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees David Dixon, Jeffrey Rozelle, Jr., Aaron
Thurman and Richard Robards, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Simi Atri, Esq.
          Blake A. Strode, Esq.
          Michael-John Voss, Esq.
          John McCann Waldron, Esq.
          Thomas B. Harvey, Esq.
          Jacqueline Marie Kutnik-Bauder, Esq.
          Jacki Janelle Langum, Esq.
          ARCH CITY DEFENDERS, INC.
          440 N. Fourth Street, Suite 390
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 361-8834
          E-mail: satri@archcitydefenders.org
                  bstrode@archcitydefenders.org
                  mjvoss@archcitydefenders.org
                  jwaldron@archcitydefenders.org
                  tharvey@archcitydefenders.org
                  jkutnikbauder@archcitydefenders.org
                  jlangum@archcitydefenders.org

               - and -
         
          Robert D. Friedman, Esq.
          Mary McCord, Esq.
          Seth T. Wayne, Esq.
          INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY & PROTECTION
          Georgetown University Law Center
          600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-9042
          E-mail: rdf34@georgetown.edu
                  sw1098@georgetown.edu

               - and -

          Alexander G. Karakatsanis, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          916 G Street, N.W., Suite 701
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 681-2409
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org

Defendants-Appellants Rex Burlison, in his official capacity as
interim Presiding Judge; Elizabeth B. Hogan, Judge, in her official
capacity as Division 16 Judge and Duty Judge; David Roither, Judge,
in his official capacity as Division 25 Judge and Duty Judge; and
Thomas McCarthy, Judge, in his official capacity as Division 26
Judge, are represented by:

          Thomas Christian Albus, Esq.
          Michael Pritchett, Esq.
          Dean John Sauer, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          207 W. High Street
          P.O. Box 899
          Jefferson City, MO 65102-0000
          Telephone: (573) 751-3321
          E-mail: tom.albus@usdoj.gov
                  michael.pritchett@ago.mo.gov
                  john.sauer@ago.mo.gov

               - and -

          Robert J. Isaacson, Esq.
          Peter T. Reed, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          Old Post Office Building
          P.O. Box 861
          Saint Louis, MO 63188
          Telephone: (314) 340-7861
          E-mail: robert.isaacson@ago.mo.gov
                  Peter.Reed@ago.mo.gov


ST. PAUL ELDER SERVICES: Eckstein Seeks OT Premium Pay
------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against St. Paul Elder
Services, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. The
case is captioned, ALICIA ECKSTEIN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ST. PAUL ELDER SERVICES,
INC. 316 East 14th Street Kaukauna, Wisconsin 54130, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00945-WCG (E.D. Wis., June 28, 2019). Plaintiff
Alicia Eckstein alleges that St. Paul Elder Services, Inc. has
implemented an unlawful compensation system that deprived current
and former hourly-paid, non-exempt 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. Specifically, St. Paul Elder Services' unlawful
compensation system failed to include all forms of
non-discretionary compensation, such as monetary bonuses,
commissions, shift differentials, incentives, awards, and/or other
rewards and payments, in all current and former hourly-paid,
non-exempt employees' regular rates of pay for overtime calculation
purposes.

St. Paul Elder Services, Inc. is a Wisconsin entity with a
principal address of 316 East 14th Street, Kaukauna, Wisconsin
54130. The company owns, operates, and manages senior living
communities. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
     WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
     15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
     Brookfield, WI 53005
     Telephone: (262) 780-1953
     Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
     E-mail: sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com

STEARNS LENDING: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Solarski Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lori Solarski filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Lori Solarski, et al. v. Stearns Lending, LLC,
Case No. 8:17-cv-01741-JVS-KES, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of a Class of:

      "all persons who had an FHA-Insured Loan secured by real
      property 28 in California that was originated between
      June 1, 1996 and January 20, 2015, where (i) Stearns was
      the mortgagee as of the date the total amount due on the
      FHA-Insured Loan was brought to zero, (ii) Stearns
      collected Post-Payment Interest on the FHA-Insured Loan
      during the applicable Limitations Period, and (iii) the
      borrower made a prepayment inquiry, request for payoff
      figures, or tender of prepayment but did not receive a
      Payoff Statement containing the verbatim Post-Payment
      Interest disclosure language in Housing Handbook, 4330.1
      REV-5 Appendix 8(c) or the verbatim language contained in
      the "Payoff Disclosure" referenced in the Housing Handbook
      7 4000.1."

