CAR_Public/190722.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 22, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 145

                            Headlines

AAC HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ADT, LLC: Removes Romero Case to Central District of California
AMBERWOOD CARE: Hit With Class Suit Over Fingerprint Scanning

ASIM HAFEIZ: Underpays Store Clerks, Ahmed Suit Alleges
AVANGRID RENEWABLES: Underwood Seeks Overtime Pay
BONDED FILMS: Correa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
BOOHOO.COM USA: Diaz Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
BOX INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Securities Class Action

BOX INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
BROWARD WATER: Isma Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Huang Hits Share Price Drop
CC GAMING: Hunter Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Chavez Suit Removed to S.D. Ca.

CREDIT CONTROL: Ryou Sues Debt Collection Practices
CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Baxter Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
ENLOW FORK MINE: Battle Continues in Mine Workers' Class Action
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Kaur Sues Over Unfair Advantage of Patients
EXETER FINANCE: Jones Suit Asserts TCPA Violation

FEDEX CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
FIFTH THIRD: 6th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Cash Advance Suit
FISHER PRICE: Hanson Sues Over Dangerous and Defective Sleepers
FORD MOTOR: Bleichmar Fonti Files Fuel Economy Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Ranger Owners Hit False Emission, Fuel Eonomy Claims

GLOBAL CREDIT: Trim Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS: Elzen Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
HECLA MINING: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
HELIUS MEDICAL: Caramihai Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
HILL'S PET: DiCroce Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling

HOME DEPOT: SCOTUS Affirms Remand Order in Jackson Suit
HUHTAMAKI INC: Chavez Suit Removed to C.D. California
HYUNDAI: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss 9th Cir. Ruling
INTIMACY MANAGEMENT: Web Site Violates ADA, Diaz Claims
JONES LANG: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Wacker RICO Suit

JPMORGAN CHASE: Notifies Customers of Arbitration Provision
KELLY SERVICES: Perea Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
KIEWIT CORPORATION: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Avila Suit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Ignacio Suit Removed to C.D. California
LEADSMARKET.COM: Wammack et al. Sue over Unsolicited Text Messages

LICEDOCTORS LLC: Bruce Katz Sues Over Illegally-Fax Ads
MDL 2741: Cricchio v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Foster v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Hampton v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Mason v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2741: Miller v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Netemeyer v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Plake v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
METRO BANK: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MIAMI VALLEY PIZZA: Jennings Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: Sex Assault Suspect Seeks Class Status
MIDLAND CREDIT: Baird Sues Over FDCPA Violation
MOMO INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued by Gaddis for Sacrificing Player Safety
NAVY FEDERAL: $24.5MM Settlement in Lloyd Suit Has Final Approval

NCAA: Adams Sues over OSU Athletes' Football Injuries
NCAA: Hill Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Student-Athletes Health
NEW YORK: 2d Cir. Issues Summary Order in Bloise Suit
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Mancebro Filed in Gulino Bias Suit
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Mitchell Filed in Gulino Bias Suit

NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Stanford Filed in Gulino Bias Suit
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Appeals Decision for Decena in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Appeals Decision v. Escobar in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Educ. Board Appeals Ruling v. Mathieu in Gulino Suit
NEW YORK: Judgment v.  Rugel in Gulino Suit Appealed to 2nd Cir.

NEW YORK: Judgment v. Muriel in Gulino Suit Appealed to 2nd Cir.
NEW YORK: Judgment v. Ruiz in Gulino Suit Appealed to 2nd Cir.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING: Davalle Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
OMNI MANAGEMENT: Diwa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
OXY USA: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cooper Clark Class Suit

PATINA RESTAURANT: Ricciardelli Seeks Overtime Pay
PEOPLES BANK: Baker et al. Seek Wages & OT Pay for Loan Officers
PFIZER: Faces Class Action Over All Natural ChapStick Claims
POST CONSUMER: Misrepresents Honey Content in Cereals, Tucker Says
PREFERRED FAMILY: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Huff Alleges

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Lopez-Negron Suit Reinstated in Law Division
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Data Breach Class Action in New Jersey
QUEST: French Sues Over Compromised Personal Information
RADIUS GLOBAL: Feder Suit Seeks to Recover Damages Under FDCPA
REJ PROPERTIES: Court Dismisses Badgerow Job Discrimination Suit

RELOGIO LLC: Underpays Store Managers, Cleary Suit Alleges
RENO, NV: Trial Begins in Lemmon Valley Flooding Class Action
RIVIANA FOODS: Clevenger and Reisfelt Sue over Slack-Filled Pasta
SACHS ELECTRIC: Summary Judgment Bid in Griffin Labor Suit Granted
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Mediation Ordered in Ice Makers Suit

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ware Appeals N.D. Illinois Order to 7th Cir.
SCATTERLIGHT STUDIOS: Cedicci Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
SMALL FOX: Underpays Painters, Villanueva Suit Alleges
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: 7th Cir. Affirms Miller Suit Dismissal
STATE FARM: DiCarlo Claims Website Not Blind Friendly

STATER BROS: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Ross Suit
SUNDANCE INC: Appeals Opinion & Order in Morgan Suit to 8th Cir.
TABLEAU SOFTWARE: Curtis Files Suit Over Sale to salesforce.com
TPUSA INC: Underpays Call Center Agents, Brown Alleges
TRADER JOE'S: Webb Sues Over False Labels on Chicken Products

TRANSPORT FINANCIAL: Webman Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ryan Sues over Healthcare Plan Coverage
VEGGIE GRILL: Underpays Cashiers, Flores Suit Alleges
VESTA PROPERTY: Faces Cioci Suit over Background Checks
VIRGINIA: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Scott Civil Rights Suit

WENCO ASHLAND: Adams Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
XPO LOGISTICS: Removes Cortes et al. Suit to C.D. California
ZUORA INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
ZUORA INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Suit
[*] Adero Law Firm Accuses Unions of Vacating Class Action Space

[*] Calif. Consumer Privacy Act Will Likely Prompt Class Actions

                            *********

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

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between March 8, 2017
and April 15, 2019, inclusive (the ''Class Period''), are
encouraged to contact the firm before July 15, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. AAC failed to maintain adequate controls
on financial reporting. Additionally, disclose controls were
insufficient to accurately show adjustments to estimates of
accounts receivable, provision for doubtful accounts, and revenues.
Based at least in part on these inadequate controls, the Company
misstated its financial results in the annual reports for fiscal
years 2016 and 2017, as well as all quarterly reports throughout
2017 and 2018.

AAC was ultimately forced to restate its financial and operating
results for these periods. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about AAC,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

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


ACER THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Acer Therapeutics Inc.
(NASDAQ: ACER) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Acer securities
purchased between September 25, 2017 and June 24, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/acer.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Acer lacked sufficient data to support filing EDSIVO's
NDA with the FDA for the treatment of vEDS; (2) 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; (3) consequently, the FDA would likely reject
EDSIVO's NDA; and (4) 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 EDSIVO™ (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.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/acer or you may contact Peretz
Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Acer you have until August 30, 2019 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  

A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm
of its choice. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

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


ACER THERAPEUTICS: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Acer
Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ: ACER) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between September 25,
2017 and June 24, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 30, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market.  Acer failed to develop sufficient data
for a New Drug Application ("NDA") with the FDA for its drug,
EDSIVO, for the treatment of vEDS.  The Company's NDA relied on the
Ong Trial, a 2004 study considered inadequate by the FDA's
standards, and included a group size too small to support the
EDSIVO application. Based on the insufficient data and reliance on
an inappropriate study, the FDA rejected Acer's NDA.  Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period.  When the market
learned the truth about Acer, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

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


ADT, LLC: Removes Romero Case to Central District of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADT, LLC removed the case captioned as CARLOS ROMERO, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. ADT,
LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
19STCV18765 (Filed May 30, 2019), from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on July 11,
2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk assinged Case
No. 2:19-cv-05988 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to:

     -- authorize or permit meal periods,

     -- authorize or permit rest periods,

     -- adequately indemnify employees for employment-related
losses/expenditures,

     -- provide complete and accurate wage statements, and

     -- timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time
of separation of employment pursuant to the California Labor
Code.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

           Joseph Lavi, Esq.
           Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
           Anwar D. Burton, Esq.
           LAVI & EBRAHAMIAN, LLP
           8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200
           Beverly Hills, CA 90211
           Telephone: 310 432 0000
           E-mail:: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                    vgranberry@lelawfirm.com
                    aburton@lelawfirm.com

Attorneys for ADT, LLC are:

           Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq.
           Philip J. Azzara, Esq.
           Rebecca S. King, Esq.
           FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
           2050 Main Street, Suite 1000
           Irvine, CA 92614
           Telephone: (949) 851-2424
           Facsimile: (949) 851-0152
           E-mail: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com
                    pazzara@fisherphillips.com
                    rking@fisherphillips.com

AMBERWOOD CARE: Hit With Class Suit Over Fingerprint Scanning
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
owners of a Rockford rehabilitation care center have been hit with
a class action lawsuit, accusing them of violating an Illinois
privacy law by requiring employees to scan their fingerprint when
punching in and out of work shifts.

Toyya Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint June 27 in Cook County
Circuit Court against Damen Healthcare Group LLC and AMBD Property
LLC, doing business as Amberwood Care Centre LLC, alleging
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, Young was employed by the defendant and
during the course of her employment she was required to clock in
and clock out using her fingerprint. The plaintiff alleges she was
unaware that Amberwood Care Center was storing her biometric
information and she had not given her permission or consented to
this practice.

The plaintiff said she later discovered that the defendant had been
storing the information without her permission in violation of the
law.

Young seeks trial by jury, and damages of $1,000-$5,000 per
violation, plus interest, attorney fees, court costs and other
relief. She is represented by attorneys, Brandon M. Wise, Esq. --
bwise@pwcklegal.com -- and Paul Lesko, Esq. -- plesko@pwcklegal.com
-- of Pfeiffer Wolf, Carr & Kane APLC in St. Louis.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 2019-CH-07729 [GN]


ASIM HAFEIZ: Underpays Store Clerks, Ahmed Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
SYED OWAIS AHMED, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASIM HAFEIZ, Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-02276 (S.D. Tex., June 25, 2019) seeks to recover from the
Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a store clerk.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
          ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
          7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
          Houston, TX 77074
          Telephone: (713) 223-1300
          Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
          E-mail: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


AVANGRID RENEWABLES: Underwood Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
JAMES UNDERWOOD, INDIVDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUTATED, the Plaintiff, vs. AVANGRID RENEWABLES LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00189 (S.D. Tex., July 11, 2019),
alleges that Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime pay for all
hours at the overtime rate required under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Although Plaintiff and Class Members are required to work more than
40 hours per work-week, the Plaintiff and Class Members are not
compensated at the FLSA mandated time-and-a-half rate for all hours
in excess of 40 per work-week.

Specifically, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and Class Members
at the FLSA mandated time-and-a-half rate for hours worked during
their trip to the work site/wind farms and back. All of the hours
worked by Plaintiff and Class Members for travel to and from the
wind farm and personal parking area are overtime hours, the lawsuit
says.

Avangrid Renewables, LLC produces renewable energy project. The
Company develops, builds, and operates renewable energy projects
such as wind, biomass, solar, and other energy resources.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and Class Members is:

          Jon D. Brooks, Esq.
          BROOKS LLP
          400 Mann Street, Suite 1001
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 885-7710
          Facsimile: (361) 885-7716
          E-mail: jbrooks@brooksllp.com

BONDED FILMS: Correa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
GARY CORREA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BONDED FILMS, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Company, JONATHAN GRAHAM, an individual, MOHIT
RAMCHANDANI, an individual, and DOE 1 through and including DOE 10,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-05910 (C.D. Cal., July 9, 2019) is a
class action and the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking relief under
state and federal law on account of unpaid wages, unpaid overtime,
damages, continuing wages, liquidated damages, penalties,
restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 28, 2019, Plaintiff has worked for some ten hours on
the Production but he did not receive the pay check until November
15, 2018. Plaintiff should have been paid in full for his accrued
minimum wages and overtime, issued legally compliant wage
statements, and reimbursed for all expenses no later than as
prescribed by California Labor Code. He has yet to be paid other
sums owed to him. The Defendants have failed to properly compensate
Plaintiff and/or other persons who performed services on the
Production or other such projects produced in California
("Aggrieved Employees"). Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees
worked overtime on the filming of the Production, toiling in excess
of eight hours in a single day, says the complaint.

Correa was employed by Defendants as a crew member on the
Production on or about September 28, 2018 and October 2, 2018.

Defendant Bonded Films is a production company that was producing a
feature film entitled "This is America" (the "Production").[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan Harris, Esq.
     David Garrett, Esq.
     Lin Zhan, Esq.
     HARRIS & RUBLE
     655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Phone: 323.962.3777
     Fax: 323.962.3004
     Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
            dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
            lzhan@harrisandruble.com


BOOHOO.COM USA: Diaz Sues Over Non-Blind Friendly Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BOOHOO.COM USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-06295, (S.D. N.Y., July 8, 2019), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages
and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York
City Human Rights Law.

Defendant is a clothing and accessories company, and owns and
operates the website, www.bohoo.com. Plaintiff is legally blind and
claims that Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the
visually-impaired. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003-2461
      Telephone: (212) 228-9795
      Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
      Email: nyjg@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com

             - and -

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
      300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (929) 575-4175
      Fax: (929) 575-4195
      Email: Joseph@cml.legal


BOX INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on June 11 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Duvnjak v.
Box, Inc. et al., (Case No. 3:19-cv-03173), on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Box, Inc. (NYSE:
BOX) ("Box" or the "Company") securities between November 28, 2018
and June 3, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until August 5, 2019
to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this action.

On February 27, 2019, the Company reported fourth quarter revenue
that fell below investors' expectations, citing longer sales cycles
for seven-figure deals.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.64, or nearly 19%,
to close at $20.24 on February 28, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

Then on June 3, 2019, the Company lowered its fiscal 2020 revenue
outlook to a range of $688 million to $692 million, from previous
guidance of $700 million to $704 million, again citing longer sales
cycles for its larger deals.

On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $1.30, or
more than 7%, to close at $17.18 per share on June 4, 2019, thereby
injuring investors further.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company was unable to close large deals
within the quarter; (2) that, as a result, the Company's revenue
would be materially impacted; and (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased Box securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court no later than August 5, 2019 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class.
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy,
Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts:

     Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
     Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP
     Los Angeles
     310-201-9150
     888-773-9224
     www.glancylaw.com
     shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]


BOX INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Box, Inc. (NYSE: BOX) from November
28, 2018 through June 3, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of
the important August 5, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Box investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Box class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1594.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Box was unable to close large deals within the quarter;
(2) Box's revenue would be materially impacted; and (3) defendants'
positive statements about Box's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When
the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 5,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1594.html

Contact:

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


BROWARD WATER: Isma Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILKENS ISMA v. BROWARD WATER CONSULTANTS, INC., JOEL J. BROW and
DANIELLE M. BROW, Case No. 0:19-cv-61672-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 8,
2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated demanding judgment against the Defendants under the Fair
Labor Standards Act for all alleged unpaid wages, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

Broward Water Consultants, Inc., is a corporation conducting
business in this judicial district.  The Individual Defendants had
operational control over the Company.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an Installer/
Technician.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
          TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
          1792 Bell Tower Lane
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 530-2236
          Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
          E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Huang Hits Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------
CHUN HUANG, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CANNTRUST HOLDINGS INC., PETER ACETO, and
GREG GUYATT, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06396 (S.D. N.Y., July
10, 2019) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired CannTrust securities between November 14, 2018 and July 5,
2019, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On July 8, 2019, the Company disclosed that Health Canada found
that its greenhouse facility in Pelham, Ontario is non-compliant
with certain regulations. As a result, Health Canada placed a hold
on 5,200 kilograms of dried cannabis harvested from the unlicensed
rooms, along with an additional 7,500 kilograms voluntarily held by
the Company, until the facility becomes compliant. On this news,
the Company's share price fell $1.11, or more than 22%, to close at
$3.83 per share on July 8, 2019, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) the Company was growing cannabis in its Pelham
greenhouse while applications for regulatory approval were still
pending; (2) the Company's Pelham greenhouse did not comply with
certain regulations; (3) as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to face an inventory hold by Health Canada until the Pelham
facility becomes compliant with applicable regulations; (4) the
Company's customers would face shortages and would likely seek
product from CannTrust's competitors; and (5) Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Chun Huang purchased CannTrust securities during the
Class Period.

CannTrust is purportedly a licensed producer and distributor of
medical and recreational cannabis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     230 Park Ave., Suite 530
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: (212) 682-5340
     Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
     Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

          - and -

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 432-1495

          - and -

     Howard G. Smith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
     3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
     Bensalem, PA 19020
     Phone: (215) 638-4847
     Facsimile: (215) 638-4867


CC GAMING: Hunter Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
------------------------------------------------
PAMELA HUNTER, on behalf of herself, a class, and a collective of
similarly situated Individuals, Plaintiff, v. CC GAMING, LLC, d/b/a
Johnny Z's Casino, a Colorado limited liability company, JZ GAMING,
LLC, d/b/a Z Casino, a Colorado limited liability company, and
GREGORY GAMING, LLC, d/b/a Grand Z Casino Hotel, a Colorado limited
liability company, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01979 (D. Colo.,
July 9, 2019) is a class and collective action lawsuit brought by
Plaintiff on behalf of a class of all similarly situated
individuals who were employed by the Company to recover damages,
injunctive and declaratory relief, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other appropriate relief resulting from the Company's policy and
practice of paying rounded hours rather than actual hours worked,
including overtime wages, in violation of Colorado law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

Throughout the entirety of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants,
Defendants engaged in the same rounding policies and practices
described herein. The Company's policy and practice of paying
non-exempt, hourly employees rounded hours, as opposed to actual
hours worked, deprives such employees of regular and overtime pay
they have earned. Plaintiff therefore brings this action on behalf
of similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants,
pursuant to the Colorado law for: (1) regular wages from Defendants
for work performed for which they received no wages; (2) overtime
wages for work performed for which they did not receive overtime
pay; (3) liquidated damages for Defendants' willful FLSA
violations; (4) statutory penalties as applicable under the
Colorado Wage Claim Act for Defendants' willful failure to provide
payment of all current and former employees' unpaid wages within 14
days of service of this Complaint; (5) costs; and (6) attorneys'
fees, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, Pamela Hunter, is a former employee of Defendants that
worked at Johnny Z's, Z Casino and Grand Z in Colorado.

Defendant CC Gaming, LLC, d/b/a Johnny Z's Casino ("Johnny Z's")
is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, a Colorado
limited liability company with a principal office at 101 Gregory
Street, Black Hawk, Colorado 80422.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Claire E. Hunter, Esq.
     Shelby Woods, Esq.
     HKM Employment Attorneys LLP
     730 17th Street, Suite 750
     Denver, CO 80202
     Email: chunter@hkm.com
            swoods@hkm.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Chavez Suit Removed to S.D. Ca.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Daniel Chavez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Charter Communications,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 30-02019-01073193, (Cal. Super., May 31,
2019) was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on July 8, 2019, under Case No.
19-cv-01341.

Chavez seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation
owed, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of
the action in accordance with California Labor Laws, the federal
Labor Standards Act and the California Business and Professions
Code.