      Excluded from the Class are Stearns, all officers,
      directors, and employees of Stearns, and their legal
      representatives, heirs, or assigns, and any Judges to whom
      the Action is assigned, their staffs, and their immediate
      families.;

The appellate case is captioned as Lori Solarski, et al. v. Stearns
Lending, LLC, Case No. 19-55741, 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 26, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on August 26, 2019;

   -- Appellant Lori Solarski's opening brief is due on
      October 4, 2019;

   -- Appellee Stearns Lending, LLC's answering brief is due on
      November 4, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant LORI SOLARSKI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 3400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-0130
          E-mail: gdanas@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Michael Ram, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          2440 West El Camino Real, Suite 100
          Mountain View, CA 94040
          Telephone: 650 784-4006
          E-mail: mram@robinskaplan.com

Defendant-Appellee STEARNS LENDING, LLC, is represented by:

          David S. Reidy, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 844-1969
          E-mail: dreidy@mcguirewoods.com


SWEETGREEN, INC: Glover Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIE GLOVER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SWEETGREEN, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 156443/2019 (N.Y. Sup., June 28, 2019), seeks to recover
damages and other legal and equitable relief against Defendant for
violations of the New York State Labor Law, the New York Code of
Rules and Regulations, and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act

The Defendant operates a fast food establishment.  The Plaintiff
was employed by Defendant in New York County as a fast food
employee from approximately January 29, 2019 through June 5, 2019.
The Plaintiff was throughout his entire employment with Defendant,
a covered, non-exempt employee within the meaning of the NYLL. As
such, Plaintiff was, and is, entitled to be paid in full for all
hours worked.

The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours worked.
Managers of Defendant would log into Defendant's time keeping
system, and using their administrative privileges change
Plaintiffs' hours to reflect fewer hours than were actually worked.
This resulted in Plaintiffs not receiving overtime pay, receiving a
reduced amount of overtime pay, and/or receiving a reduced amount
of straight pay, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 110
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (516) 742-4949
          Facsimile: (516) 742-1977
          E-mail: mark@bglawny.com

TENNESSEE: Does File Class Suit v. Gov't. Officials
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against William B. Lee. The
case is styled as John Does #1-3, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. William B. Lee, Governor of
the State of Tennessee, in his official capacity, David B. Rausch,
Director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, in his official
capacity and Tony C. Parker, Commission of the Tennessee Department
of Corrections, in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00532 (M.D. Tenn., June 26, 2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Constitutional
- State Statute.

The Defendants are individuals exercising government functions.[BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Benjamin K. Raybin, Esq.
   Raybin & Weissman, P.C.
   424 Church Street, Suite 2120
   Nashville, TN 37219
   Tel: (615) 256-6666
   Fax: (615) 254-4254
   Email: braybin@nashvilletnlaw.com

      - and -

   Kyle F. Mothershead, Esq.
   The Law Office of Kyle Mothershead
   414 Union Street, Suite 900
   Nashville, TN 37219
   Tel: (615) 982-8002
   Email: kyle@mothersheadlaw.com

      - and -

   Patrick T. McNally, Esq.
   Weatherly, McNally & Dixon, PLC
   Fifth Third Center, Suite 2260
   424 Church Street
   Nashville, TN 37219
   Tel: (615) 986-3377
   Fax: (615) 635-0018
   Email: pmcnally@wmdlawgroup.com

      - and -

   Walter Justin Adams, Esq.
   Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC (Nashville Office)
   511 Union Street, Suite 1600
   Nashville, TN 37219
   Tel: (615) 238-6346
   Fax: (615) 687-5787
   Email: wjadams@bonelaw.com


THRIVE MARKET: Kiler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Thrive Market, Inc.
The case is styled as Marion Kiler on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Thrive Market, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03811 (E.D. N.Y., July 1, 2019).

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

Thrive Market is an American e-commerce membership-based retailer
offering natural and organic food products at reduced costs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF AMERICA: Cook Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Transport
Corporation of America, Inc. for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the California Business and Professions Code,
the California Labor Code and the applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders. The case is captioned SABRINA COOK, an
individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01202 (C.D.
Cal., June 28, 2019). In this complaint, Plaintiff Sabrina Cook
alleges causes of action for failure to provide meal periods,
failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements,
failure to pay all wages due at separation, failure to reimburse
business expenses, and for unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business
practices. Defendants' unfair conduct under the California's Unfair
Competition Law includes, but is not limited to, failure to pay
Class members wages and compensation they earned through labor
provided, and failing to otherwise compensate Class members, as
alleged herein. Defendants' fraudulent conduct includes issuing
wage statements containing false and/or misleading information
about the time the Class members worked and the amount of wages or
compensation due.

Headquartered in Minnesota, Transport Corporation of America, Inc.
provides transportation and trucking services, and employs drivers
in California and throughout the nation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
     Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
     HAFFNER LAW PC
     445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 514-5681
     Facsimile: (213) 514-5682
     E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
             gl@haffnerlawyers.com

UNITED STATES: DHS Sued Over Inhumane Immigration Prisons
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims
the Department of Homeland Security imprisons political
asylum-seekers in inhumane and illegal conditions for long periods
in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

          https://is.gd/3vCgSC


UNITED STATES: Perry-Bey Files PI Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Esper. The case is
styled as Roy L. Perry-Bey, Phillip Webster, George Bowe, Anthony
Harold, Robert Lee Simpson, Clarence Lawson, Dr. Vivian A. Anderson
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mark T. Esper,
Secretary of the Army, Richard V. Spencer, Secretary of the Navy,
Robert Wilkie, Secretary Department of Veterans Affairs,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00344-RAJ-DEM (E.D. Va., July 1,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Mark Thomas Esper (born April 26, 1964) is a former American
corporate executive and military veteran serving as Acting United
States Secretary of Defense.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


UNITED STATES: Suit by Imprisoned Immigrants Wins Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit, Ubaldo Arroyo, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. United
States Department of Homeland Security, et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 8:19-cv-00815-JGB-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Judge
Jesus G. Bernal entered an order on June 20, 2019:

   1. granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiffs'
      certification motion and provisionally certifying a
      sub-class of:

      "all immigrants imprisoned at the James A. Musick Facility
      and the Theo Lacy Facility and who have attorneys within the
      ICE Los Angeles Field Office's Area of Responsibility"; and

   2. granting-in-part and denying-in-part Plaintiffs' preliminary

      injunction motion.

Until this litigation is resolved, the Court orders:

   a. Defendants must refrain from transferring immigration
      detainees currently held at the Theo Lacy and James A.
      Musick Facilities to facilities outside the ICE Los Angeles
      Field Office's Area of Responsibility if those detainees
      have attorneys within the ICE Los Angeles Field Office's
      Area of Responsibility;

   b. If Defendants choose to comply with this Order by
      transferring immigration detainees to the Adelanto Detention

      Facility, Defendants must not transfer any immigration
      detainee held at the Adelanto Detention Facility to a
      facility outside the ICE Los Angeles Field Office's Area of
      Responsibility if that detainee has an attorney within the
      ICE Los Angeles Field Office's Area of Responsibility; and

   3. Nothing in this Order shall be understood to prohibit
      Defendants from releasing on bond or parole any immigration
      detainee in any facility.[CC]

US BANK: Imholte Files FDCPA Suit in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US Bank, National
Association. The case is styled as Brian Imholte on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US Bank,
National Association, Lawgix Lawyers LLC, Lawgix Inc., Michael D
Johnson individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01627 (D. Minn.,
June 21, 2019).

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

U.S. Bank National Association provides commercial banking services
for individuals, businesses, and institutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq.
     Consumer Justice Center, P.A.
     367 Commerce Court
     Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
     Phone: (651) 770-9707
     Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com


VALERO MARKETING: Bautista Appeals Decertification to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Faith Bautista filed an appeal from the District Court's
December 4, 2018 order decertifying the class in the case styled
Faith Bautista v. Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Case No.
3:15-cv-05557-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Faith Bautista v. Valero
Marketing and Supply Company, Case No. 19-16280, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed an appeal from a Court ruling in her lawsuit.  That appellate
case is captioned as Faith Bautista v. Valero Marketing and Supply
Company, Case No. 19-80018.

Ms. Bautista brings suit against Valero, alleging that
Valero-branded gas stations engage in deceptive advertising with
respect to the price per gallon charged for gasoline purchased with
a debit card.  She alleges that Valero's deceptive and misleading
signage violates the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California False
Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by July 26, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on August 26, 2019;

   -- Appellant Faith Bautista's opening brief is due on
      October 4, 2019;

   -- Appellee Valero Marketing and Supply Company's answering
      brief is due on November 4, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant FAITH BAUTISTA, Individually and Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Susan Katina Alexander, Esq.
          Andrew Love, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          One Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          E-mail: salexander@rgrdlaw.com
                  alove@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Rafael Bernardino, Jr., Esq.
          HOBSON, BERNARDINO & DAVIS, LLP
          333 S. Hope Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 235-9190
          E-mail: rbernardino@hbdlegal.com