Chavez was employed by Charter as a Direct Sales Representative,
selling phone, internet and cable services. He claims to be denied
overtime premium wages and statutorily mandated meal and rest
breaks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Annette C. Clark, Esq.
     Ryan J. Carlson, Esq.
     CALLAHAN, THOMPSON, SHERMAN & CAUDILL, LLP
     1230 Columbia Street, Suite 930
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 232-5700
     Fax: (619) 232-2206
     Email: aclark@ctsclaw.com
            rcarlson@ctsclaw.com

Charter Communication is represented by:

     Anahi Gonzalez, Esq.
     Aimee G. Mackay. Esq.
     Max C. Fischer, Esq.
     MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
     300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
     Tel: (213) 612-2500
     Email: anahi.gonzalez@morganlewis.com
            aimee.mackay@morganlewis.com
            max.fischer@morganlewis.com

CREDIT CONTROL: Ryou Sues Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------
Jackie Ryou, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Credit Control Services, Inc. d/b/a
Credit Collection Services (CCS), the Defendant, Case No.
3:19-cv-15162-BRM-TJB (D.N.J., July 11, 2019), seeks to recover
damages for Defendant's violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

In its efforts to collect the alleged Debt, the Defendant contacted
Plaintiff by letter dated July 13, 2018. The Letter conveyed
information regarding the alleged Debt. The Letter claims that
Plaintiff owes $199.01. The Plaintiff did not owe $199.01 at the
time the alleged Debt was assigned or otherwise transferred to
Defendant for collection or at the time Defendant sent Plaintiff
the Letter.  As such, the Defendant did not clearly convey, from
the perspective of the least sophisticated consumer, the actual
amount of the alleged Debt as required by 15 U.S.C. section
1692g(a)(1), the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com

CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Baxter Sues Over Exchange Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BAXTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, DR. W.
STEVE ALBRECHT, HASSANE EL-KHOURY, CATHERINE P. LEGO, JEANNINE P.
SARGENT, JEFFREY J. OWENS, CAMILLO MARTINO, OH-CHUL KWON, and
MICHAEL S. WISHART, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-03944-LHK (N.D.
Cal., July 9, 2019) is an action brought as a class action by
Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other public holders of the
common stock of Cypress Semiconductor Corporation ("Cypress" or the
"Company") against the Company and the members of the Company's
board of directors (collectively, the "Board" or "Individual
Defendants," and, together with Cypress, the "Defendants") for
their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), in connection with the proposed merger (the
"Proposed Transaction") between Cypress and Infineon Technologies
AG ("Infineon").

On June 2, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger ("Merger Agreement"), pursuant to
which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $23.85 in cash
for each share of Cypress stock they own (the "Merger
Consideration"). On July 2, 2019, in order to convince Cypress
shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the
Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy")
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), in violation
of the Exchange Act. The materially incomplete and misleading Proxy
violates both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which
constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading. In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete
and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial
projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and
relied on by Defendants in recommending that Cypress shareholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of
certain valuation analyses conducted by Cypress's financial
advisor, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("Morgan Stanley") in support of
its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders,
on which the Board relied, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a holder of Cypress common stock.

Cypress manufactures and sells embedded system solutions for
automotive, industrial, consumer and enterprise markets.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Phone: (424) 256-2884
     Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
     Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com


ENLOW FORK MINE: Battle Continues in Mine Workers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gideon Bradshaw, writing for Observer-Reporter, reports that a mine
services company is fighting to avoid paying out millions of
dollars after a Washington County jury found it had failed to pay
its workers at Enlow Fork Mine for time they spent on the job.

Attorneys for GMS Mine Repair and Maintenance and their
counterparts who represent 565 workers who were victorious in a
class-action lawsuit against the company in September are due back
in court on July 5 for a hearing before Common Pleas Judge Michael
Lucas, who presided over their three-day trial in September.

The opposing parties in the case are at odds over the plaintiffs'
contention that GMS owes the workers nearly $1.5 million in
additional damages and attorneys' fees and costs beyond a nearly
$1.2 million compensation award based on the jury's verdict.

Lucas will also hear arguments over GMS's contention that he should
grant the company "compulsory nonsuit, entry of judgment and/or a
new trial" and rescind the certification of the mine workers as a
class.

Attorneys for the underground mine workers -- whose lead class
representative is Joseph Bonds of Wheeling, W.Va. -- alleged that
Garrett County, Maryland-based GMS had forced its employees to work
off the clock by having them arrive early before taking a shuttle
to the mine's Pleasant Grove entrance in East Finley Township and
kept them on the job after their regular shifts for safety
meetings, drug testing and various other duties.

The case was filed in Washington County in 2015, after a claim
under the Fair Labor Standards was dismissed in federal court,
where the workers' lawsuit was first filed in 2013.

In September, jurors found that the plaintiffs had proved during a
three-day trial that GMS had broken the state Minimum Wage Act and
breached the contract with its employees.

The jury found that workers were owed wages for time they spent
before and after each shift from April 27, 2012, to April 14, 2014,
while employees were using a satellite parking lot and relying on
the shuttle.

Jurors said the workers' unpaid time amounted to 45 minutes for all
but the first 30 days of that period, when they spent a total of 30
minutes at work before and after each shift.

The sides later stipulated that the compensation GMS would owe
based on these findings would come to $1.2 million.

Plaintiffs' attorneys from the Harrisburg firm Weisberg Cummings
argue they're entitled to fees and costs totaling roughly
$669,000.

A brief prepared by Weisberg also cited an "implication" of the
jury's verdict that GMS violated the state Wage Payment and
Collection Law -- which allows courts to award liquidated damages
for claims -- to argue that GMS owes the workers another $405,000.

Finally, Weisberg claims GMS owes his clients $418,000 in
prejudgment interest on the breach-of-contract claim.

GMS's attorneys, who are from the Levicoff Law Firm in Pittsburgh,
question the legal basis for those assertions.

For example, they wrote the bid for attorneys' fees is "beyond
excessive; in many respects it borders on outrageous" and
questioned the underlying math.

"If not rejected entirely, Plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees
should be scrutinized very carefully and reduced to a reasonable
amount," the lawyers wrote in one filing.

The Levicoff attorneys also claim Lucas should have dismissed the
plaintiffs' various demands for reasons including a purported
insufficiency of evidence and contend GMS' workers didn't make up a
class for the purposes of the case because they "spent widely
varied amounts of time on the pre- and post-shift activities
referred to in the class definition, if any time at all."

"Thus," they added, "the evidence presented at trial showed that
the pre- and post-shift habits of each putative class member are
not at all homogeneous, but rather, are highly individualized."

No one answered at the respective offices of either law firm
involved in the case on July 5 [GN]


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Kaur Sues Over Unfair Advantage of Patients
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDEEP KAUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION, EMCARE,
INC., and EMCARE IAH EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS PLLC, Defendants, Case
No. 4:19-cv-02480 (S.D. Tex., July 9, 2019) is a putative class
action because Defendants deny patients an opportunity to bargain
and then demand payment of exorbitant charges that exceed the fair
market value of out-of-network services rendered, taking unfair
advantage of patients. This conduct violates the common law, which
provides that in the absence of an express contract or agreement on
the price of services, a service provider is only entitled to the
reasonable value of the services rendered.

Patients across the country have been hit with large surprise
medical bills after unwittingly receiving care from an
out-of-network provider. In one common scenario, a patient seeks
treatment at an in-network hospital, only to find out weeks or
months later that while the hospital was in-network, the treating
physician was out-of-network, and a significant portion of the
charges for the physician's services are not covered by the
patient's benefit plan. Unconstrained by any negotiated agreement,
the out-of-network physician's services may be billed at rates that
far exceed the normal charges for the services. The result can be
financially disastrous for patients who thought they had nothing to
worry about since they had procured health insurance coverage, paid
their premiums, and made sure to go to an in-network hospital for
treatment. Disturbingly, surprise billing is especially common in
emergency departments, where patients may be least able to protect
themselves. Plaintiff and the members of the Class have suffered
injury due to Defendants' conduct and seek declaratory relief,
monetary damages, injunctive and/or other equitable relief,
cancellation of debt, and attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Texas, City of Houston and
is a patient of Defendants.

Envision is a nationwide provider of health care services and
related support services, including physician services and a range
of management and administrative services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey W. Chambers, Esq.
     WOLF POPPER LLP
     Pennzoil Place
     711 Louisiana St. Suite 2150
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 438-5244
     Email: jchambers@wolfpopper.com

          - and -

     Chet B. Waldman, Esq.
     Elissa Hachmeister, Esq.
     WOLF POPPER LLP
     845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 759-4600
     Email: cwaldman@wolfpopper.com
            ehachmeister@wolfpopper.com


EXETER FINANCE: Jones Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Terisa Jones, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Exeter Finance LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00259
(S.D. Ohio, July 10, 2019) is a class action against the Defendant
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant routinely violates the TCPA by using an automatic
telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, to
place non-emergency calls to telephone numbers assigned to a
cellular telephone service without prior express consent. Defendant
also places autodialed or artificial or prerecorded voice calls to
cellular telephone numbers after being instructed not to do so,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in
Jacksboro, Tennessee.

Defendant is a company based in Irvine, Texas, which provides
financing for used automobiles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
     Hormozdi Law Firm, LLC
     1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175
     Norcross, GA 30093
     Phone: 678-395-7795
     Fax: 866-929-2434
     Email: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com

          - and -

     Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
     GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
     401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
     Austin, TX 78701
     Phone: (512) 803-1578
     Fax: (561) 961-5684
     Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


FEDEX CORP: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of FedEx Corporation (NYSE: FDX) from September 19, 2017
through December 18, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for FedEx investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the FedEx class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1613.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) TNT Express N.V.'s ("TNT") overall package volume growth
was slowing as TNT's large customers permanently took their
business to competitors after its June 2017 cyberattack (the
"Cyberattack"); (2) as a result of the customer attrition, TNT was
experiencing an increased shift in product mix from higher-margin
parcel services to lower-margin freight services; (3) the
anticipated costs and timeframe to integrate and restore the TNT
network were significantly larger and longer than disclosed; (4)
FedEx was not on track to achieve TNT synergy targets; and (5) as a
result of these undisclosed negative trends and cost issues,
FedEx's positive statements about TNT's recovery from the

Cyberattack, integration into FedEx's legacy operations, customer
mix, customer service levels, profitability, and prospects lacked a
reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

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

If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1613.html

Contact:

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


FIFTH THIRD: 6th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Cash Advance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FIFTH THIRD EARLY ACCESS CASH ADVANCE
LITIGATION. LORI LASKARIS; DANIEL LASKARIS; JESSIE McQUILLEN; BRIAN
C. HARRISON; JANET FYOCK; WILLIAM R. KLOPFENSTEIN; ADAM McKINNEY;
DONALD E. ADANICH; LYN A. ADANICH; SCOTT D. LITTLE; DIANA HORN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FIFTH THIRD BANK, Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 18-3390 (6th Cir.), Judge Richard Allen Griffin of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the district
court's judgment granting in relavant part Fifth Third's motion to
dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), and dismissing the breach-of-contract claim.

The putative class action concerns defendant Fifth Third Bank's
"Early Access" cash advance loan program, a short-term lending
option the bank offered to certain customers who held eligible
checking accounts with it.  Fifth Third, as both lender and bank,
had direct access to borrowers' checking accounts.  It deposited
Early Access loans straight into borrowers' accounts and then paid
itself back automatically -- plus a 10% "transaction fee" -- after
a direct deposit posted or thirty-five days elapsed, whichever came
first.  The contract governing the program disclosed the annual
percentage rate ("APR") as 120% in all cases.

The Plaintiffs held checking accounts with Fifth Third and obtained
Early Access loans, which were paid back automatically fewer than
thirty days later.  They contend that the 120% figure is false and
misleading, pointing to the contract's novel method for calculating
APR -- one in which the APR is always the same regardless of the
length of the loan.  Calculated using a more conventional method,
in which the APR is tied to the length of the loan, plaintiffs
assert that the APR was in fact as high as 3650%.

The Plaintiffs brought a variety of state and federal claims.
Their post-consolidation amended complaint asserted 18 causes of
action, some on behalf of the entire proposed class and others on
behalf of proposed state-specific subclasses.  Relevant to the
appeal, Count One pleaded violations of Truth in Lending Act
("TILA") and Regulation Z, and Count Four pleaded breach of
contract.  Specifically, Count Four alleged that Fifth Third
breached the terms of the Early Access Loans contract "by charging
the Plaintiffs and the other Class members APRs in excess of 120%
on Early Access Loans, and by failing to provide an accurate APR
summary for Early Access Loans on monthly bank statements.

Fifth Third moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  The district court granted Fifth
Third's motion in part and dismissed every claim except Count One.
In its brief discussion of the breach-of-contract claim, the court
noted that the APR provision may be misleading because not every
transaction is paid in twelve cycles, but concluded that the
contract was unambiguous in its explanation as to the method for
calculating the APR.  Because the Plaintiffs did not dispute that
they were charged the 10% transaction fee regardless of the length
of their loans, the district court found that no breach occurred
and dismissed the claim.

The Plaintiffs sought reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59(e).  After holding a status conference and
discussing a possible settlement agreement with the parties, the
court denied the motion as moot, subject to refiling.  The parties
then engaged in discovery and extensive court-mediated settlement
discussions.  The parties also entered into a preliminary
Memorandum of Understanding to settle the case.  Once discovery
revealed that the contract claim's damages were much higher than
expected -- and exponentially higher than the potential TILA
damages due to TILA's statutory caps -- settlement negotiations
stalled and the parties were ultimately unable to reach an
agreement.

The Plaintiffs then moved for the entry of a final judgment with
respect to only the dismissed breach-of-contract claim, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).  Fifth Third opposed the
motion. After finding that the TILA and breach-of-contract counts
were sufficiently distinct, and that there was no just reason for
delay, the district court granted the Plaintiffs' motion, certified
the breach-of-contract claim for entry of a final judgment, and
stayed the rest of the case pending appeal.

The appeal is limited to a single breach-of-contract claim under
Ohio law.  On review, Judge Griffin holds that the contract was
ambiguous because it provided two different descriptions of "APR"
that are inconsistent with each other and cannot be reconciled.
The first was a definition, lifted verbatim from a federal
regulation, that describes the APR as being "expressed as a yearly
rate"; the second was the method used to calculate it, which is not
based on a year or any other time period.  What complicates things
is that one is a definition while another is a formula; the two are
naturally expressed in different ways.  There is no way for the
contract's definition of APR to be consistent with the formula it
provides.  The ambiguity raises a question of fact that should be
resolved in the district court on remand.

Fifth Third makes no attempt to explain how the contract's method
of calculating APR can be "expressed as a yearly rate."  In fact,
Fifth Third's counsel confirmed at oral argument that the
contract's calculation of APR has nothing to do with borrowing the
money on a yearly basis.  Instead, Fifth Third stresses that the
Early Access contract unambiguously provided for a flat transaction
fee of 10% and that the calculation of the APR merely reflected,
and did not change, the flat transaction fee Fifth Third asks the
Court to conclude from these premises that the contract is
unambiguous as a matter of law.  But this interpretation would
require the Court to ignore the contract's definition of APR as "a
measure of the cost of credit, expressed as a yearly rate."
Because the Court must "give effect to every provision," the Judge
cannot endorse an interpretation that would read language out of
the contract entirely.

Based on the foregoing, the Judge does not address the parties'
arguments concerning latent ambiguity and other factual issues.  He
also declines to consider the parties' numerous arguments based on
TILA and Regulation Z.  That claim is not before the Court and the
Court takes no position as to its merits.

For these reasons,Judge Griffin reversed the district court's
judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the
Court's Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/nLidtw from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Rachel Bloomekatz -- rachel@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA
WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Daniel R. Warren -- dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP,
Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Rachel Bloomekatz, GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C.,
Hassan A. Zavareei, Anna C. Haac, TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP, Washington,
D.C., Stuart E. Scott, SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP, Cleveland,
Ohio, Jason K. Whittemore, WAGNER McLAUGHLIN, Tampa, Florida, for
Appellants.

Daniel R. Warren, Brett A. Wall -- bwall@bakerlaw.com -- G. Karl
Fanter -- kfanter@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Cleveland,
Ohio, for Appellee.

J. Carl Cecere -- ccecere@hankinsonlaw.com -- CECERE PC, Dallas,
Texas, for Amicus Curiae.


FISHER PRICE: Hanson Sues Over Dangerous and Defective Sleepers
---------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY HANSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FISHER PRICE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00204-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, July 9, 2019) is a claims against
Defendant individually and on behalf of a class of all other
similarly situated purchasers for (1) violation of New York General
Business Law, (2) breach of warranty; (3) violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, (4) violation of the Private Right Of
Action For Consumer Frauds Act, (5) fraud; and (6) unjust
enrichment.

These products include the Rock 'N Play Sleeper, the Auto Rock 'N
Play Sleeper, the Deluxe Rock 'N Play Sleeper, and other, similar
models (collectively, the "Rock 'N Play Sleepers"). The Rock 'N
Play Sleepers are designed with a 30-degree inclined sleeping
position. The Defendant claims the Rock 'N Play Sleepers' design
allows "Baby [to] sleep at a comfy incline all night long!"
However, the Rock 'N Play Sleepers' defining feature—the inclined
sleeping position—is in fact a dangerous defect. According to the
American Academy of Pediatrics, inclined sleepers such as the Rock
'N Play Sleepers increase the likelihood of airway compression and
suffocation in sleeping babies. On April 12, 2019, following an
investigation that tied the Rock 'N Play Sleepers to more than 30
deaths, Defendant recalled all models of the Rock 'N Play Sleepers,
says the complaint.

Plaintiff Nancy J. Hanson is an individual who purchased two Rock
'N Play Sleepers in 2012 to use when her grandchildren visited.

Defendant has manufactured, marketed, and sold the Rock 'N Play
line of inclined baby sleepers since 2009.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
     Brian O. Marty, Esq.
     SHINDLER ANDERSON GOPLERUD & WEESE PC
     5015 Grand Ridge Dr
     West Des Moines, IA 50265
     Phone: (515) 223-4567
     Facsimile: (515) 223-8887
     Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
            marty@sagwlaw.com

          - and -

     Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 South Washington Ave., Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
     Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

          - and -

     Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     4725 Wisconsin Ave, NW
     Washington, DC 20016
     Phone: (202) 789-3960
     Email: CharlesL@cuneolaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Bleichmar Fonti Files Fuel Economy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP on June 10 filed a class action lawsuit
against the Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) alleging that Ford
overstated fuel economy ratings for certain vehicles model years
2017 to 2019, including the Ford Ranger and F-150 trucks. The
complaint alleges that Ford manipulated fuel economy testing to
procure higher fuel economy results. Consumers who purchased these
vehicles are paying more in fuel costs than the indicated miles per
gallon disclosed by Ford at the point of sale.