               - and -

          Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 E. Palmetto Park Road
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee VALERO MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY is
represented by:

          David S. Harris, Esq.
          Gerald Edward Hawxhurst, Esq.
          HAWXHURST HARRIS LLP
          11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 620
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 893-5150
          E-mail: david@hawxhurstllp.com
                  jerry@hawxhurstllp.com


VIRGINIA: Clarke Appeals Ruling in Scott Suit to Fourth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Harold W. Clarke, A. David Robinson, Stephen M. Herrick,
Eric Aldridge and Paul Targonski filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Cynthia Scott, et al. v. Harold
Clarke, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-00036-NKM-JCH, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Virginia at
Charlottesville.

Harold W. Clarke is the Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Cynthia Scott
and several other prisoners residing at Fluvanna Correctional
Center for Women, a facility of the Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Corrections, filed an action alleging that Defendants
Harold W. Clarke, et al., violated the Plaintiffs' constitutional
rights under the Eighth Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment.  The Plaintiffs assert that FCCW fails to provide
adequate medical care and that the Defendants are deliberately
indifferent to this failure.

The appellate case is captioned as Cynthia Scott, et al. v. Harold
Clarke, et al., Case No. 19-1687, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees CYNTHIA SCOTT, a prisoner residing at Fluvanna
Correctional Center for Women, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; MELISSA ATKINS; and TONI HARTLOVE, a
prisoner residing at Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Mary Catherine Bauer, Esq.
          Brenda Erin Castaneda, Esq.
          Angela Adair Ciolfi, Esq.
          Abigail Turner, Esq.
          SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
          1000 Preston Avenue
          Charlottesville, VA 22902
          Telephone: (470) 606-9307
          E-mail: mary.bauer@splcenter.org

               - and -

          Shannon Marie Ellis, Esq.
          Kimberly Anne Rolla, Esq.
          LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
          1000 Preston Avenue
          Charlottesville, VA 22901
          Telephone: (804) 690-8924
          E-mail: shannon@justice4all.org
                  kim@justice4all.org

               - and -

          Adeola Oluremilekun Ogunkeyede, Esq.
          LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
          123 East Broad Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 643-1086
          E-mail: adeola@justice4all.org

               - and -

          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Hanes, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Personal: 757-930-3660
          E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  elizabeth@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Philip Fornaci, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE
          11 Dupont Circle, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-0000
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000
          E-mail: philip_fornaci@washlaw.org

               - and -

          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Casey Shannon Nash, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge Road
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7570
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                  casey@kellyguzzo.com
                  kkelly@kellyguzzo.com

               - and -

          Theodore A. Howard, Esq.
          WILEY REIN, LLP
          1776 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-0000
          Telephone: (202) 719-7120
          E-mail: thoward@wileyrein.com

Defendants-Appellants HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia
Department of Corrections; A. DAVID ROBINSON, Chief of Corrections
Operations, Virginia Department of Corrections; STEPHEN M. HERRICK;
ERIC ALDRIDGE; and PAUL TARGONSKI, in his official capacity as
Medical Director for the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women,
are represented by:

          Diane M. Abato, Esq.
          ABATO & DAVIS, PC
          105 1/2 East Clay Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-0000
          Telephone: (804) 786-8191

               - and -

          Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          900 East Main Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 786-5630
          E-mail: kdwyre@oag.state.va.us

               - and -

          James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., Esq.
          John Michael Parsons, Esq.
          Richard Carson Vorhis, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA
          202 North 9th Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-0000
          Telephone: (804) 786-0030
          E-mail: jisaacs@oag.state.va.us
                  jparsons@oag.state.va.us
                  rvorhis@oag.state.va.us

               - and -

          Ruth Griggs, Esq.
          WIMBISH GENTILE MCCRAY & ROEBER
          8730 Stony Point Parkway
          Richmond, VA 23235
          Telephone: (804) 648-1998

               - and -

          John Chadwick Johnson, Esq.
          Katherine Cabell Londos, Esq.
          Nathan Henry Schnetzler, Esq.
          FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC
          P. O. Box 1240
          Roanoke, VA 24006-1240
          Telephone: (540) 725-3363
          E-mail: jjohnson@faplawfirm.com
                  klondos@faplawfirm.com
                  nschnetzler@faplawfirm.com

               - and -

          Edward J. McNelis, III, Esq.
          Elizabeth Martin Muldowney, Esq.
          SANDS ANDERSON, PC
          P. O. Box 1998
          Richmond, VA 23218-1998
          Telephone: (804) 648-1636
          E-mail: emcnelis@sandsanderson.com
                  emuldowney@sandsanderson.com


VITAMINS BECAUSE: Ginsberg et al. Sue over Deceptive Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Vitamins Because
LLC, CT Health Solutions LLC, We Like Vitamins LLC, Gmax Central
LLC, and aSquared Brands LLC for alleged violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Nevada's Trade Regulation
and Practices Act, Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act, California's
Unfair Competition Law, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
New York's Deceptive Trade Practices and False Advertising Acts,
the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Magnusson-Moss
Warranty Act, and for breach of implied warranty merchantability
and fitness, for breach of express warranty, and for intentional
and negligent misrepresentations in connection with a deceptive
labeling of non-coated S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe) dietary
supplement capsules which are fraudulently labeled and defectively
manufactured. The case is captioned CORI ANN GINSBERG, NOAH
MALGERI, KALYN WOLF, BILL WILSON, SHANNON HOOD, and ROBERT MCKEOWN,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. VITAMINS BECAUSE LLC, CT HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC, WE
LIKE VITAMINS LLC, GMAX CENTRAL LLC, and ASQUARED BRANDS LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-22702-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 28,
2019).

Vitamins Because and/or CT Health manufacture and provide the
subject product for sale directly to consumers at their vitamin
stores in Florida and through their retail websites
https://vitaminsbecause.biz/1 and http://doctorvitaminstore.com/2,
as well as through third party retail sellers who distribute the
product under their own brand names online, through Amazon.com and
ebay.com, and in stores throughout the country. In all consumer
venues, the subject product is fraudulently labeled representing to
consumers that the SAMe product contains a particular amount of
SAMe per serving, when, in reality, the product contains only
approximately 12-18% of the claimed amount of active SAMe. The
product labels' false claims concerning the amount of SAMe included
in their capsule pills, along with the products' lower-than-market
retail prices mislead consumers into purchasing the non-coated SAMe
dietary supplement capsules manufactured by Vitamins Because and/or
CT Health under false pretenses. The product's misleading labeling
may also lead to significant injury or health concerns to unknowing
purchasers who rely on the accuracy of the advertised amount of
SAMe to make informed purchasing decisions and consume a proper
dosage of the dietary supplements.

Furthermore, Vitamins Because's, CT Health's, We Like Vitamins',
NusaPures, and aSquared's actively misrepresented the amount of
active SAMe contained in the product's non-coated capsules, and
concealed the existence and nature of certain manufacturing
defects. Accordingly, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Vitamins
Because, CT Health, and independent private-label retailers,
including Defendants We Like Vitamins, NusaPure, and aSquared, are
liable to Plaintiffs and putative class members for the cost of
purchase of the subject product under their respective false
labels. Vitamins Because is a manufacturer and seller to consumers
and companies of over 1300 vitamins and nutritional supplements
with a business location at 1832 S Dimensions Terr, Homosassa, FL
34448.

As part of their operations, Vitamins Because operates a
manufacture facility and vitamin store in Homosassa, Florida, as
well as the websites of https://vitaminsbecause.biz/ and
https://vitaminsbecause.us/, in order to sell their vitamins and
nutritional supplement products directly to consumers, as well as
manufacture their products for hundreds of independent companies.
Vitamins Because works in conjunction with CT Health to manufacture
and/or sell vitamins and nutritional supplements, and operates as
the alter ego of CT Health, which is a vitamin and nutritional
supplement retail seller located at 3930 S Suncoast Blvd,
Homosassa, FL.

We Like Vitamins is a private label independent company which sells
vitamins and nutritional supplements, including the subject SAMe
manufactured and labeled by Vitamins Because and/or CT Health, to
consumers through their website (https://www.welikevitamins.com/),
Amazon.com and other retail venues.

Gmax Central is a private label independent company which sells
vitamins and nutritional supplements under the brand name of
NusaPure, including the subject SAMe manufactured and labeled by
Defendants Vitamins Because and/or CT Health, to consumers through
their website (https://www.nusapure.com/), Amazon.com, and other
retail venues. Gmax Central maintains a place of business at 75 N
Woodward Ave #80277, Tallahassee, FL.