Plaintiffs have retained experts who have tested a Ford vehicle.
The proprietary investigation of counsel and testing by plaintiffs'
experts revealed that Ford deliberately manipulated testing
parameters used to derive the "road load" calculation, which is
used in fuel economy testing. Road load refers to the sum of forces
acting on a vehicle, including aerodynamic drag, friction, and
tire-related losses. By misrepresenting the road load in testing,
Ford procured inflated fuel economy results. Ford advertised these
falsely inflated fuel economy results to induce consumers to
purchase its vehicles.

Ford is currently under criminal investigation by the U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) over Ford's emissions and fuel economy
certification process. In February 2019, Ford disclosed that it is
conducting an internal investigation into its fuel economy and
emissions compliance processes, as a result of concerns raised by a
group of whistleblowing employees in September 2018.

The lawsuit is filed in the Eastern District of Michigan. It
alleges violations of the Magnus-Moss Warranty Act and state
consumer protection laws, as well as common law fraud, contract,
negligent misrepresentation, warranty, and unjust enrichment
claims. The suit seeks financial as well as equitable relief and a
jury trial.

If you are a registered owner of a Ford Ranger or F-150, model
years 2017 to 2019, and have concerns about the fuel economy rating
of your vehicle, we welcome the chance to talk to you about your
legal rights. The information you provide will help us hold Ford
accountable.

To contact BFA regarding this matter, please email
krobertson@bfalaw.com [GN]


FORD MOTOR: Ranger Owners Hit False Emission, Fuel Eonomy Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Allen, Al Balls, Brian Leja, Stephen Mattson, John Sautter,
Rick Shurtliff and Randy Transue, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ford Motor Company,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-12015 (E.D. Mich., July 8, 2019), seeks
redress and remedy for Defendant's misrepresentation of the fuel
economy and emissions of certain vehicles, including the 2019 Ford
Ranger Truck resulting to fraud and violation of Magnuson Moss
Warranty Act and other state consumer protection laws.

Plaintiffs are owners of the 2019 Ford Ranger which they claim to
have misrepresented its fuel economy and emission claims. They
claim to have paid more in fuel than as advertised by Ford.

Ford Motor Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at One American Road in Dearborn, Michigan 48126
and is in the business of designing, manufacturing, and
distributing motor vehicles under the Ford and Lincoln brands.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Stellings, Esq.
      Kara. I. McBride, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 3559592
      Email: dstellings@lchb.com
             kmcbride@lchb.com

             - and -

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      Kevin R. Budner, Esq.
      Phong-Chau G. Nguyen, Esq.
      Wilson M. Dunlavey, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      Email: ecabraser@lchb.com
             kbudner@lchb.com
             pgnguyen@lchb.com
             wdunlavey@lchb.com

             - and -

      Roland Tellis, Esq.
      David Fernandes, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, P.C.
      15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      Email: rtellis@baronbudd.com
             dfernandes@baronbudd.com

             - and -

      James E. Cecchi
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 944-1700
      Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
      Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

             - and -

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water Street
      New York, NY 10005-4401
      Telephone: (212) 584-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
      Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

             - and -

      Mark C. Rossman, Esq.
      Brian M. Saxe, Esq.
      Linda J. Roelans, Esq.
      ROSSMAN SAXE, P.C.
      2145 Crooks Road, Suite 220
      Troy, MI 48084
      Telephone: (248) 385-5481
      Facsimile: (248) 480-4936
      Email: mark@rossmansaxe.com
             brian@rossmansaxe.com
             linda@rossmansaxe.com


GLOBAL CREDIT: Trim Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls
------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN TRIM, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GLOBAL CREDIT & COLLECTION, INC. d/b/a
AFFINITY GLOBAL, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-01205-LAB-WVG
(S.D. Cal., June 27, 2019), seeks to recover damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently or
intentionally contacting Plaintiff and Class Members on their
cellular telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby further invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was personally affected
by Defendant's actions because Defendant's use of an automatic
telephone dialing system and pre-recorded voice forced Plaintiff to
live without the utility of Plaintiff's cell phone by forcing him
to silence his cell phone and/or block incoming numbers.

The Plaintiff was further personally affected because he was
frustrated and distressed that despite the cease and desist letter,
Defendant continued to harass Plaintiff with calls using an ATDS
and pre-recorded voice.

The Plaintiff's cellular telephone, which Defendant called, was
assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs
a charge for incoming calls pursuant 23 to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)
(1). The unwanted telephone call constitutes a call that was not
for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1)(A)(i). The Plaintiff did not provide express consent to
Defendant to receive calls on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, the
lawsuit says.

The TCPA was designed to prevent calls and messages like the ones
described within this complaint, and to protect the privacy of
citizens like Plaintiff.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          Yana A. Hart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART, APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
                  yana@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 308
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222-7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
          E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com

HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS: Elzen Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID VAN ELZEN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS TEAM,
LLC, a Illinois company, the Defendant, Case 2:19-cv-00990-JPS
(E.D. Wisc., July 11, 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.

HST is a health, dental, life and medicare supplements insurance
brokerage company that does business throughout the U.S. It
represents many nationwide insurance carriers such as United
Healthcare, Aetna, BlueCross BlueShield and Humana.

In order to solicit new business, HST directs its salespeople to
cold call and send unsolicited and autodialed text messages to
consumers who have not given prior express written consent to
receive such calls or texts, including consumers who have
specifically registered with the National Do Not Call Registry to
avoid those unwanted calls and text messages, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative Classes are:

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

               - and -

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

HECLA MINING: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Hecla Mining Company (HL) and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-05719, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Hecla securities
between March 19, 2018 and May 8, 2019, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Hecla securities during the
class period, you have until July 23, 2019, to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby atrswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Hecla purports to discover, acquire, develop, and produce silver,
gold, lead, and zinc. The Company produces lead, zinc, and bulk
concentrates, which Hecla sells to custom smelters and brokers, and
unrefined precipitate and bullion bars (doré) containing gold and
silver, which are further refined before sale to precious metals
traders. Prior to the start of the Class Period, the Company was
organized and managed in four segments that encompassed its
operating units: the Greens Creek, Lucky Friday, Casa Berardi, and
San Sebastian units.

On March 19, 2018, Hecla announced it was acquiring three
high-grade Nevada gold mines through the acquisition of Klondex
Mines Ltd. ("Klondex") for a mix of cash and stock worth $462
million. Defendant Phillips S. Baker, Jr., Hecla's President and
Chief Executive Officer, represented that "Klondex's three
operating mines - Fire Creek, Midas and Hollister - are some of the
highest-grade gold mines in the world" and that "[a]fter extensive
due diligence, we see significant opportunity to improve costs,
throughput and recoveries over time with our expertise."

Fire Creek, which started production in 2014, was the primary
driver of the acquisition. Hollister was important for the
prospective development and mining of the Hatter Graben, a large
system of veins Hecla said it could reach from Hollister. Midas was
an older mine that had been in production for decades but was still
purportedly providing production and cash flow.

After the acquisition closed in July 2018, the Company's Nevada
operations became a fifth operating segment.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that during the Class Period, Defendants
falsely and misleadingly represented that the Nevada operations
would be "accretive" and cash flow positive, or at the very least
"self-funding", but this was not true.

As admitted by the Defendants at the end of the Class Period, the
Defendants knew from their extensive due diligence that the Nevada
mines faced many undisclosed material problems that would prevent
the operations from being cash flow positive, or even cash flow
neutral.

Specifically, Defendants were aware from their extensive due
diligence that the Nevada operations had material problems in terms
of excessive water, equipment availability, achieving enough
development to have consistent production, and lack of
characterization of ore types, among other things.

On May 9, 2019, Hecla shocked investors when, before the market
opened, the Company issued a press release entitled "Hecla Reports
First Quarter Results . . . Nevada operations under review" (the
"May 9 Press Release"), in which the Company disclosed a
"comprehensive review" of its Nevada operations that it
characterized during the ensuing conference call as "really just
asking the question, are we going to get the return for the
investment we're making."

Defendants admitted that the Nevada operations suffered from
negative cash flow and other negative operating metrics, such that
Defendants were not sure if Hecla would ever get a positive return
on its investment in the Nevada operations and might, in fact,
write off the Nevada operations. Additionally, the Company reported
a net loss of over $25 million for the first quarter of 2019 based
in large part on a gross loss of $13.8 million from its Nevada
operations.

On May 9, 2019, following the disclosures that the Nevada
operations were cash flow negative and subject to a comprehensive
review to determine the best path forward given the Nevada
operations' poor economics, including the possibility of an
impairment charge, the price of Hecla's common stock declined by
23.5% over two trading days, from a closing price of $2.04 per
share on May 8, 2019, to close at $1.56 per share on May 10, 2019.

Contact:

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


HELIUS MEDICAL: Caramihai Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
THEO CARAMIHAI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. HELIUS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., PHILIPPE
DESCHAMPS, JOYCE LAVISCOUNT and JONATHAN SACKIER, Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06365 (S.D. N.Y., July 9, 2019) is a class action on
behalf of persons and entities that acquired Helius securities
between November 9, 2017 and April 10, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Company's Portable Neuromodulation Stimulator ("PoNS") is
purportedly a medical device for the treatment of chronic balance
deficit associated with mild to moderate traumatic brain injury. On
January 25, 2019, the Company announced that it had received a
request for additional data and information from the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (the "FDA") related to the Company's request
for de novo classification and 510(k) clearance of PoNS. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $0.48, or approximately 6%, to
close at $7.13 per share on January 25, 2019, on unusually heavy
trading volume On April 10, 2019, the Company revealed that the FDA
had denied regulatory clearance of the PoNS device because the
Company had not provided sufficient clinical data to show the
device was effective. On this news, the Company's share price fell
$4.11, or more than 66%, to close at $2.10 per share on April 10,
2019, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the clinical study on the use of PoNS did not
produce statistically significant results regarding the
effectiveness of the treatment; (2) that, as a result, the clinical
study did not support the Company's application for regulatory
clearance; (3) that, as a result, the Company was unlikely to
receive regulatory approval of PoNS; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and/or
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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 Theo Caramihai purchased Helius securities during the
Class Period.

Helius is a neurotechnology company that purports to develop,
license, or acquire non-invasive technologies targeted at reducing
symptoms of neurological disease or trauma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     230 Park Ave., Suite 530
     New York, NY 10169
     Phone: (212) 682-5340
     Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
     Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

          - and -

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 432-1495



HILL'S PET: DiCroce Sues Over False and Misleading Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN DICROCE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HILL'S PET NUTRITION, INC. and
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY., Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-04054
(C.D. Cal., July 9, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated persons both nationwide
and in Massachusetts against Defendants as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants' false and misleading labeling, advertising,
warranties and representations, negligence in adhering to their
duty to sell a safe and healthy dog food as they expressly and/or
implicitly promised, breach of express and implied warranties,
unfair practices, and other unlawful conduct

The Defendants designed, inspected, manufactured, distributed,
labeled, advertised, and sold the Products nationwide, including to
consumers in Massachusetts, and promoted the Products through
various affirmative representations and warranties described in
detail herein, all of which emphasized Defendants' global product
theme – that their products are safe, healthy, and superior to
other brands of dog food. Notwithstanding these affirmative
representations and warranties, including those indicating that
Defendants inspected their products on a daily basis, the Products,
at material times hereto, contained lethal amounts of Vitamin D
that are poisonous to dogs and were sold to consumers nationwide.
The Defendants recalled the Products because they are contaminated
as a result of being spiked with deadly levels of Vitamin D,
rendering the Products poisonous and extremely dangerous for
consumption by canines.

By purchasing the Products, Plaintiff and members of the proposed
Class unknowingly fed their dogs poisonous dog food which caused
them to suffer from Vitamin D poisoning. Therefore, Defendants'
Products do not conform to the express warranties Defendants make,
are not merchantable as a dog food, were negligently designed,
inspected, manufactured, distributed, and sold, and were
unlawfully, falsely, and misleadingly labeled and advertised as
being healthy, safe, and superior to other dog foods. In addition
to losing money as a direct and proximate result of paying for the
dangerous and recalled Products, Plaintiff and Class members
suffered damages as a result of paying for veterinary treatment,
prescription medications, medical monitoring, property damage
resulting from incontinence, vomiting, and/or diarrhea, and/or any
other cognizable losses including work hours lost and, if
euthanasia occurred, any and all cremation, burial and funeral
costs, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Kristin DiCroce purchased at least Defendants' Hill's
Prescription Diet r/d Canine 12 x 12.3 oz. cans, Lot No. 7014 from
authorized retailers such as www.Chewy.com between at least August
2018 and February 2019.

Defendants are the manufacturer, distributor, and seller of the
Products, and are jointly and severally liable and responsible for
their formulation and inspection, along with their labeling,
advertising, marketing, and promotion to consumers both nationwide
and in Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dustin L. Van Dyk, Esq.
     Palmer Law Group LLP
     2348 SW Topeka Blvd
     Topeka, KS 66611
     Phone: (785)233-1836
     Fax: (785)233-3703
     Email: dvandyk@jpalmerlaw.com


HOME DEPOT: SCOTUS Affirms Remand Order in Jackson Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HOME DEPOT U. S. A., INC., Petitioner. v. GEORGE W.
JACKSON, Case No. 17-1471 (U.S.), Judge Clarence Thomas of the
Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granting Jackson's motion
to remand.

In June 2016, Citibank, N. A., filed a debt-collection action
against respondent Jackson in North Carolina state court.  Citibank
alleged that Jackson was liable for charges he incurred on a Home
Depot credit card.  In August 2016, Jackson answered and filed his
own claims: an individual counterclaim against Citibank and
third-party class-action claims against Home Depot, and Carolina
Water Systems, Inc.

Jackson's claims arose out of an alleged scheme between Home Depot
and Carolina Water Systems to induce homeowners to buy water
treatment systems at inflated prices.  The crux of the claims was
that Home Depot and Carolina Water Systems engaged in unlawful
referral sales and deceptive and unfair trade practices in
violation of North Carolina law.  Jackson also asserted that
Citibank was jointly and severally liable for the conduct of Home
Depot and Carolina Water Systems and that his obligations under the
sale were null and void.

In September 2016, Citibank dismissed its claims against Jackson.
One month later, Home Depot filed a notice of removal, citing 28 U.
S. C. Sections 1332, 1441, 1446, and 1453.  Jackson moved to
remand, arguing that precedent barred removal by a
"third-party/additional counter defendant like Home Depot."
Shortly thereafter, Jackson amended his third-party class-action
claims to remove any reference to Citibank.

The District Court granted Jackson's motion to remand, and the
Fourth Circuit granted Home Depot permission to appeal and
affirmed.  Relying on Circuit precedent, it held that neither the
general removal provision, Section 1441(a), nor Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA")'s removal provision, Section 1453(b),
allowed Home Depot to remove the class-action claims filed against
it.

The Court granted Home Depot's petition for a writ of certiorari to
determine whether a third party named in a classaction counterclaim
brought by the original defendant can remove if the claim otherwise
satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of CAFA.  It also
directed the parties to address whether the holding in Shamrock Oil
& Gas Corp. v. Sheets -- that an original plaintiff may not remove
a counterclaim against it -- should extend to third-party
counterclaim defendants.

Judge Thomas first considers whether 28 U. S. C. Section 1441(a)
permits a third-party counterclaim defendant to remove a claim
filed against it.  Home Depot contends that because a third-party
counterclaim defendant is a "defendant" to the claim against it, it
may remove pursuant to Section 1441(a).

He finds that use of the term "defendant" in related contexts
bolsters determination that Congress did not intend for the phrase
"the defendant or the defendants" in Section 1441(a) to include
third-party counterclaim defendants.  For one, the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure differentiate between third-party defendants,
counterclaim defendants, and defendants.  Moreover, in other
removal provisions, Congress has clearly extended the reach of the
statute to include parties other than the original defendant.
Finally, the Court's decision in Shamrock Oil suggests that
third-party counterclaim defendants are not "the defendant or the
defendants" who can remove under Section 1441(a).

The Judge next considers whether CAFA's removal provision, Section
1453(b), permits a third-party counterclaim defendant to remove.
Home Depot contends that even if it could not remove under Section
1441(a), it could remove under Section 1453(b) because that statute
is worded differently.

He finds that the two clauses in Section 1453(b) that employ the
term "any defendant" simply clarify that certain limitations on
removal that might otherwise apply do not limit removal under
Section 1453(b).  Neither clause -- nor anything else in the
statute -- alters Section 1441(a)'s limitation on who can remove,
which suggests that Congress intended to leave that limit in place.
Thus, although the term "any" ordinarily carries an "expansive
meaning," post, the context here demonstrates that Congress did not
expand the types of parties eligible to remove a class action under
Section 1453(b) beyond Section 1441(a)'s limits.  If anything, that
the language of Section 1453(b) mirrors the language in the
statutory provisions it is amending suggests that the term
"defendant" is being used consistently across all provisions.

Because neither Section 1441(a) nor Section 1453(b) permits removal
by a third-party counterclaim defendant, Home Depot could not
remove the class-action claim filed against it.  Accordingly, Judge
Thomas affirmed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/MQwBhJ from Leagle.com.

Sarah E. Harrington -- sharrington@goldsteinrussell.com --
Goldstein & Russell, P.C., Attorney for Petitioner, Home Depot
U.S.A., Inc.

Brian William Warwick -- bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell
& Warwick, P.A., Attorney for Respondent, George W. Jackson.

Lawrence S. Ebner -- lawrence.ebner@capitalappellate.com -- Capital
Appellate Advocacy PLLC, for DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar.

Laura Kathleen McNally -- lmcnally@loeb.com -- Loeb & Loeb, LLP,
for Retail Litigation Center, Inc. and Chamber of Commerce of the
United States of America.

Archis Ashok Parasharami -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP, for Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.

Richard A. Samp -- rsamp@wlf.org -- Washington Legal Foundation,
for Washinton Legal Foundation, et al.

Jason L. Lichtman -- jlichtman@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann
and Bernstein, LLP, for THE NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER.

Gerson H. Smoger, Smoger & Associates, for American Association for
Justice.


HUHTAMAKI INC: Chavez Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned JUAN J. CHAVEZ, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUHTAMAKI, INC. a
Kansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 19STCV19491 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court, Central District of California on July 10, 2019,
and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-05930.

The Complaint asserts the following eight (3) causes of action: (1)
Failure to Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; (2) Failure to Pay
Overtime Compensation; (3) Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (4)
Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks; (5) Failure to
Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; (6) Failure to Timely Pay
Final Wages at Termination; (7) Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; and (8) Unfair Business Practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     SARAH E. ROSS, ESQ.
     LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
     2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
     Phone: 310.553.0308
     Fax No.: 310.553.5583
     Email: sross@littler.com



HYUNDAI: Seyfarth Shaw Attorneys Discuss 9th Cir. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael DeMarino, Esq., Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Esther
McDonald, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
report that satisfying Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement is
undoubtedly a challenge when it comes to a nationwide class. Among
the many issues that arise is the extent to which varying state
laws can impact whether questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members.  In In Re Hyundai & Kia Fuel Econ. Litig., No. 15-56014,
2019 WL 2376831 (9th Cir. June 6, 2019), after an en banc
rehearing, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a district court did not
abuse its discretion by failing to address varying state laws when
granting class certification for settlement purposes. Drawing a
distinction between class certification for litigation purposes and
class certification for settlement purposes, the Ninth Circuit held
that the variations in state law across the nationwide class did
not defeat predominance.

In many respects, this decision -- which rescinds the panel's
previous and controversial ruling that courts must address varying
state consumer laws when certifying a settlement class -- restores
the standard for approval of class action settlements to what it
has historically been in federal courts. Employers facing
nationwide class claims in the Ninth Circuit now have an easier
path to settlement, as it is less likely that varying state law
will be an obstacle to satisfying predominance.

Background

In Re Hyundai arises out of an EPA investigation into Hyundai and
Kia's representations regarding the fuel efficiency of certain car
models. After the EPA began its investigation, a number of
plaintiffs filed a class action in California state court, seeking
to represent a nationwide class of car purchasers who were
allegedly misled by defendants' fuel efficiency marketing.

Follow-on class action lawsuits were filed across the country and
the MDL panel consolidated the cases in the Central District of
California. Eventually, the parties informed the district court
that they had reached a class settlement on a nationwide basis.

After winding through the approval process, the district court
granted final approval of the nationwide class settlement, but did
so over objections to the settlement. The objectors appealed, and a
divided Ninth Circuit panel reversed, holding that by failing to
analyze the variations in state law, the district court abused its
discretion in certifying the settlement class. The Ninth Circuit
voted to rehear the case en banc.

The Decision

The key issue on appeal was the extent to which a district court
must address varying state laws when certifying a nationwide class
for settlement purposes and, to what extent those varying laws
impact the predominance analysis under Rule 23(b)(3). The
predominance inquiry tests whether proposed classes are
sufficiently cohesive and focuses on whether common questions
present a significant aspect of the case that can be resolved for
all members of the class in a single adjudication.

Quoting Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997),
the Ninth Circuit noted that the predominance inquiry is different
depending on whether certification is for litigation or settlement
purposes. "[I]n deciding whether to certify a settlement-only
class," the Ninth Circuit explained, ‘"a district court need not
inquire whether the case, if tried, would present intractable
management problems.'" Id. (citation omitted).

Against this backdrop, the Ninth Circuit rejected the objectors'
argument that the district court was required to address variations
in state law. The Ninth Circuit began by explaining that "[s]ubject
to constitutional limitations and the forum state's choice-of-law
rules, a court adjudicating a multistate class action is free to
apply the substantive law of a single state to the entire class."
Id. at *9. Because no party argued that California's' choice-of-law
rule should not apply or that differences in consumer protection
laws precluded certification, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the
district court was not required to address these issues.

In further support of this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit cited its
decision Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir.
1998). There, in rejecting the objectors' argument that "the
idiosyncratic differences between state consumer protection laws"
defeated predominance, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that the claims
revolved around a "common nucleus of facts" and applied the
longstanding rule that "differing remedies" do not preclude class
certification. Id. at 1022–23.

Based on this reasoning, the Ninth Circuit ultimately concluded
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
that common issues predominated, notwithstanding varying state
consumer protection laws.

Implications for Employers

In Re Hyundai highlights the potential challenges posed by
nationwide classes given the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement
for certification, even in the context of a settlement class. By
ruling that the district court is not required to analyze varying
state laws when certifying a settlement class, the Ninth Circuit
created an easier path to settlements involving nationwide classes.
But employers should keep in mind this result was driven by, in
part, the objectors' failure to demonstrate that California law
should not apply.  In other words, the issue of varying state laws
is not wholly irrelevant to the predominance inquiry and employers
should nevertheless be prepared to address such arguments if
objectors adequately raise them. [GN]


INTIMACY MANAGEMENT: Web Site Violates ADA, Diaz Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. INTIMACY MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-06307
(S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2019), alleges that because the Defendant's Web
site -- http://www.Rigbyandpeller.com/US/-- is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers like the
Plaintiff, it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Intimacy Management Company LLC is a Delaware Corporation doing
business in New York.  The Company is a lingerie and accessories
retailer that operates Intimacy Management Company, as well as the
Web site, offering features which should allow all consumers to
access the goods and services which the Defendant offers in
connection with their physical locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003-2461
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


JONES LANG: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Wacker RICO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WACKER DRIVE EXECUTIVE SUITES, LLC, on behalf of
itself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS (ILLINOIS), LP,
Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-5492 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Sunil R. Harjani
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, denied JLL's motion to dismiss the complaint in
its entirety.

Wacker Drive Executive Suites, LLC ("WDES") leased office space at
125 S. Wacker Drive in the Chicago Loop between 2005 and 2017.
When the building manager, JLL, insisted that WDES hire union
movers and contractors to make improvements to its leased space,
WDES sued alleging that JLL illegally conspired with three unions
to bar non-union labor from the building to induce tenants to
purchase union labor at inflated prices.

In the putative class action, WDES alleges violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO").
Specifically, WDES alleges that JLL repeatedly violated the Hobbs
Act (extortion), and the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947
("Taft-Harley Act") (bribery), by preventing non-union contractors
from accessing and working in buildings managed by JLL in the
Chicago Loop.  As result, WDES alleges that it and other similarly
situated tenants were forced to pay union contractors and movers at
least 20% more than they otherwise would have paid due to the
higher cost of union labor.

WDES' Complaint consists of two counts arising under RICO.  The
first count is for a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c), which
prohibits participation through a pattern of racketeering activity
in the affairs of enterprise engaged in interstate commerce The
second count alleges a conspiracy to violate subsection (c), which
is a violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d).  WDES alleges two
types of activity that could be considered predicate acts of
racketeering.  First, WDES alleges that JLL entered into an illegal
hot cargo agreement with three unions under Section 8(e) of the
National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), and its actions in
furtherance of the agreement yielded a pattern of repeated
violations of the Hobbs Act (extortion).  Rather than oppose the
Unions' demands for exclusivity, WDES claims JLL accedes and
enforces a union-only policy through its tenant handbook/rules and
by directing its employees to keep non-union contractors out of the
buildings it manages.  Additionally, JLL allows union agents to
monitor the buildings JLL manages to alert JLL whenever non-union
contractors are present to demand their removal.  Accordingly,
contractors unable to provide proof of union membership are denied
entry into JLL managed buildings.

As for the second type of racketeering activity, WDES alleges that
the union-only rule effectively constitutes bribery in violation of
Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA" or
"Taft-Hartley Act").  It supports this allegation by characterizing
the union-only policy as a "kickback" to unionized contractors as
it forces the tenants into hiring union contractors for work that
otherwise would have gone to non-union contractors.

JLL moves to dismiss the Complaint based on Rules 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  JLL's Rule
12(b)(1) motion challenges WDES' constitutional standing to bring
the lawsuit.  According to JLL, its conduct, as alleged in the
Complaint, did not violate either the Hobbs Act or the LMRA.

In its Motion, JLL contends that WDES's complaint should be
dismissed in its entirety on the following grounds: (A) lack of
Article III standing; (B) failure to plead a predicate act of
extortion under the Hobbs Act because (1) mere acquiescence to
union pressure does not amount to an agreement under Section 8(e)
of the NLRA, (2) any agreement to ban non-union labor would be
permissible under the construction industry proviso exception to
Section 8(e), (3) JLL did not obtain extorted property, (4) JLL's
conduct was not wrongful; (C) failure to plead a predicate act of
bribery under the Taft-Hartley Act because of its statutory
exception under subsection (c)(3); and (D) failure to allege that
JLL conducted the enterprise's affairs under RICO.

Judge Harjani finds that WDES' first predicate act of racketeering
underlying its RICO claim is that JLL entered into an illegal hot
cargo agreement under Section 8(e) of the NLRA and that its actions
furthering that agreement yielded a pattern of repeated violations
of the Hobbs Act (extortion).  JLL's challenges to WDES' RICO claim
based on alleged Hobbs Act violations fall into two categories: (1)
arguments that WDES has failed to allege a "hot cargo" agreement
under Section 8(e) of the NLRA as necessary to establish "wrongful"
conduct under the Hobbs Act, and (2) arguments that WDES has failed
to allege "extortion" under the Hobbs Act.  

JLL also argues that WDES' RICO claim involving a predicate
violation of the Taft-Hartley Act fails under the statutory
exception of Section 186(c)(3).  The Judge finds that none of these
arguments warrants dismissal of WDES' Complaint.  Because the
Complaint does not allege facts that would definitely make the
construction industry proviso applicable, JLL's motion to dismiss
based on this exception to Section 8(e) of the NLRA is denied.

JLL's second challenge to WDES' Hobbs Act claim focuses on whether
WDES can prove extortion under the Hobbs Act, which is defined as
the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, inducted
by wrongful actual or threatened force, violence, or fear.  The
Judge finds that by alleging that JLL used fear of economic harm or
loss to impose the union-only rule on WDES and obtain property to
which JLL has no lawful claim because it is based on an illegal hot
cargo agreement, WDES' Complaint plausibly pleads wrongful conduct
by JLL.  These allegations are sufficient at this stage to satisfy
the wrongfulness element of the Hobbs Act.

As a second type of racketeering activity underlying its RICO
claim, WDES contends that JLL's alleged conduct of forcing tenants
into hiring exclusively union laborers violates the LMRA.  The
Judge finds that the Complaint's allegations do not establish that
the transactions here occurred in the regular course of business.
Rather, it alleges that the wages from WDES to the union
contractors were not in the regular course because they were
purportedly the result of an illegal hot cargo agreement and
extortion.  In the end, the applicability of the statutory
exception of Section 186(c)(3) presents factual questions regarding
whether the transactions here were "at the prevailing market price"
and "in the regular course of business" which preclude dismissal
claim of WDES' claims based on Section 302 of the LMRA at the
pleading stage.

Lastly, JLL argues that WDES has failed to adequately allege that
JLL conducted the affairs of an "enterprise" within the meaning of
18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c).   The Judge concludes that WDES'
allegations, considered as a whole and construed in its favor as
required at this stage of the proceedings, suffice to show that JLL
conducted or participated in the enterprise's affairs.  For the
same reasons, the allegations are sufficient to state an agreement
by JLL to participate in the scheme and that predicate acts would
occur to enforce the union-only rule to support its Section 1962(d)
claim.

For the above reasons, Judge Harjani denied JLL's Motion to
Dismiss.  JLL will answer the Complaint by June 11, 2019.  MIDP
responses are due by July 11, 2019.  Joint initial status report
with a proposed fact discovery schedule is due by July 19, 2019.
Status hearing is set for July 25, 2019 at 9:15 a.m. in Courtroom
1858.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/UOIKks from Leagle.com.

Wacker Drive Executive Suites, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Howard William Foster -- hfoster@fosterpc.com -- Foster, P.C.,
Aaron Ross Walner -- awalner@walnerlawfirm.com -- Walner Law Firm,
Ltd., Matthew A. Galin -- mgalin@fosterpc.com -- Foster, P.C., Ryan
F. Stephan -- rstephan@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan, Zouras, LLP &
James B. Zouras -- jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras,
LLP.

Jones Lang LaSalle Americas (Illinois), LP, Defendant, represented
by Scott T. Schutte -- scott.schutte@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Heather Jean Nelson --
heather.nelson@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Llp,
Kevin Francis Gaffney, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Llp, Philip Andrew
Miscimarra, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Stephanie L. Sweitzer --
stephanie.sweitzer@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Notifies Customers of Arbitration Provision
-----------------------------------------------------------
Craig Johnson, writing for Boston25 News, reports that tens of
millions of Americans who carry Chase credit cards in their wallets
have been notified in recent weeks of a big change to the terms of
their accounts with card issuer JPMorgan Chase Bank.

That change is a "binding arbitration provision" that essential
means that cardholders no longer have the option of suing JPMorgan
Chase or joining a class-action lawsuit if anything were to go
wrong. Instead, any grievances would go before an arbitrator.

What does this arbitration provision from Chase mean, and how do I
opt out?
First of all, here's what the email notice looked like. If you're a
Chase cardholder, you might want to check your inbox again if you
missed it:

Money expert Clark Howard says that Chase actually has trailed most
of the rest of the financial industry in taking away legal access
that you have if your bank or other financial organization has
cheated you.

"They're kind of a laggard on this, where they've continued to
allow people to use their constitutional rights to go after the
financial institution if they do something rotten or criminal or
illegal like in the case of Wells Fargo," Clark says.

"Now, unless you tell Chase otherwise, they're going to take away
your right under the U.S. Constitution to access the U.S. court
system or state court systems."

"The whole idea is they're just taking advantage of the idea that
the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that financial institutions are free
to impose these arbitrations on consumers," Clark says.

But, as a cardholder, you do have an option: You can send Chase a
letter (like the old days) to preserve your right to have access to
the courts.

"The reality -- and Chase knows this -- is that nobody is going to
do that, except maybe a few hundred or a few thousand people, even
thought they're such a huge financial organization," Clark says.

Here is an example of what the letter should look like, courtesy of
Military Money Manual:

Chase Customer Service
P.O. Box 15298
Wilmington, DE 19850-5298
Your First name  Last name
Street address
City, State, Zip code

Regarding: Rejecting Chase Binding Arbitration Agreement

To Whom It May Concern:

Please note that I REJECT the Chase Binding Arbitration Agreement
effective August 11, 2019. Please confirm receipt of this rejection
and annotate my account(s) appropriately.

Name: First name Last name
Account Number(s): 4147-2222-3333-4444, 1234-5678-9012-2342
Billing Address: 124 Address Street, City, State ZIPCODE
Signature: (Actually sign here)

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

First name Last name

If you have questions about this or any other consumer-related
issue, call our Consumer Action Center at 404-892-8227. It's FREE
and open Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm ET and Friday 10am-4pm ET!
This article was originally published on Clark.com [GN]


KELLY SERVICES: Perea Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Dolly Perea, an individual, on his own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Kelly Services USA, LLC and Worldpac, Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC688965, (Cal. Super., January 4,
2018), was removed to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Southern Division.

Perea seeks redress for meal and rest break violations, failure to
provide proper wage statements under the California Labor Code and
failure to pay overtime compensation under Welfare Commission
Orders and the Labor Code.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
      BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
      2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (805)212-5124
      Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
      E-Mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
              kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com

             - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
      Email: sahagii@aol.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Gerald L. Maatman, Esq.
      Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
      SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
      233 S. Wacker Drive, 80th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 460-5000
      Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
      Email: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
             jriley@seyfarth.com

             - and -

      Justin Curley, Esq.
      Melissa B. Black, Esq.
      Minal Haymond, Esq.
      SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
      560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 397-2823
      Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
      Email: jcurley@seyfarth.com
             mblack@seyfarth.com
             mahaymond@seyfarth.com



KIEWIT CORPORATION: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in Avila Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Kiewit Corporation filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Melvin Avila v. Kiewit Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 2:19-cv-01295-PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Melvin Avila v. Kiewit
Corporation, et al., Case No. 19-80080, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

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

          Howard Scott Leviant, Esq.
          MOON & YANG, APC
          1055 W. Seventh Street, Suite 1880
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232-3128
          E-mail: scott.leviant@moonyanglaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner KIEWIT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Michael D. Hidalgo, Esq.
          BAKER MCKENZIE LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-4728
          E-mail: michael.hidalgo@bakermckenzie.com


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Ignacio Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned MICHAEL IGNACIO, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION
OF AMERICA, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV19495 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the United States District Court, Central District of California
on July 10, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-05932.

The Complaint asserts that Plaintiff and the class of employees he
purports to represent seek overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 8 in a day or 40 in a week, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
business expenses, premium pay for meal and rest periods that were
not provided, civil penalties for untimely wages, including waiting
time penalties, and for erroneous paycheck stubs.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     BENJAMIN J. KIM, ESQ.
     IRENE SCHOLL-TATEVOSYAN, ESQ.
     NIXON PEABODY LLP
     300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4100
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151
     Phone: (213) 629-6000
     Fax: (213) 629-6001
     Email: bkim@nixonpeabody.com
            itatevosyan@nixonpeabody.com


LEADSMARKET.COM: Wammack et al. Sue over Unsolicited Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE WAMMACK and MICHAEL TRUJILLO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LEADSMARKET.COM,
LLC, a California limited liability company, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:19-cv-05975 (C.D. Cal., July 11, 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.

LeadsMarket runs a number of related cash advance and payday loan
websites. In order to generate new business, LeadsMarket uses
telemarketing, including text message marketing. LeadsMarket sends
out text messages directly and indirectly through its affiliates.
Regardless of whether LeadsMarket is directly sending the
telemarketing text messages it benefits from each successful
solicitation and is aware of the behavior of its affiliates.

In Plaintiff Wammack's case, LeadsMarket or its affiliates sent at
least 50 autodialed text messages to Plaintiff Wammack's cellular
phone number 26 without her consent, at least 25 of which were sent
after Wammack opted-out from receiving the unsolicited text
messages, and despite her number being registered on the DNC, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative Classes are:

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

LICEDOCTORS LLC: Bruce Katz Sues Over Illegally-Fax Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Katz, M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LICEDOCTORS LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-06303, (S.D. N.Y., July 8, 2019), seeks actual damages or
five hundred dollars in statutory damages, treble damages and such
other and further relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Bruce E. Katz, M.D., P.C., operates as Juva Skin and Laser Center
and claims to have received faxed advertisements from Defendant
without prior express consent, invitation, and permission. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 695-3282
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      Email: info@marcuszelman.com

             - and -

      Taylor T. Smith, Esq.
      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      Email: tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com
             ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


MDL 2741: Cricchio v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK E. CRICCHIO, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01517 (Filed May 29,
2019) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on July 10, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03913-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Cricchio 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 Plaintiff allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. The Plaintiff also alleges
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2741: Foster v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN E. FOSTER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01518 (Filed May 29,
2019) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on July 10, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03914-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Foster 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
Plaintiff allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2741: Hampton v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGIL R. HAMPTON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01056 (Filed April 30,
2019) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on July 10, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03902-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Hampton 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
Plaintiff allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2741: Mason v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH M. MASON, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01519 (Filed May 29,
2019) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on July 10, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03915-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Mason 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
Plaintiff allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2741: Miller v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH L. MILLER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01516 (Filed May 29,
2019) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on July 10, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03912-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Miller 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
Plaintiff allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2741: Netemeyer v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC NETEMYER AND CYNTHIA NETEMEYER, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-01514 (Filed May 29, 2019) was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on July 10, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03910-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. Eric
Netemyer'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 Netemeyer 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 Plaintiff allege that they or their
decedents developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over
the course of several or more years. The Plaintiff also alleges
that the use of glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients,
in particular the surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA),
renders Roundup even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues
concerning general causation, the background science, and
regulatory history will be common to all actions.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MDL 2741: Plake v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILMA PLAKE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01510 (Filed May 29,
2019) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on July 10, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03906-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Plake 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
Plaintiff allege that they or their decedents developed
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup over the course of
several or more years. The Plaintiff also alleges that the use of
glyphosate in conjunction with other ingredients, in particular the
surfactant polyethoxylated tallow amine (POEA), renders Roundup
even more toxic than glyphosate on its own. Issues concerning
general causation, the background science, and regulatory history
will be common to all actions.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

METRO BANK: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Metro Bank
PLC (OTC PINK: MBNKF) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between March 6, 2018
and May 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the firm before July 29, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Metro Bank failed to properly classify
the risk of its loan portfolio. Subsequently, the Company failed to
maintain appropriate levels of capital. These actions led to
investigations by the Prudential Regulation Authority and Financial
Conduct Authority. It also led to the Company losing deposits from
major commercial clients. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about Metro
Bank, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

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


MIAMI VALLEY PIZZA: Jennings Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
HEATH JENNINGS, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. MIAMI VALLEY PIZZA, LLC d/b/a PIZZA HUT and
ROBERT W. MALONE, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00204-TMR (S.D.
Ohio, July 10, 2019) is a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), and a class action under Ohio Constitution
and common law to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to Plaintiff
and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Defendants at
their Pizza Hut stores.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from 2013 to 2019 as a
delivery driver at Defendants' Pizza Hut stores located in Dayton,
Ohio.