ASquared is a private label independent company which sells
vitamins and nutritional supplements, including the subject SAMe
manufactured and labeled by Defendants Vitamins Because and/or CT
Health, to consumers through their website
(https://asquarednutrition.com/), Amazon.com, and other retail
venues. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Tod Aronovitz, Esq.
     Barbara Perez, Esq.
     One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3700
     2 South Biscayne Boulevard
     Miami, FL 33131
     Telephone: (305) 372-2772
     Facsimile: (305) 397-1886
     E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com
             bp@aronovitzlaw.com

             - and –

     Jay I. Brody, Esq.
     Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
     KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
     747 Chestnut Ridge Road
     Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
     Telephone: (845) 356-2570
     E-mail: jbrody@kgglaw.com
      
             - and -

     Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
     Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
     MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
     412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302
     Washington, DC 20002
     Telephone: 202-470-3520
     E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com


VOLKSWAGEN: Sued Over Defective 8-Speed Jetta Transmissions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims
2019 Volkswagen Jettas have defective 8-Speed automatic
transmissions that can fail catastrophically.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

          https://is.gd/Z3hXq2


WEBCOLLEX LLC: Debt Collection Practices Misleading, Patino Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tami Patino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Webcollex LLC dba CKS Financial, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00512-Y (N.D. Tex., June 28, 2019),
seeks to recover damages and declaratory relief under the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

According to the complaint, on or about May 8, 2019, the Defendant
sent the Plaintiff a collection letter regarding the alleged debt
originally owed to WFB.

The Defendant wrote in its Letter, "In many circumstances, you can
renew the debt and start the statute the time period for the filing
of a lawsuit against you if you take specific actions such as
making certain payment on the debt."

In Texas, a partial payment on a debt does not renew or restart the
statute of limitation for a creditor to file a lawsuit against a
debtor. The collection letter was a materially false representation
of the law, character, and legal status of the debt.

The Plaintiff incurred an informational injury when Defendants
falsely stated that a partial payment would renew and start the
statute of limitations. Further, Defendant's false and misleading
statement is an unfair method of debt collection and misrepresents
the status of the debt.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

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

WIWI 1: Li Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursement for Gloves and Masks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WEIDONG LI, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WIWI 1 NAIL & SPA INC d/b/a WiWi Nails
& Spa; WIWI NAILS & SPA INC d/b/a WiWi Nails & Spa; RONGGUANG FU
a/k/a Rong Guang Fu, KUANLIANG HU a/k/a Kuan Liang Hu, XUBO LU
a/k/a Xu Bo Lu, WEI WANG, and JIXIN CAI a/k/a Ji Xin Cai, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06120-JGK (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid wage and unpaid overtime wages, award of
out-of-pocket breach-of-contract costs for gloves and masks
incurred and expended by Plaintiff on Defendants' bequest and
behalf as well as liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgement interest; and or attorney's fees and cost under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL
by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay its
employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked
and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his
lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times (1.5x) their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given
workweek. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff was not exempt
under federal and state laws requiring employers to pay employees
overtime. The Defendants failed to keep full and accurate records
of Plaintiff's hours. The Defendants failed to keep full and
accurate wages.[BN]

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

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

ZIMMER BIOMET: Court Grants Bid for Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit, JAMES KARL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ZIMMER BIOMET
HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ZIMMER US, INC., a Delaware
corporation; BIOMET U.S. RECONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Indiana limited
liability company; BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, an Indiana limited
liability company; and BIOMET, INC., an Indiana corporation, Case
No. 3:18-cv-04176-WHA (N.D. Cal.). the Hon. Judge William Alsup
entered an order on July 2, 2019:

   1. granting plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
      and administrative motion to file under seal.

   2. directing parties to meet and confer regarding the issue
      of notice and jointly submit a proposed notice by July 10
      at noon.

The Court said, "Defendants filed a supporting declaration stating
that they only seek to seal plaintiff's "Gross Sales, Net Sales,
pre-Pricing Commission % and Post-Pricing Commission %". They
further state that maintaining confidentiality "is important to
Defendants' competitive advantage in that competitors could use the
sales revenue information from this specific region to determine
whether to devote additional resources to taking this revenue away
from Defendants". Moreover, because those numbers "reflect
commission rates," defendants state that disclosure could pose
competitive harm in terms of potential use by competitors in
negotiating with plaintiff or other sales representatives. Because
the information at issue has no bearing on plaintiff's FLSA claim
and plaintiff's joint employer theory does not in any way rely on
these specific numbers (and thus the public has no real interest in
accessing said information), this order finds compelling reasons to
seal. The motion is therefore granted.[CC]


                            *********

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 ***