Defendants operate numerous Pizza Hut pizza franchise stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Pamela M. Newport, Esq.
     BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
     425 Walnut Street, Suite 2315
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Phone: (513) 381-2224
     Fax: (513) 381-2225
     Email: pamelan@bsjfirm.com

          - and -

     J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
     Joe P. Leniski, Esq.
     BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
     223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Phone: 615/254-8801
     Facsimile: 615/255-5419
     Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com
            joeyl@bsjfirm.com

          - and -

     Jay Forester, Esq.
     FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
     1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 210-2100
     Fax: (214) 346-5909
     Email: jay@foresterhaynie.com


MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY: Sex Assault Suspect Seeks Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Jesse, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a move to
turn a lawsuit against Michigan State University by one student
accused of sexual assault into a class action could overturn dozens
of findings against students accused of sexual assault.

It could also lead to widespread class actions against other public
universities, both in Michigan and neighboring states.

The suit, filed late last year and amended late last week, is the
first in the nation to seek class-action status and could
drastically change the landscape of lawsuits against universities.

"Unfortunately, the misapplication of Title IX has reached new
depths at Michigan State," said Andrew Miltenberg, Esq. --
amiltenberg@nmllplaw.com -- the lawyer who filed the suit for a
student going by John Doe.  "Michigan State, in trying to distract
attention from its own misdeeds, is consistently and systemically
using Title IX as a weapon of law against its accused students,
with life-altering consequences for these young men and women."

The suit was originally filed by an MSU student in December 2018.

Doe filed the lawsuit Dec. 20, seven months after he was suspended
from the university.

In the lawsuit, Doe said he had sex that he believed was consensual
with a female friend on the night of Feb. 23, 2018, at his
fraternity house. During sex, Doe said the woman "appeared
uncomfortable and was shivering." He stopped and asked her if she
was OK, according to the lawsuit. She then left his room. Later
that night, Doe got a text from a friend, who said the woman told
her he forced himself onto her. The woman filed a sexual assault
report with the Office of Institutional Equity four days later.

The male student was then suspended from MSU for two years.

But his original lawsuit and the filing late last week argue that
MSU did not offer him true due process -- a chance for a live
hearing where he could question his accuser directly.

The federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Michigan and
nearby states, ruled in 2018 that the University of Michigan erred
in a sexual assault investigation when it did not offer a live
hearing with direct questioning when cases involved he said/she
said questions of credibility.

That ruling left the door open for a class-action suit, said
Miltenberg, of Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP. His firm has handled
hundreds of cases for students accused of sexual assault around the
country.

"For a long time, people would ask why there wasn't a class
action," Miltenberg told the Free Press. "There wasn't a law on the
books we could hold a class action on. Now there is."

That law is the ruling in the U-M case. An exact number of students
who could be impacted isn't known -- however, Miltenberg said
lawyers intend to look back to 2011, when the then-Obama
administration sent a "Dear Colleague" letter to universities
upping the pressure to run sex assault investigations and spelling
out what needed to be done.

In the suit, those eligible are defined as: "All MSU students
and/or former students, including prospective and future students,
subjected to a disciplinary sanction, suspension, or expulsion
pursuant to a finding of responsibility under the (sexual violence)
Policy (or its predecessor and/or successor policy/policies)
without first being afforded a live hearing and opportunity for
cross examination."

The class action would seek to have MSU ordered to
"vacating/expunging their disciplinary records and
reversing/vacating the sanctions."

If successful, the same strategy could be tried at universities all
across Michigan and the Midwest. [GN]


MIDLAND CREDIT: Baird Sues Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
LEILA BAIRD, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03937-RMI (N.D. Cal., July 9, 2019) is
an action for damages arising from Defendant's violations of the
Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, and the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

On February 21, 2019, Defendant sent Plaintiff a collection letter
presenting the "current balance" as $1,807.09, for said debt. The
collection letter offered three available payment options. Option
one was for 40% off. Option two was for 20% off over 6 months.
Option three was for monthly payments as low as $50 dollars per
month. On the top right corner of the letter, Defendant states that
the offer expires on March 23, 2019. To the right of the payment
options, a box titled "Benefits of Paying Your Debt" states that
Plaintiff will save $722.84 if she pays by March 23, 2019; can put
this debt behind her; will no longer receive communications on this
account; and will enjoy peace of mind. Below the payment options,
in much smaller print, Defendant states, "The law limits how long
you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, we will
not sue you for it."

The collection letter is misleading, confusing, deceptive and
unfair as it misrepresents the nature, character, and/or legal
status of the alleged debt. The letter did not indicate or inform
the Plaintiff that the statute of limitations had run on her debt
and the resultant legal status of the debt. Nor did the letter
inform the Plaintiff that a partial payment on the debt would
restart the running of the statute of limitations. In fact, had
Plaintiff chosen a payment plan option, and advised Defendant on
this in writing, the partial payment would revive the statute of
limitations rendering Plaintiff worse off than if she had rejected
the offer, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is both a natural person and a consumer who has resided
in Eureka, California.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a corporation doing business in
the State of California and is a "debt collector".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Amanda F. Benedict, Esq,
     LAW OFFICE OF AMANDA F. BENEDICT
     7710 Hazard Center Dr., Ste E-104
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Phone: (760) 822-1911
     Fax: (760) 452-7560
     Email: amanda@amandabenedict.com


MOMO INC: Schall Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Momo Inc.
(MOMO) for violations of §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between April 21, 2015
and April 29, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged
to contact the firm before July 15, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Momo failed to maintain adequate controls
and compliance procedures to prevent inappropriate financial
reporting activity. The Company's Tantan dating app was not
compliant with Chinese laws. This put the app at risk of being
removed from Chinese app stores at the direction of government
officials. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the
truth about Momo, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

Contact:

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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Sued by Gaddis for Sacrificing Player Safety
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VERSIE GADDIS v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, AND
THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-02792-JRS-TAB (S.D.
Ind., July 8, 2019), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated accusing the Defendants of sacrificing
player safety, including the Plaintiff's and the Class' long-term
health and well-being, in favor of profits and self-promotion.

Despite the NCAA's and member conferences' assumption of the
responsibility for player safety, the Defendants were negligent and
failed to carry out this duty in that they failed to implement and
enforce regulations that would properly protect student-athletes
from the risks associated with concussions and/or manage those
risks to properly respond to the medically proven fact that
repetitive concussions would lead to brain injuries in many
football players, the Plaintiff alleges.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated
association that acts as the governing body of college sports with
its principal office located in Indianapolis, Indiana.  NCAA is not
organized under the laws of any State, but is registered as a
tax-exempt organization with the Internal Revenue Service.

Big Ten Conference is a corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Illinois, with its headquarters and principal place of
business in Illinois.  Big Ten Conference is one of the largest
NCAA member conferences in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George Parker Young, Esq.
          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          Kelli L. Walter, Esq.
          CIRCELLI, WALTER & YOUNG, PLLC
          Tindall Square Warehouse
          500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 697-4942
          E-mail: gpy@cwylaw.com
                  vinny@cwylaw.com
                  kelli@cwylaw.com


NAVY FEDERAL: $24.5MM Settlement in Lloyd Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JENNA LLOYD, JAMIE PLEMONS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NAVY FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-1280-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Cynthia Bashant of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (1) granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval, (2) granted in part and denied in part their motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards, (3) dismissed the
action with prejudice, and (4) directed entry of final judgment in
the matter.

Plaintiffs Lloyd and Plemon are California citizens who commenced
this case against Navy Federal, a national bank with its
headquarters and principal place of business located in Vienna,
Virginia, as a putative class action in June 2017, invoking the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"), as the basis for this
Court's jurisdiction.  On Aug. 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the
First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), a pleading largely identical to
the original complaint.

In their then-operative pleadings, the Plaintiffs alleged that Navy
Federal improperly assessed and collected Optional Overdraft
Protection Fees ("OOPS Fees") from them and a putative class of
Navy Federal accountholders on certain debit card transactions that
were authorized into positive account balances, but which settled
into negative balances due to subsequent transactions.  They
claimed that pursuant to its account agreements with
accountholders, Navy Federal was not permitted to charge OOPS Fees
on debit card transactions that were authorized on an account with
positive funds "to cover" the transaction but settled into a
negative account balance.

For this alleged improper practice, the Plaintiffs asserted state
law claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, conversion and unjust enrichment on behalf
a national putative class.  On behalf of a California sub-class,
Plaintiffs asserted claims pursuant to the fraudulent prong of
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").  Navy Federal moved to
dismiss all claims in the FAC in September 2017.

On April 12, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Navy Federal's motion to dismiss.  After considering supplemental
briefing from the parties regarding certain choice-of-law issues
presented by the dismissal papers, the Court determined that
Virginia law applies to the common law claims pursuant to a
contractual choice of law provision in Navy Federal's agreements
with accountholders.  It denied Navy Federal's motion insofar as it
concerned Plaintiffs' breach of contract and conversion claims, but
otherwise granted the motion.  The Court dismissed with prejudice
the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment and CLRA claims and dismissed
without prejudice their UCL fraudulent prong and breach of the
implied covenant claims, with the latter to be pleaded as a part of
a breach of contract claim in the event Plaintiffs sought to amend
the pleadings.

The Plaintiffs filed the now-operative Second Amended Complaint
("SAC") on May 4, 2018, alleging a breach of contract claim, which
incorporated a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing claim, and a conversion claim.  Navy Federal answered
the SAC and the Parties engaged in informal settlement discussions,
including a private mediation before the retired Hon. Walter Kelley
Jr.  On Sept. 25, 2018, the Parties filed a notice of settlement,
indicating that they had agreed to settle the case and that
Plaintiffs would seek preliminary approval of the anticipated
settlement agreement.

The Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement on Oct. 15, 2018, which outlined the terms of the
settlement and the proposed notice plan.  The Court granted their
motion on Oct. 22, 2018, setting April 22, 2019 as the Final
Approval Hearing and requiring the Plaintiffs to provide amended
class notices to address certain concerns the Court had with the
originally proposed notice and objection procedure.  The Plaintiffs
corrected the deficiencies in their proposed notices and proceeded
with their notice plan with the Court's approval.  At the parties'
joint request, the Court reset the Final Approval Hearing for May
20, 2019 to account for issues with notice administration.

The Plaintiffs filed their present unopposed motions on April 4,
2019.  The Plaintiffs move for final approval of their $24.5
million class action settlement with Defendant Navy Federal in the
overdraft fees class action.  They also move for approval of $6.125
million in attorneys' fees requested by the Class Counsel,
reimbursement of certain expenses the Class Counsel incurred, and
service awards for the Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives.
Navy Federal does not oppose these motions, nor has any class
member objected to approval of the Settlement or the relief sought
in the motions.  The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on May 20,
2019.

Judge Bashant granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final
approval of the Settlement.  She granted in part and denied in part
their unopposed motion for approval of their counsels' application
for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and service
awards.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), and
based on findings made in the Preliminary Approval Order, the Judge
certified, solely for purposes of effectuating this Settlement, the
following Settlement Class: All current and former Navy Federal
members who were charged an OOPS Fee on a transaction that was
authorized into a positive available balance during the Class
Period, excluding individuals who enrolled in OOPS for the first
time after Feb. 13, 2017.

The following individuals have timely opted-out of the Settlement
and are therefore not bound by the Settlement, Releases, Final
Approval Order or Final Judgment: Yvonne M. Bonds, Marcille R.
Cannady, Mary Fanara, and Margaret Landreville.

The Judge confirmed Plaintiffs Lloyd and Plemons as the Class
Plaintiffs; Jeff Ostrow and Jonathan Streisfeld of Kopelowitz
Ostrow P.A., Hassan Zavareei and Andrea R. Gold of Tycko &
Zavareei, LLP, and Taras Kick of The Kick Law Firm, APC as the
Class Counsel; and Epiq as the Settlement Administrator.

She approved the Settlement Agreement and the terms and conditions
of the Settlement set forth therein, subject to any modifications
by the Court in the preliminary approval order.

She granted the request (i) to approve each Class Plaintiff's
$5,000 service award, to be paid from the Settlement Fund as
provided for by the Agreement; and (ii) to award the Class Counsel
$6.125 million in attorneys' fees and costs and expenses of
$33,938.82, to be paid from the Settlement Fund as provided for by
the Agreement.

The Judge adjudged that the Plaintiffs and all Settlement Class
Members will be bound by the Final Approval Order.  She dismissed
with prejudice the Action and all Released Claims.

Pursuant to Rule 58, the Clerk of the Court will enter the final
judgment based upon the Court's finding that there is no just
reason for delay of enforcement or appeal of this Final Judgment.

The Clerk of the Court will close the file in the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Uac9b4 from Leagle.com.

Jenna Lloyd, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrea Gold --
agold@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew
Silver -- asilver@tzlegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP, pro hac
vice, Hassan Ali Zavareei -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Tycko &
Zavareei LLP, Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel -- jdkaliel@gmail.com --
Kaliel PLLC, Jeffrey M. Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com --
Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, pro hac vice,
Jonathan M. Streisfeld -- streisfeld@kolawyers.com -- Kopeloiwtz
Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, pro hac vice, Chiharu Sekino
--
csekino@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP,
James C. Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller &
Shah, LLP & Taras Kick.

Jamie Plemons, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byAndrea Gold, Tycko & Zavareei
LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew Silver, Tycko and Zavareei LLP, pro hac
vice, Hassan Ali Zavareei, Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Jeffrey Douglas
Kaliel, Kaliel PLLC,Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson
Weiselberg Gilbert, pro hac vice, Jonathan M. Streisfeld,
Kopeloiwtz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, pro hac vice,
Chiharu Sekino, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP & James C.
Shah, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP.

Navy Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by Jason J. Kim
-- kimj@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP & Neil K. Gilman
-- ngilman@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton & Williams, pro hac vice.


NCAA: Adams Sues over OSU Athletes' Football Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------
RICKY ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02567-JPH-DLP (S.D. Ind., June 25,
2019) seeks to obtain redress for injuries sustained a result of
the Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of Oklahoma State University - Stillwater
student-athletes.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries like those the Plaintiff experienced,
the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to protect
the Plaintiff and other Oregon State University football players
from the long-term dangers associated with them.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206. NCAA is not organized under the laws of any State,
but is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal
Revenue Service. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NCAA: Hill Sues Over Failure to Safeguard Student-Athletes Health
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN HILL, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, AND MOUNTAIN WEST CONFERENCE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02807-JRS-DLP (S.D. Ind., July 9, 2019) is an Original
Class Complaint complaining the Defendants' breach of duty
resulting Plaintiff and the Class to have been injured, and are
entitled to relief.

No matter the popularity and profitability of any college sport,
player safety must come first. This is especially true of "amateur"
college football, which has over the past few decades rivaled the
NFL and other professional sports in popularity, and profitability.
Yet Defendants sacrificed player safety—including the Plaintiff's
and the Class' long-term health and well- being—in favor of
profits and self-promotion. The Defendants failed to meet their
legal responsibility to safeguard student-athletes, despite being
aware that the NCAA and its member conferences have a "legal
obligation to use reasonable care to protect athletes from
foreseeable harm in any formal school sponsored activity."
Defendants engaged in a long-established pattern of negligence and
inaction with respect to concussions and concussion-related
maladies sustained by its student-athletes, all the while profiting
immensely from those same student-athletes, says the complaint.

Plaintiff and Class Representative Adrian Hill is a former Mountain
West Conference NCAA athlete who played football at the University
of Wyoming between 1997 and 2001.

The NCAA controls almost every aspect of collegiate football, the
nation's most popular collegiate sport, and as a result college
football generates hundreds of millions of dollars in annual
revenues for the NCAA and its member conferences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George Parker Young, Esq.
     Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
     Kelli L. Walter, Esq.
     CIRCELLI,WALTER &YOUNG, PLLC
     Tindall Square Warehouse
     500 E. 4th Street, Suite 250
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Phone: (817) 697-4942
     Email: gpy@cwylaw.com
            vinny@cwylaw.com
            kelli@cwylaw.com


NEW YORK: 2d Cir. Issues Summary Order in Bloise Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued a
summary order in the case, JEAN BLOISE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHIRLEY MILLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDRA FOWLER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GELSOMINA ACIERNO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LINDA
ALFONSO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARGARET ALINI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CATHY ALIPERTI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, THERESA ALSTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARITZA A. APOLITO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ADA APONTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAGDALINE ARCE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELEESHA
AUSTIN-WAITHE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CYNTHIA E. AVILEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARISOL AYALA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BRAIDWATIE BAIJU, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PRISCILLA BAKER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BETTY BANG,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EVELYN
BARRIERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATE,
DOROTHY BARSILICO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ANDREA BATISTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, STEPHANIE BATTAGLIA-JENNINGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AMINA BEGUN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ACELITA BENITEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GRACE ANN
BILLOTTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ALTONIA BILYNCH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ANGELICA N. BLAKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LISA BONNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH BONOMOLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DOLORIS BRADLEY, SHONDA
BRADSHAW, SIMILARLY SITUATED, TONI BRODA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROBERTA BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DORETTE E. BURTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BEVEAN
CABRALIS-BRIDGES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, JANETTE CALLENDER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ITZI CARRILLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PAMELA CASEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AGNES CASEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MONIQUE CASTRO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MICHELE CATALANO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIBEL
CEDENO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
YASHIRA CENTENO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, JENNIFER CERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JUANITA CHAMPAGNE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MEI CHEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TOBIE CHILDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YOLANDA J. CLOWNEY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LATARSHA
A. COOKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
NADINE CORDES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LISA COSTIGLIACCI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAROLINE GABEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARCELLA CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BRENDA GASPARO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, REINA DELGADO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, QUETA
HERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MICHELE FREDERICK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DEBBIE DANIEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LORETTA S. FOSTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NICOLE HYPPOLITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LILLIAN GATES, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BARBARA M. FLEMING,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DENISE
JACKSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CYNTHIA HAIR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DENISE FERRENTINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, REGINA COTTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LUZBY SOFIA GALLEGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RENEE D. GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SALLY HERNANDEZ, TANYA
JILLY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CAROL A. FEHRMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, FANKA DROP, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, SURUJDEI DILCHAND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDRA GOMEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MIRIAM E. DIAZ, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MICHELLE DUNSTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDRA
FERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARINA HERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, FANNY ESTEVEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOSEPHINE HENRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CYNTHIA EDWARDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AURILDA GERENA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, J. MIRIAM FLORES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIBEL
GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
RITA GRIMAUDO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SHEILA FAULKNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, TASEAN HAYWARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BASILIA PICHARDO GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DHARMATTEE GAFFOOR,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JULIA
GOODWINE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
KATHLEEN HORN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, RODAID ESCLAVA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, THERESA GODDEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, OMEQUA FELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSE ELLISON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARY COX, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ETI DAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LUTCHMIN HORRIPERSAD,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMEN
GERENA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
YOMAYRA DELEON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LAURA GIAMMARINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, NECLA F. KASAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDY LEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FRANCES KIKIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LEONORA MARQUES, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BEATRICE MANIGO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KIM A.
JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
TERESA MANCINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SHARLONE JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELUCIA MAIORINI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, REDDI LOGANADEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSA LIRANZO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, HELEN LEWIS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PAULINE V. LOMAX,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARYANN
MALLOY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
HATTIE KIRK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, EILEEN LORENZO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, DEBRA LOMAX, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMELA MANISCALCO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIE LUGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH LOPEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANITA
MALENDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ANTOINETTE Y. LONG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DORIS JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, RACHEL KING, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANA LABRA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CATHERINE MEREDITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DONNETTE MCFARLANE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA
ORTIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MERIYEN MARQUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DOLORES A. NAUGHTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, GODA MOUSTAFA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSINA MIELLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LINDA MITCHELL, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CECILIA MENDEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, WANDA
MOLINA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
LEONORA NUNEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, WANDA MORALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRICIA R. MUNRO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VANESSA MCDONALD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JEANNIE PABON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIE NELSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GLORIANN
MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
NEREIDA MIRANDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, EILEEN E. MERJAVE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, DULEE NARZAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ARLINDA MONTEIRO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDRA MONSALVE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LATOYA MCPHATTER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GAIL
MASON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ROSALINA MERCEDES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MIGDALIA PEREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA PAPAYIANNIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NELLY RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, IRIS PABON, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELLEN RIGOSI, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRICIA PARRELLA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GRETA
QUINN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JEAN M. REIRDON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, FRANCINE PIRO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANTOINETTE PORCELLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRICIA PORTIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSAE L. RIVIERA, WANDA
RANDALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
KEISHA T. RICE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARGARET PANDOLFINI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARITZA RIVERA-DONALD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ZOFIA PALADINO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KENDALL PITTMAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, OLGA I.
PEREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CANDACE RICHMOND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARY PRATTI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, HOPAL POWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JENNY PARRA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANGELA PALAZZO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TASHAWN SCOTLAND, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CORA PARRISH, DORIS
ROYAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
NATIMA TAYLOR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MYRIAM ROJAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JONI STIRLING, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANGELA SPINELLI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CONSTANCE SENETAS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DENISIA
SIMON, JESSICA SANDERS, DONNA SPADY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JESSIE SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, HANNA TAVERAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSEANN SPERO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, INGRID THOMAS ST.
CLAIR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
DENISE ROSARIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, RENEE STOKLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, INGRID B. ROLDAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JENNY SEWNANAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELLEN B. SEKULSKI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CALLIOPI
STAMOULIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SHARON SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, FELIDA SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LUCINDA O. SANCHEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMEN ROMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARGIE SANTIAGO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIANELA CONDE
VAZQUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
KATHRYN TURCHIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, PATRICIA THOMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOAN WILSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DEBORAH VIERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANGELA WIECHELS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SUJERY VALENTIN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JUSTINE
WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SHIRLEY WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARY WILSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CONTYSHA WRIGHT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CORINNA CASIANO TORRES, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, IVONNE TORRES, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MICHELLE WHITE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAYRA
VEGA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
GERALDINE WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARY R. WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, KELLY UNDERWOOD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMEN L. TORRES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELSA B. VARGAS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CYNTHINE ALLEN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARINA
AKLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
NAHOMY ABELLARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, KATARYNA BARGLOWSKA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANA ALVAREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANA ATANCURI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AYESHA AKTHER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAROL BAEDER MENDEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHERISSE
AYTCH EPPS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SHARON BALLESTERO, JOSEPHINE BARGOS, NURJAHAN AHMED,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ARTHURINE
ABRAHAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JEAN ASPIOTIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, EYDA ALVARADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, KATY BADIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BERNARDINE BALESTRIERE, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA BACHILLER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NARIMA
AKTAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
BRENDA ADGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ROSA ALERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CORINNA CASIANA TORRES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHIFFON CAMPBELL, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHIRLEY BROWN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GALE
BLACKWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ASUNCION BURGOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MELODY BROWNE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOANN BURZO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SOFIA CANTALINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAYA BAUER, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARGARET BROWN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JULIA
BRAVO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
GANELL BRYANT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CLAUDIA BETANCOURT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, IRIS BORGES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARY ANN BERTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SONIA BATISTA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA CADET-LOMBARD,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DONNA
BRISBANE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
AGNES CAREY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, BERNADETTE CAFFIERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, SUZANNE BERTHE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MICHELLE CAMERON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSA BROWNE, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VALERIE BELL, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LINDA CULOTTA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMEN
CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSA
COLINDRES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
GWENDOLYN CHESTNUT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARILYN COLTHIRST, MARIA COLON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TONIA CONTINO, MAGDALENA CRUZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANE
CASTRONUOVO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CHRISTINE CIVITANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, TERESA CIOFFI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NAIROVY COLON LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MICHELE CHESNICKA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROBIN
CHISOLM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ROSE CHARLES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, GALYA CASTILLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALEXANDRA CORREA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KIMBERLY CIRILLO, MARTA CRUZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANA
CORTEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CHERIE CHANDLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ELISA CROOM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, AIDA COLON LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CASILDA CHALVISAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BEALINA CHINA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DENISE FERRANTE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANN MARIE
EVANGELISTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ELIZABETH ESCALANTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, SERAFINA DILORENZO, VIOLA DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, IRMA DOWNES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOSEPHINE
DIMARTINO-LOFFREDO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, PATRICIA DRAGU, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ZENA EVANS-WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, REYNA ESPINAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GRET CUNNINGHAM, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CLAUDETTE FELIX,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AUDRETH
DELGADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
VALERIE DEAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SHAMIM DORA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA DAVILA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA FALLACARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA DE LOS ANGELOS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KATHLEEN
DAUNT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ANDREA CULOTTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, NICKEISHA EDWARDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, BELKIS DELACRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ADRIANA ESTEVEX-FORTUNA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELDA FELDER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YVETTE
EDWARDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SHIPRA DAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, IRENA ERICHSEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMEN DONOVAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JENNIFER D'AMICO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NAVIA DE AZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALICIA GRIZZLE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRICIA
GORDON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CYNTHIA GOPAUL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, AMELIA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LORETTA FORDE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, THELMA GLOVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DALILA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ARACELIS GOMEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANASTASIA
GOULAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARJORIE GOPAUL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LORI FICARRA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRICIA GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIGNA GALARZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JULIA FOSTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LISSETTE GARCIA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, STEPHANIE
FONTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
LOUELLA GRAHAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, JESSIKA FOSTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, NILSA FLORES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DOREEN FERRONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SILVIA GOMEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDRA FRANKLIN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LORRAINE
GORDON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ERICA GRANT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SYLVIA GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JENNY FLORES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BEVERLY GOODRIDGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JANET GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, HOMAYRE FLORES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARY ANN
FORTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ELVEEN JOURDAIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DONNA JASLOW, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANNA JACKSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DEBRA HERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APRILLYN HARDY, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELAINE HUFF,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TINESE
HIXON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
BRENDA INGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARCIA KHAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, DAZZARE JEFFERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CREOLA JAMES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EVANGELIA KARAMANOS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALEJANDRA
GUAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KIM
JORDAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
IRIS LANTIGUA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARGARET LIVINGSTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANA HERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NNENNA HARVEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, REKHA KORMAKAR, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ISRAT KHAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARTINA
LANEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIE LOMBARDO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, NASRIN HOSSAIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANDREA HANEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARLA JIMBO, GINA HARROO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NATASHA LIVINGSTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARLINE
HAMITON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
LAURIE GROSSETO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, KISHAH INGRAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, NANCY HAUGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARY JAMES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LORI LAMIRATA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TANYA JOLLY, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELSIE KLIMOWICH,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FRANGULA
IOANNIDIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
GLORIA LOSITO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, JOYCE HALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, KATHLEEN LUDWIG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DENISE LAWSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TEODORA ISIDERO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TIFFANY LOARTE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LUCIA
LEVY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JENNIFER LAPLACA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, GEORGETTE LEE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MELANIE LAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CATHERINE HOMSI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANGELA GUTIERREZ, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BRENDA HARRIS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RUHITUN
KHATUN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SORELLYS MEDINA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, GINA MCAUSLOND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, FRANCESCA MAZZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DEBORAH MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH MALDONADO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EVANGELIA
MASOURIDIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MAYRA MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIANNE MATTEO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PHYLLIS MILES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, THERESA MCDONALD, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CLARICE MAZZELLA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELLEN
MENDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIA LUGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARIBEL MEDINA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARTHA MORALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIBEL MOYENO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DULCE MARSAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRICIA MARGIOTTA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANN MARIE
MISITI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
AIDA MERCADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LUZ MORALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, VIRGINIA NARCISO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LORRAINE MASIELLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MILDRED MAISONET, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARJORIE MCGINN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOANN
MANTAGAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIAN MURPHY, DIANE MAHARAJ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, KHAN REHANA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LINDA MAURO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LAURA MARRA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KAREN MCALLISTER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JEANETTE MORALES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA
MEDINA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MICHELLE MIRANDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CORA MAYBANK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELAINE NG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CINDY MAFFEO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GRACE O'MALLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MELINDA MORTON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ZSA-ZSA MAYS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DEBORAH
MUSELLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JENNIFER MOULTON-YOUNG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHEILA MORGAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, APRIL MORALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RITA MASCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RANDI MADISON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RITA MANGIERI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NESIA
MILLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ROSEMARIE ROBERTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, GAIL RICHARDSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, BELKIS REYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRONELLA PRESCOD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PESHIAH PATTERSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PETERGAY
RAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PARVIN RAHIM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ROSEMARIE REDA, LISETTE RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARILYN RICHARDSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MILDRED
REYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CATHERINE ROCHE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LISA ORTIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, GINA RIVERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JESSICA ROMERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CRYSTAL RUIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH POPICK,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA
PLACIDO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MILADYS RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CLARA RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, NANCY ROLDAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GUANGELIA SAKKAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FILOMENA RASOLE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JENNIFER PANKOWSKI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LILIANA
RIVERA, DIANA PEREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, PETRA RUIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, EMMA PAGLIARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LORRAINE ORIENTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, IVY REID, ANNABELLE PONCE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YADISA
REYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
DULCE ROJAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DEIDRA RIVERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JANET RENSCHLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NICOLETTA SAKKAS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BIBI SAMAD,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DORIS
ROSARIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ANGELA REYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, POPY SAHA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DEBRA RUBINSKY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARLOTA ROOKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDRA ROWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LISCE ROGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHANDRA RAMDIAL,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LUZ ORTIZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BRENDA
PENNIX, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
LYDIA RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, GEURLAINE SMALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, SOLMARITZA SANTIAGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHIRLEY SHERRILL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CONSTANCE SERVETAS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANDREA
SMALLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CHRISTINA SCLAFANI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MICHELLE SHEARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA SANTANA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DENISE SPENCER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROE ANN SCHUSSEL, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EVELYN SANFORD,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANE
SPOTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
KRISTAL SINGH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LEILA SANDERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, YOLANDE SKERRITT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CYNTHIA SFERRUZZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIANA SAURETTI, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMELA SQUARCIAFICO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MELINDA
SOTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
LISSETTE SERRANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LUISA SIERRA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, BARBARA SZALEWICZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANNIE SOUTHERLAND, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROBIN SROKA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, THAVAMANI
RAVEENTHIRARAJAH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CATHERINE SPRUILL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MIGDALIA SEDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JACQUELINE SUTHERLAND, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JEANNETTE PEREZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AVICE
SIMON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIE SCRIBANI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ANA SOTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARGARET TARTARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARYURI SANCHEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANA TABALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOANNA WARED, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MELANIA TOLENTINO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELENA
VILLAO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ZAIDA VARGAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CATHERINE WASHINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YVETTE TRAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHENAY VENABLE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ARETHA THOMPSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CASSANDRA
WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SONIA TORRES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, TONYA THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHERYL WHYTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DAISY WALLS, KATHY THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAROL WALSTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KAREN
VEAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
EVELYN TORRES, VERONICA WILSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TONIA WASHINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LUZ VARGAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIANNE VOLBERG,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YUE ZHU,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAROL
WATSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
AUDREY WRIGHT-SIMON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CHERYL THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, GERALDINE WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOHANNY VANEGAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA YARLINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PHYLLIS SCOTT,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRICIA
WALLACE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
THERESA TRIMARCO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DEBORAH WASHINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, COROLIA THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANTOINETTE ZUARDO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KAREN ADDISON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DENISE AGRAMONTE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JENNIFER
ADDERLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARGARET AGOSTI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, TAMMY ADAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LAURA ACURIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RANJITA RANI ADHIKARY, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TEODORA ACCOMANDO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIBEL
ABREU, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIA ACOSTA-PERALTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAMILLE ARGUETA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDRA ALLEN-HOLT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JULIA ANTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ERICA AMORES, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FRAJNA ARIAS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SYLVIA
ALVARADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
DORIS AYALA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ROSITA ANDREW, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, DENISE ALEXANDER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA ARRIAGA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA ALVARADO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHRISTINE ALAMO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARGARET
AZZINARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
IRIS ARROYO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MAHAMUDA AKTHER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MEGAN ARFMANN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SUSAN AYERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LYNN ANDRES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, INA ALLICK, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YELITZA ASTACIO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AFRODITI
ARONIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
DIANE AMOIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARGARET ANZELINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, NURJAHAN ATTMED, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAYRA ARREDONDO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GERMANA ASTOLFI-BENENATI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PIPER
AICE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
TAMIKA ARTIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CATHERINE AMICO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAROL ANNE BAACLER-MENDE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHAISTA AHMED, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LORETTA LEE APPLETON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KATINA
AMARANTOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
LAUREN ARNONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MADELINE AYALA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALIZA AKHTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ERMA AVENT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KENYA BELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AVALIS BAUTISTA-CASTRO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRICIA
BARTHA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SHIRAEL BELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CHARLENE BARKSDALE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JEANNE BASTONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MADELEINE BANKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KARLA BERRIOS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARLA BARAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARKITA
BANCROFT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
VIRGINIA BERRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, JENNIFER BECKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LINDA BALESTRINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RIMA BEGRUM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHIPRA BAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CECILIA BAQUE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TIBEY BILES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, OHMER
BENEDITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
DONNA BARRON-KUTZBACH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, GULISTAN BAYIMLI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSEMARY BERNAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LILLY BINGHAM, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAROL ANNE
BAACLER-MENDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ANNA BETLEWSKA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAROLYN BARNES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BARBARA BACARELLA, CAROLYN BEARD,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NAOMI
BARNES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIA BELLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, IRIS BAILEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOANNE BRATHWAITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROBERTA BOLTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AGNES BRACKETT, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SUSAN BOUSANTI-CORDARO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EILEEN
BRENNAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JOSEPHINE BORIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LINDA BURKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JENNIFER BRAADT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MATILDA BOBE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CASSANDRA BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NANCY BONILLA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ENEIDA BOBE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DOMINGA
CABA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SHIRLEY ANN BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, KENICHA BRATHWAITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALTONIA BLYNCH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHARON BRATHWAITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MIRIAM BUTLER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KARIMAH BOYCE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANTOINETTE
BONDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARGARET BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SHAIASIA BRIGHT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, NATASHA BOSTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHANTEL BRADLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHAYVON BRYANT, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAROLYN-ODELL BROWN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NADIA
BROWN-JOHNSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MIRIAM BLECHER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, KAREN BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHRISTINA-MARIE CABALLERO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARINA BORUA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MONIQUE
BRYAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
BEATRIZ CABALLERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, REGINA BRAGG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, DOROTHY BORRUSO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BRENDA BRICE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SARAH BRYANT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARY BLOTYKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAROLYN-MARIE BRYANT,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANA M.
CARCAMO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ABIGAIL CAMACHO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, KIM CANNON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, DELIA CANDELARIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FATIMA CARDENAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KAREN CAMMISA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIE-ANNE CANNATA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JESSICA
CALLAHAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
LAUREEN CARRINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARY CAMERON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, YOLANDA CALDWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TAMMY CARROLL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GERTRUDE CAPEK, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LOLA CALDERON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANA
CARABALLO, ZORAIDA CANINI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ESTHER CAMACHO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VICKIE LYNN CARTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EDNA CARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CYNTHIA CANDELARIA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AMY
CANTELMI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CARMEN CARRASCO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SHERIAN CAESAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JASMINE M. CARTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FRANCINE CAMPBELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARITZA CABAN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARGARET L. CANTER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ZATOYA
CAMPBELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARGARITA CARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, VIRGINIA CALDERON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, NARCISA CASTILLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHARLENE CASTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMELA CASTILLO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JUANITA CASTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FRANCES L.
CASTAGNA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
VERA REDLING CASSIDY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CLARIBEL CASTILLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CORINNA CASIANA-TORRES, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANA A. CARTIER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JUSTINA
CASILLAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
HONG GUANG CHE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MICHELLE CHIARELLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, FIONA CHARLES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, IRENE CHIARELLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARGUERITE M. CHAMBERLAIN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EVA M.
CEPEDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JANET CHEBUSKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARIA CATO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LORRAINE CASTROFILIPPO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LYDIA D. CAYASSO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANNA M. CICIONE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JULIE E.
FREITAS-CLARK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, KANASIA CHRISTIAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, EVELYN CIRMO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHAHANA CHOWDHURY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MILENA B. VILLOUIS-CHONILLO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SUSAN JOAN
CINOTTI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
HELEN H. CHIU, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SOO FONG CHIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHAKIMA CHOICE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DELL IRENE COE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RENEE LA JUNE COLEY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DOLORES
CODY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
DONNA A. COLELLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LATOYA COAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, SONIA CLINTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NILDA M. COHEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NELLY G. CLARK, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH COLLAZO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PHYLLIS V.
CLAYBURNE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIA CONCEPCION, SANDRA CONTES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EMMY NATIVIDAD COMPRES, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PAULISA CONNER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, HELEN
COLON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
LANA COLON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, PAULETTE CONNELLY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, STACEY ANN COLLINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NANCY COLLAZO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ASHLEY M. COLON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DELIA CORRIERE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CYNTHIA
CREHAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PATRICIA COWLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, AIXA COSME, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHARON DENISE CRAWFORD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LILLIAN CORREA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GLISSER CORTES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JESSICA
CORREA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
COEITA CROMWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MONSERRATE CORREA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JACQUELINE MARY COYNE-FREEHILL, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHRISTINA R. CORTES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JACQUELINE
COTTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MAUREEN CROCCO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ANNA COPPOLA-MORABITO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHEILA COTTLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TARA CONTINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARGARET CROKER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MELISSA
COSTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
FIDELINA CORDERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, NAIMA CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CURRY-WALLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KAROLYN L. CRUZ-BERROA, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GLORIA DAISLEY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA C.
CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
HIGDALIA CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ISIS CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ESTELLE DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, AWILDA CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CONNIE CUTTRUFF, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FIORDALIZA CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LECIA CUMMINGS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NANCY
DAUGHERTY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
KEISHA L. CROSS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, STEPHANIE CUMMINGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, YHANA CROOM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PAULA DAVIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, OUMATTIE CRUZ-MEJIAS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TRINA CROWELL,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, IRIS N.
DEDOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
DARLENE DELGAUDIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CRYSTAL D. DELESBORE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JEDA DEJESUS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DAMARIS DELGADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JACQUELINE DEDONA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANNE
DEJESUS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ANGELA DRIGUN DECARLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LYDIA DEPELLEGRIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ETHEL DEAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JULISSA DELGADO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RAJ L. DEFREITAS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSE J.
DELCROIX, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
VIVIANA DE LA CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARIA A. DELAURA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JEANETTE MARIE DAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, THERESA DEMATTIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA DEL GONZALEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YSABEL DE
LA CRUZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
GLORIA MARIA DIFALCO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LILIANA D'ONOFRIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FANNY DOMENECH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FOTINI DIMITRATOS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARITZA
RIVERA-DONALD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LISA DIAZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, KATHLEEN PATRICIA DILIETO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MILAGROS DIAZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BARBARA A. DRYSDALE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANE T.
DEVITO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
IEASHA DUNLAP, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARITZA RIVERA-DONALD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GERTRUDE DIGURNEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHERYL DIXON, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAXINE DOZIER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JUANITA DEVEAUX,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH
DIPALMA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JUANA DETRES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DARLENE DRAYTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, IOANNA DIMITROULAROS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHAMITHREE DEVITA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VANESSSA
EDWARDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
FRANCESCA ERRANTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LINDA PATRICIA ENGLISH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SABRINA C. ELDER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YVETTE C. ERAZO, JUSTINA
ECASILLAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
STEPHANIE F. EIDTSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHRISTINE T. DURAND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TIFFANY EURY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NIURKA A. DURAN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NAIMA ENNACHCHAOUI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YVETTE
ANNE EDWARDS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CARLA ENCALADA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, VIRGINE L. ESQUILIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DOREEN DUPREE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSA I. ELSAYED, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DEBBIE DUPREE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMEN
ESTRADA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
STACY ELEAZER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, YSABEL A. DURAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JESSICA ANN FELICIANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CATHERINE A. FERRISE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANA P.
FERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
VICTORIA FENNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ADALGIZA G. FERREIRA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHIRLENE FAULKNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JACQUELINE FELTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NANCY A.
FASANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
YVONNE FIGUEROA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, JOANN FARGIANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELSA MA FERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA ELIZABETH FELTON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JANICE ANN DANIELLO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JESSICA
FERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
LUISA E. FIALLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CHRISTINE FABISENSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GISSETTE A. FERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ATHENA M. EVANS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AMY
FIGUEROA, ANA FERMIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH FALABELLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LISA FLORIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DOROTHY FRANKS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MEI YU FRANCESE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALICIA
FONTEBOA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PAMELA FRANCO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, JENNY F. FLORES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, WILMARYS FONTANEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARGARETE FLOCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DOMINGA GAB, BARBARA M.
FLEMING, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
VIOLETHA FRANCIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LILLIAN FONTANA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LORETTA SALLEY FOSTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DANIELE FRANQUI, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EILEEN FITZPATRICK,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JULIA
FOSTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PHYLLIS M. FISCHETTI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOANNA FUENTES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANGELA FORD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TINA M. FLEMING, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DEBRA ANN GALLO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRICIA GARITTA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YOLANDA
GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
VIRGEN GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARIBEL GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, EMELY S. GALLETTI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOSEPHINE GAMBINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANA DEL CARMEN GALLARDO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NEYTTA
GARRIDO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JUDITH GALATI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CRISTINA GENAO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARY J. GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, IVETTE GALVAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SYLVIA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOCELYNE GARNIER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CLAUDIA C.
GAFFOOR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MERCEDES GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DOMINGA GABA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, FRANCINE GARRAMONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, HILDA GARCIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAROLINE GAHTAN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JO-ELLEN E. GILL,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LISA C.
GOLDSBURY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
KERRI ANN GLEASON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CONCETTA M. GIORDANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, IRMA GODOY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA J. GIL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LAURA J. GINEL, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VARVARA GIANNOPOULOS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NORMA
GOMEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JEANETTE GERMANY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, YVONNE GLOVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, GISELLE GILL-HAVENS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GANGONE GIOVANNA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YVONNE GOLIGHTLEY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DAWN
GEORGE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
FRANCES M. GIORGIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ANGELA T. GENTILE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LAZARUS GOMEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSE GIORDANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDRA GEORGES, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA D. GONZALEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JESSICA
GRAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ANTOINETTE GRAHAM-BARRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, NANCY Y. GORDON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MICHELLE GRAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YVONNE GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VERONICA A. GORDON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EDNA
GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MELANIE GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MD LILLIAN GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, DESIREE GRANT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ORA GOODWIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANA GRAHAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BERNETTA GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JACKELINE GONZALEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GAETANA E.
GRAFFEO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JARAMIN MARJORIE GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARJORIE V. GOYOAUL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JUDY GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BENITA GUZMAN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHARMAINE HENRIQUES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CATHERINE
MARY HAYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, VALERIE HARRIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELENA HENNEMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ZHI HUA GUO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LAVERNE HARRIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MADELINE GUGLIELMO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ZORAIDA
GRULLON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARCIA G. HENDERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, REENIE HANKERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANE HAYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TAMMY HENRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSE GREGORY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANEITA HASMATALLY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KIMBERLY
GREENAWAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
DAWN A. HEREDIA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CHRISTINE L. HARRIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LUCILLE REGINA GRELLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIANNA IABONI, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ESTHER ROSE HINES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VALERIE
HOUCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
BETTY HOOD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MIRYAN G. INDARTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MIRIAM HODGES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AKENDRA HOSEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOAN HILLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JANICE INGARDI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LOLO HO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALICIA
NICOLE HIGHLAND, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DINA M. INNAMORATO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRICIA ANN HURLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GERN LEE HEYER, ANN HURLEY
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GERN LEE
HEYER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ILKNUR HUYUK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARY F. HORTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH L. HINES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSEMARY IRIZARRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CLARA MARIA INDOLINI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ASHLEY
HOLT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CHERRINE HOWARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, IRENE INFANTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, SONIA HERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MIRYAN INZARTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KEISHA HOLNESS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CINTYA M. HERNANDEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MICHELLE
HUNTLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ELLA HOLLOMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARIA INDELICATO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, VILMA HERNANDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, STACEY A. JAMES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHIRLEY ANN JAY, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHERRIS JACKSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRICIA
JENNINGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
DOLORES IVORY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ANA L. JAUREGUI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CORRETTE JAMES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, THERESA JEFFERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JARON JAMES, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDY IRRERA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, UMELVA JAMES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHANTA
ISLAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIEL JAFFERAKOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CATIA D. JEANTY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, FERDOUS JANNATUL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NORMA PATRICIA JAMES, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA JABER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DAPHNE M. JANKEE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JAHANARA
ISLAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
TYISHA JENKINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SHILA KILLIEBREW, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LAURA KLUB, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA KHAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NIRMALA KUMARI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANIJA KURTOVIC, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PAULA ANNE KLEVA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VASILIKI
KOKKINAKIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DAPHNE KING, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, SYLVIA KENNEDY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, WANDA YORIA KINARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELAINE KEYS, ELAINE, ALICE
KYDD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAYA
KHATUN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIA E. KOCH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DESAREE KINLOCH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, BELINDA J. KILLEBREW, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELAINE KEYS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CATHY ANN KING,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KATHERINE
KESSER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
HOON HOON LIM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ELIZABETH LASALLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, BRENDA LEARY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NATASHA LAROSE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EDDA LLANOT, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARYALYEE LEVENDOSKY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIOLA
LANTISUA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
FLORENCE LEVESQUE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ROSA G. LAZARINI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MIGDA I. LARREGUI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GIDGET LOGAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KATHLEEN M. LINDELOF,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SO KUEN
LEUNG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ELLA JEANETTA LATTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, KHATESA AKTAR LABONY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALMA N. LASARACINA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FRANCES M. LAMOUR,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SOPHIA LI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ONICA
LAROSE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SUSAN LEONARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, NANCY L. LAUGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ADELINA LIVINGSTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH LASALLE, LOURDES SAWTELLE
LAPOLLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
YESENIA LAUDADIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LINDA LINGHAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, VERTELL LONG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANDREA LALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YVETTE LOFTIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KUAN I. LEUNG, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ISABEL LINARES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARY A.
MANCINI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
BIENVENIDA R. LOZANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANASTASIA MACISAAC, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARISOL LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MERIYEN N. MARCUEZ-GUERRA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JANE
MALDARELLI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LUZDARY LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, BELKIS A. MALENA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CONSTANCE MACHESE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BETTY LOUVIERE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MIGDALIA MARIN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ZENO VIA
MADSEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PAULINE E. MANNING, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MELANIA LUGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ADRIENNE M. LONZELLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARISOL LUCIANO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSA F. LOPEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GUNI
MAMISDOSKI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MICHELLE LOQUERCIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, BARBARA MACKEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LORRAINE MABRY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LORRAINE MARBY, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MEDRANO LOYDA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DEBRA
LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ANGELLA LUNDGREN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, JEEUTH MANWATTIE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMEN LOPEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LINDA MARESCA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAROL M. MAHONEY, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MICHELE MANISCALCO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MILDRED
MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
AGUEDA MARTINEZ-VASQUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARGARET P. MARSH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOANNE G. MARZO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SUSAN MARRETTA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GLORIANN MARTINEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELISSETTE
MARTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
BARBARA MARTOREL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARIA. I. MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, NAMITA R. MARJIT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANTA NELLY MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHARON MARQUEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANNE
SCOTTO MARSINI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARGARET MARTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ZAIDA VALDEZ MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA E. MARTINEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JACKIE
MARRUGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
GLORIA MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, GOPAUL MARJORIE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, AARTI MARWAH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARY ANN R. MCNIFF, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VERBENA MCCOLLUM, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARCIA MCFARLANE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AIYSHA
MAYFIELD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIA MEDINA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ALICIA S. MCLEAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELEFTERIA MATHIOUDIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BERTHA MCLEAN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SARAH MCFADDEN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA
MAZZURCO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MABEL MELENDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MIGUELINA MEDINA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRICIA MCGLASHAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TREACE MCCOY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA A. MASCIOLI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, WENDY
MASSA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
LORETTA MCNAIR-GIBSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, OLGA I. MAYSONET, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAVIS C. MCGLASHAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARILYN MCDANIEL, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BETTY MEDINA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GARTANAL
MCCANTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
FAY MATHURIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ZINA MCCROREY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ILIANET MEDINA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, REGINA MASON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANNE MCGOVERN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSA E. MEDINA, E. MEDINA
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANA
MEYERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARY ANN J. MINORE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CARMEN MENDOZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, IVY MITOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELLEN MARGARET MENDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOSEPHINE MILONE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARITZA
MERCADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JUDITH MIRANDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CHERYL ANN C. MILLAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH MELENDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JACQUEALYUAN MILES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CLAUDIA
MEMBRENO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MYRNA L. MENENDEZ-TORRES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDRA MIRANDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GRETA YVETTE MILLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TEODORA G. MERLIN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, HONORIA
MENDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARY V. MILLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ANITA MELENDEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, IRENE ELIZABETH MITCHELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JENNIFER MOORE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CLAUDETTE MORGAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAUREEN P.
MONSEGUR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ROSEANN MULIERI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARTHA C. MOLINA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH MORELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LINNETTE MONTALVO-BENITEZ, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NADINE MORINIA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BELINDA
ARACELY MORALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, HALEY FRANCES MODESTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BETTY MORALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIE V. MOHAMMED,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MINERVA
MONTALVO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIS MORILLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, XIOMARA MOREIRA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDRA MONTERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHERIE MONROE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GENA LOUISE MORDENTE, MAHA
MOHAMED, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIAM MOUSSA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LINDA FAY NIXON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, BETTYANN NAPPO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YUK HING NG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, IDANNIS S. MUSSE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PRISCILLA OCASIO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ADAMANTIA NIKOLOUDAKIS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARY ELLEN
MURRAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
HOSNEARA NIPA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARYANN NEVANDRO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MUHAMMAD NADIRAH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BUENAVENTURA OLIVEROS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARUA A. NOREIGA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELSA
NIEVES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARGARITA NEGRON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LEANNE MULLEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, KRYSTYNA NAPRAWA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHEILA MURRAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DESPINA NITTIS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, POKKISAM NADAR,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BRENDA
NIEVES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SUSAN JANE NEUFELD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LISA NUNEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANNA M. NAPOLITANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ACCIE MAE MURRAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NELSON E. NELSON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DAYANA NUNEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LULA
MULLENS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIA OLIVERAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ANGELA D. NIEVES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOANN NOETH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMEN OTERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH PACHECO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, HERMINIA E. ORTIZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH
PANNHORS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
EVELYN ORTIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ROSE PACHECO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, BEVERLY OSBORNE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KATHLEEN MARY PAGANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BRIDGET L. OVERTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TATIANA M.
OLSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JENNIE OUTERIE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, FRANCIA ORELLANA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA MARGARITA ORTIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RUBY K. PACK, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SOR MILAGROS PABON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VERONICA
ALEXANDRA OTAVAB, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MINCHALA GLORIA M. ORTIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ESTHER OYOLA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ORQUIDEA ORAGONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FRANCINE PAGANO, FRANCINE
PAGANO INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ANGELICA PAULINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, JADA PENNY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANNA M. PASSARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, REYNA PEREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROLINDA E. PARMIGIANI, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDRA M. PENA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROZIRA
PATANKAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JENELLE PEREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, GLADYS M. PAREDES-WILSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AREYLS PAULINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARGARET R. PARKES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KIMBERLY
PASTURES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
GLORIA L. PEREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DOREEN L. PEARSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CONNIE PATTI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SUSAN A. PAYE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DAWN P. PARISI, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NIDIA PEREZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FRANCINE
I. POWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIE PERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, HANA PICKERING, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARTA M. PEREZ TINEO ROSARIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YVETTE PRESCOTT-GROCE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JANET G.
PORTUALLO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JUSTINA BEATRIZ PEREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAGGIE POSTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LULA PHILLIPS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DOMENICA PERRINO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JENNIFER PRICE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KELLY LEE
PRALLE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CELESTINE ARIS PITT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MAKELA PETERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LISA J. PEREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHAKENA PETE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MILDRED PEREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LONETTE POUNDER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARY ELLEN PERRELLA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DONNA
PINTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
DIANDRA HEROINA GOMEZ PRESCOT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LUTCHMIN HARRI PERSAD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANA PEREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MICHELLE L. PETREE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, STACEY
PRATT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SANDRA I. PEREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SUSAN PREZIOSO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LOUISE PIZZANELLI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, WENDY C. POWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELSA RAMOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ESTEVEZ RAFAELA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIE
RAMEAU, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ALICE E. PUNZONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CHRISTINE CLAUDIA REDHEAD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JEANETTE RAMOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, HELEN PROFIT, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, WANDA RAMOS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SARAH RAJMAH,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANA L.
ATANARI QUITO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LINDA REED, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHRISTINA RAMOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MILAGROS RAMIREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SAHERA RAHMAN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANNA M. PRIGNOLI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSA
RAFFA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CHANA PRINCE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DAISY RAMOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA QUARTULLI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EDNA RAMIREZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TAMIKA RAID, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TIA E. RANDLE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NORDIA RABY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANGELINA
PUMA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
REJIA RAHMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DANIELLE RAMOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALICE PRIMONT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JEANETTE REDMON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHARLENE RAMOS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH RAMOS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RAFAELA
REYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SANDRA RICHARDSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SANDRA REYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JEANETTE RIOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AIBA R. REYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHAUNEEQUA RICHARDSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LULMA I.
REYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
OLGA L. RICO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, FRANCINE RICCIARDI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, THERESA A. RENDA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DENIA REYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NARCISA REYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELVIRA A. REYES, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CANDACE D. RICHMOND,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KAREN
RICHARDSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARITZA REYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA REYES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANE RICE-MAHARAJ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARY A. RE-SEAMAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BRENDA
RIGGINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
DONNA ROMANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ELIZABETH ROBBINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALICIA RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LETICIA RIVERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSE MARIA ROSADO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EVELYN
ROMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
TANEEK RIVERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MELISSA J. ROMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, GLORIA RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMEN RIVERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARTA PEREZ TINEO TINEO
ROSARIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CHRISTINA ROMERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ROSA M. RODRIGUEZ-PERALTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMEN SONIA RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DONNA RITTER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELSA RODRIGUEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NORMA
RIVERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
FLAVIA A. ROMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MILAGROS CARMEN RIVERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARY D. RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LEAH RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LESLIE LILIA ROSADO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GINA
RIVERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ROSA RIVERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, BENILDA RODRIGUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, GLORIA H. ROSADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARILYN RIVERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA ROSARIO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GRACE J. ROLLOCK,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHRISTINA
ROMERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
PATRICIA RUIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DINELIA ROCIO SALDANA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SANDRA V. ROWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIBEL SANCHEZ, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AIELLO ROSINA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARTHA
IRENE SAGRERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, AYESHA ROY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LUZ SALINAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DEBORAH A. RUIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, EDNA INES ROSARIO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PETRA
RUIZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JILL
ROSENBERG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
RONNIE ROWELL-PORTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, GUADALUPE SALDIVAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHRISTINE A. RYALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DORIS ROYAL, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VERA L. ROSSER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANNA B.
RUSSELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CARMEN M. ROSARIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ZAIDA SALINAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, WONDA SCIPIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANNE SANTIAGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PRARTHANA SARMA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANA SANTANA,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHRISTINE
SEMIDEI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ALICE MADELINE SCHMIDT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA SANNINO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CLARE SCHOOLCRAFT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SUMONA SARKAR, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NANCY SANTIAGO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LUCY
SERRANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
THELMA THURMAN SCUDEREL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, GIACOMA SCARPA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ORIANA SANTOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHRISTINA SANCHEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMEN
MARIA SANTOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SHERIE SANDERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LORETTA MARY SCIACCA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSA SANTANA, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BETH A. SAUNDERS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JEANNE
SANZONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARGUERITE SEIDENFADEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MADELINE SANTIAGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AISSATA SANOGO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SAMANTHA QUANICE SANTOS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, THERESA
SEGAR, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
JEAN SANCHEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LINDA SEPE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, AMY SCEICZINA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KATHLEEN S. SCOTT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARMEN MELAGRO SINGFIELD,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AGNES G.
SMALLWOOD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
EVA SIMEON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SANDRA R. SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, BRIGETTE SHELLOW, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PEGGY SMALLS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAROL L. SIMMS-SAMUEL, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TRENNIS SMITH,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KRISTAL V.
SINGH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CATHERINE SERRANO-ROCHE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, VEDANA SINGH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KRYSTLE SHELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LYNELLE J. SIMMONS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CARLEEN
SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
RENEE SINGLETON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ATTISE SIMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, YOLANDA SIERRA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CHRISTINE SINGLETON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SONIA SHARMA, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANNIE SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ALEXIS SPEARMAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MICHELLE
STALLINGS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MINERVA SOTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DONNA M. SVEVA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CRUCITA SOTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VERNON ST. HILLAIRE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAGARITA SOTO, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOCYNTHIA STOKES,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, OCTAVIA C.
SPIKES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
LISA SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, NUNZIATINA SPERANZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, LISA DESSIREE SMITH-AYARS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANA SOTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, THERESA J. STEMBRIDGE,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DELORES
SPRUILL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ARAMINTA SPARACIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, LYDIA SOTO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, GRACE SPINKS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JENNIFER SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELENI STRATIGAKOS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RAFAELA
TLATELPA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
IRENE THIES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ANTOINETTE THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, FANNY TEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSA TORRES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARY L. THOMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, FLORENCE E. TAYLOR,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JUANITA
THOMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
DARLENE D. THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, JENNIFER TERSTENYAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA TREZZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANGEL TOLIVER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHARON DENISE THOMPSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSALIE
THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MARIE TAMAYO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DEBORAH A. THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ARNITA TATE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TERESA TICALI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHIRLEY BEAMON TERRY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAUREEN
THOMPSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
LILLIC THOMAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ALISON N. TORCHIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, EVANGELIA THEODOSIOU, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANA L. TEKVERK, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BERNADETTE F. THOMAS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PATRICIA
TOMASELLI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
HATICE TASTABAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, SARAH E. TORRES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, MADELINE TODARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SAHIRIS VASQUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANITHA URANUS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, THERESA LYNN VAN
GELDER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
KATHY DIANE TURNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, TERESA VELEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, BEATRIZ VARGAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SOFNNIA TSAMOS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA L. VARGAS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PETONILA VALSATO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VASIDE
UNAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANN
A. VERBITSKY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, GIOVANNA VASTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, JACQUELINE VARELA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSEMARIE VACCARO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AWILDA TROCHE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELIZABETH UTLEY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BARBARA
ANN TRYDE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ANNETTE VASATURO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, BARBARA H. TYLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ETHEL M. VANN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AIDA L. VALENTIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARIA VELEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSA R. URAGA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GAIL TURNER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARLENE
VALAZQUEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
GLORIA VEGA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, BRISCE MICHELLE TROTMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JANET P. VERA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MAXIMA VARGAS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JESSICA S. VASQUEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CAMILLE
WATSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
LARITA WALKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ANDREA WALTHER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, DIANA VIVAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JANICE WESTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ROSALIE ANNE WASHACK,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, NANCY E.
VILLANUEVA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, MARTIS WASHINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, NAYISHA L. WALTERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MICHELE VOTTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TAMAICA WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, HEIDI WEATHERLY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RASHONDA
WARTHEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SIBA WALKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DIANE VERGONA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, ANITA S. WALKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MADDLANA VIGGIANO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, WILHELMINA WASHINGTON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LOUISE M.
VOCCIO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
EARW WARLOW, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, CATHERINE MARY WALSH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JANICE WESTON, DEBORAH S. WALKER,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MICHELINA
VISTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
GALE WALLACE-PEARSALL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, SALAMA O. WEENES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, TANYA WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VICTORIA VICENTE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DOROTHY WHEELER, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DULCE WARZAN,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MILDRED
WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ALBERTA WILKERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, KANIYAH RONELASIA WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, MARGARET ANN WHITESTONE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JUSTINE ANNETTE
WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
ASIA M. DOLLARD WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, CASSANDRA WHITE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, WILMA L. WOOTEN-GRAHAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, BEATRICE WILLIAMS-MANIGO,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SUSANNA L.
WOHLFAHRT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
NADINE A. WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, DAISY YU, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ELREDA WOODS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, NINA WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KATHY WOODSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VICTORIA M. WITHERSPOON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, SHIRLEY
WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
XIU YUN ZHENG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, IRMA XHIDRA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, KIM WONG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, QUEEN WINCHESTER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, KATURAH S. WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PAMELLA WILSON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RUBY WILLIAMS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, JOSEPHINE
WOONEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
SARAH WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, GLADYS WOLFSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, THERESA WINTJEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, LATANIA NICOLE YOUNG, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, GERALDINE WILLIAMS,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CYNTHIA
WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
GENELLE KIMBERLY WINSTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, TIFFANY YOUNG, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ELAINE WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, YEE HAN SZETO YU, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DOMINQUE WOODLY,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, HARRIET
WORRELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant-Appellee,
Case No. 18-1607-cv (2d Cir.).

The Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from the District Court's grant of
summary judgment for Defendant-Appellee City of New York in a class
action alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act, the New York State
Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.  The
Plaintiffs -- predominantly female school crossing guards ("SCGs")
-- allege that, due to their sex, they are paid less than
predominantly male Level II Traffic Enforcement Agents ("TEA
IIs").

The Appellate Court affirms for substantially the reasons set forth
in the District Court's well-reasoned and thorough May 1, 2018
Opinion and Order.  The SCG and TEA II jobs are not substantially
equivalent, as TEA IIs must fulfill more requirements, undergo more
training, perform more responsibilities, and labor under different
and more hazardous working conditions.

It finds that the Plaintiffs do not persuasively dispute these
differences.  Instead, they argue that the District Court erred by
failing to circumscribe the scope of its comparison to times when
TEA IIs are temporarily assigned to work at school-crossing guard
posts.  Not only do they fail to cite any authority that would
support narrowing the scope of the District Court's job function
analysis, but they have also waived this argument by failing to
present it.  Further, the Plaintiffs have failed to offer any proof
of discriminatory animus, since they do not allege -- much less
identify any evidence -- that the pay rates achieved through
collective bargaining were based on gender or that any facially
neutral City employment practice had a discriminatory impact
against women.

The Court has reviewed all of the remaining arguments raised by the
Plaintiffs on appeal and finds them to be without merit.  For the
foregoing reasons, it affirmed the May 1, 2018 judgment of the
District Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Summary Order is
available at https://is.gd/2f9P73 from Leagle.com.

ROGER V. ARCHIBALD (Leonard W. Stewart, on the brief), Roger Victor
Archibald, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY., for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

YASMIN ZAINULBHAI (Richard Dearing, on the brief), for Zachary W.
Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY.,
for Defendant-Appellee.


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Mancebro Filed in Gulino Bias 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 May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit titled 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 previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's rulings 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. 19-1985, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Diana Mancebro 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: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Mitchell Filed in Gulino Bias 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 May 30, 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 previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's rulings 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. 19-1933, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Annette Mitchell 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: 2nd Cir. Appeal v. Stanford Filed in Gulino Bias 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 May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled 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 previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's rulings 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. 19-1937, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Yinka Stanford 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: Educ. Board Appeals Decision for Decena 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 May 30, 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 previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's rulings 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. 19-1969, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Andrea Margarita Decena 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: Educ. Board Appeals Decision v. Escobar 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 May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled 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 previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's rulings 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. 19-1934, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Evelisse Escobar 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: Educ. Board Appeals Ruling v. Mathieu 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 May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit styled 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 previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's rulings 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. 19-2004, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Marie Gasline Mathieu 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: Judgment v.  Rugel in Gulino Suit Appealed to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 May 30, 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 previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's rulings 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. 19-1999, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Axa Rugel 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: Judgment v. Muriel in Gulino Suit Appealed to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit titled 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 previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's rulings 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. 19-1935, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Gregory Muriel 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: Judgment v. Ruiz in Gulino Suit Appealed to 2nd Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 May 30, 2019, in the lawsuit titled 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 previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 12,
2019, the Board of Education filed several appeals from the
District Court's rulings 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. 19-2005, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee Carmen Ruiz 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


OCWEN LOAN SERVICING: Davalle Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned EDWARD J. DAVALLE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2019-CA-007244 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Palm Beach County Florida to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 10, 2019, and
assigned Case No. 9:19-cv-80902-XXXX.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that OLS charged Plaintiff
for 5 inspections for Property 1, but, when asked, only provided
evidence of 3 inspections/reports. Moreover, OLS allegedly charged
Plaintiff for 12 inspections for Property 2, but, when asked,
produced evidence of only 11 inspection reports. Plaintiff alleges
that OLS acknowledged this error.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

     Patrick G. Broderick, Esq.
     Adam P. Hartley, Esq.
     Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
     777 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 300 East
     West Palm Beach, FL 33401
     Phone: (561) 650-7900
     Email: broderickp@gtlaw.com
            hartleya@gtlaw.com


OMNI MANAGEMENT: Diwa Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT DIWA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OMNI MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, ALL SEASONS
TRAVEL AND RESORT INC. d/b/a VACATION VILLAS OF FLORIDA; and
LAWRENCE FLYNN, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01660 (M.D. Fla., July
9, 2019) is an action for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated recover
the overtime wages stolen by Defendants in there willful scheme to
evade the overtime wage requirements of the FLSA.

The Defendants willfully misclassified Plaintiff and the class of
similarly situated inside sales reps as exempt from overtime, and
willfully refused to pay them overtime wages. Alternatively,
Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to pay a premium
for overtime hours worked to Plaintiff and the class of similarly
situated, paying them only straight time, or not at all, as well as
editing or removing overtime hours they knew, saw and were aware
had been worked by Plaintiff and the class of similarly situated.
The Defendants also willfully edit, manipulate, and falsify time
records in an intentional effort to conceal evidence of overtime
hours worked by inside sales representatives, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Diwa worked for Defendants from November, 2016, until
November, 2018, in the call center and Defendants' offices, as a
Sales Representative.

Defendants operate a business enterprise selling timeshare vacation
packages and other travel promotions related in part or whole to a
timeshare resort called Silver Lakes, located in Kissimmee,
Florida, from a call center type office in Tampa, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
     FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
     6940 W. Linebaugh Ave, #101
     Tampa, FL 33625
     Phone: 813-639-9366
     Fax: 813-639-9376
     Email: mlf@feldmanlegal.us
     Secondary: mhockensmith@feldmanlegal.us


OXY USA: Tenth Circuit Appeal Filed in Cooper Clark Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Cooper Clark Foundation and Phillip Fink filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Cooper Clark
Foundation, et al. v. OXY USA INC., Case No. 6:18-CV-01222-JWB-KGG,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas - Wichita.

The appellate case is captioned as Cooper Clark Foundation, et al.
v. OXY USA INC., Case No. 19-3136, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24, 2019, the
Plaintiffs appealed from a Court ruling in the lawsuit.  That
appellate case is titled Cooper Clark Foundation, et al. v. OXY USA
Inc., Case No. 19-603.

On June 4, 2019, the District Court issued a Memorandum and Order
denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider.

The District Court previously entered an order denying the
Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to state court.  The
pertinent question in that decision was whether a consolidated
class action was merged into a single action under Kansas state
law.  If so, the amount in controversy was established in this
case.  In the prior order, the undersigned conducted a review of
Kansas and federal law and determined that when a plaintiff obtains
consolidation under K.S.A. 60-242(a)(2) of putative class actions
with overlapping claims, classes, and defendants, consolidation
results in merger and CAFA jurisdiction is therefore evaluated
based on the amount in controversy in the merged case.

Therefore, CAFA jurisdiction was established and the motion to
remand was denied, according to the Memorandum and Order.

The Plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration of the District
Court's decision.  The Plaintiffs argue that the District Court
erred by interpreting the state court judge's consolidation order
as a consolidation under 60-242(a)(2) and that the court erred by
not following federal law.

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

   -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of
      appearance are due on July 23, 2019, for Cooper Clark
      Foundation and Phillip Fink;

   -- Notice of appearance is due on July 23, 2019, for OXY USA
      Inc.;

   -- Appellants brief and appendix were due July 19, 2019, for
      Cooper Clark Foundation and Phillip Fink;

   -- Appellee's brief is due on July 29, 2019, for OXY USA Inc.;
      and

   -- Appellants optional reply brief is due on August 5, 2019,
      for Cooper Clark Foundation and Phillip Fink.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants COOPER CLARK FOUNDATION, on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated, and PHILLIP FINK, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Barbara Frankland, Esq.
          Scott B. Goodger, Esq.
          Rex Sharp, Esq.
          REX A. SHARP, PA
          5301 West 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0500
          E-mail: bfrankland@midwest-law.com
                  sgoodger@midwest-law.com
                  rsharp@midwest-law.com

Defendant-Appellee OXY USA INC. is represented by:

          James M. Armstrong, Esq.
          Mikel L. Stout, Esq.
          FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP
          1551 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
          Wichita, KS 67206-4466
          Telephone: (316) 267-6371
          E-mail: jarmstrong@foulston.com
                  mstout@foulston.com

               - and -

          Aurra Fellows, Esq.
          Mark C. Rodriguez, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500
          Houston, TX 77002-6760
          Telephone: (713) 758-2222
          E-mail: afellows@velaw.com
                  mrodriguez@velaw.com


PATINA RESTAURANT: Ricciardelli Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
VINCENT RICCIARDELLI, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PATINA
RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, and RAPERA, LLC, and DELAWARE NORTH
COMPANIES, INCORPORATED, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06450
(S.D.N.Y., July 11, 2019), seeks to recover overtime pay under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from November 1, 2017 until his
termination on or about April 23, 2018. The Defendants
misclassified Plaintiff as exempt from federal and New York
overtime laws due to Plaintiff's nominal promotion to Sous Chef,
required him to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but paid him a
flat salary to cover only his first 40 hours worked per week, and
thus failed to compensate Plaintiff at any rate of pay, let alone
at the statutorily-required overtime rate of time and one-half his
regular rate for each hour that Plaintiff worked per week in excess
of 40.

Additionally, for those days when Plaintiff's shift spanned in
excess of 10 hours from beginning to end, which was almost every
workday, Defendants did not compensate the Plaintiff with an
additional one hour's pay at the minimum wage rate, in violation of
the NYLL and the NYCRR, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 679-5000
          Facsimile. (212) 679-5005

PEOPLES BANK: Baker et al. Seek Wages & OT Pay for Loan Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD L. YANKELOV, HOWARD YANKELOV, MARK A. BAKER, JR., WILLIAM
F. BROOKS, THOMAS BRUMBACK LARRY GOREN, CHARLES HOBBS, STACEY
KEARNEY, MILES KOBIN, MIKE MAGGIO, JASON NAMMACK, ADAM NIEHAUS,
JEFFREY PAVSNER, JUSTIN PHELPS, and MATTHEW TRONE, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
PEOPLES BANK AND TRUST CO., the Defendant, Case 1:19-cv-02042-DKC
(D. Md., July 11, 2019), alleges that Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated persons all earned regular
wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

The Defendant employs or employed loan officers/loan originators in
Baltimore County, Maryland. These employees work or worked at home
offices or office buildings when performing their primary duty of
selling mortgage products to customers on behalf of the Defendant.
The Defendant treated these employees as exempt from overtime under
the FLSA, the MWHL, and the MWPCL.

The Defendant failed to properly classify Plaintiffs and similarly
situated individuals as non-exempt employees under the FLSA, the
MWHL, and the MWPCL.

Instead of paying employees a regular hourly wage for the first 40
hours worked in a workweek, the Defendants would often pay
Plaintiffs a "draw" against future commission payments:
compensation at an hourly rate for a fixed number of hours each
week, the value of which the Defendant would later deduct from any
commission payments earned by Plaintiffs or other similarly
situated employees. Some Plaintiffs and similarly situated
employees did not receive any draw or other compensation for hours
worked, or for hours during which they earned no commissions.

Peoples Bank & Trust Co. is a family owned bank since 1906. The
bank offers business and personal banking solutions, mortgage
lending, and commercial lending.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Michal Shinnar, Esq.
          Thomas J. Gagliardo, Esq.
          GILBERT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
          1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 608-0880
          Facsimile: (301) 608-0881
          E-mail: mshinnar-efile@gelawyer.com
                  tgagliardo@gelawyer.com

PFIZER: Faces Class Action Over All Natural ChapStick Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that a
class action lawsuit against Pfizer alleges its ChapStick lip balm
lines are not all natural.

Lead plaintiff, Louise Noelke, filed suit against Pfizer in St.
Clair County Circuit Court over claims made about various lines of
its ChapStick brand that are advertised as "100% natural lip
butter," including Pink Grapefruit, Green Tea, Mint, and Sweet
Papaya.

The suit, which the plaintiff seeks to certify as a class action,
alleges the products are not all natural and contain synthetics.
The suit states that the ChapStick lines contain a total of six
different processed compounds, which "by definition are not
natural."

Noelke claims Pfizer "deceptively, falsely, and unfairly
represented that the products are '100% natural', which deceives
consumers into believing the products do not contain synthetic
ingredients."

Noelke alleges she bought the products on numerous occasions,
including within the last six months. She is seeking to recover
damages on behalf of herself and members of the class under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act (ICFA).

"If plaintiff had known the product in fact had contained synthetic
ingredients she would not have purchased it or would have paid less
for it," the complaint states.

The complaint further accuses the company of playing on the fact
that "consumers are increasingly interested in purchasing healthy,
natural products that do not contain harmful synthetic chemicals
and ingredients."  

Noelke alleges Pfizer engaged in unjust enrichment because its
"acceptance and retention" of profits from the sale of the products
is "inequitable and unjust."

In response to the filing of the lawsuit, Pfizer provided the
following statement:

"Pfizer provides consumers with truthful information, and the
packaging and advertising for ChapStick(R) products are accurate
and scientifically sound.  We deny the plaintiffs' allegations and
believe this lawsuit has no merit."

Plaintiff attorney David Nelson of Nelson and Nelson in Belleville
did not respond to a request for comment from the Record. [GN]


POST CONSUMER: Misrepresents Honey Content in Cereals, Tucker Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
PETER TUCKER, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, vs. POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-03993-KAW (N.D. Cal., July 11, 2019),
alleges that Defendant made false, deceptive, and misleading
representations with regards to varieties of a breakfast cereal
known as "Honey Bunches of Oats," by omitting material
information.

The Defendant's branding and packaging of these cereals convey that
honey is the primary sweetener, or at the very least is a
significant sweetener.

However, the cereals are sweetened primarily with sugar, corn
syrup, and other refined substances, and contain only miniscule
amounts of honey.

The Plaintiff and all members were harmed by paying more to
purchase the cereals than they would have been willing to pay had
their honey content not been misrepresented by Defendant, the
lawsuit says.

The Defendant's deceptive advertising caused Plaintiff and the
Class members to suffer injury in fact and to lose money or
property, as it denied them the benefit of the bargain when they
decided to purchase the Products over other products that are less
expensive, and contain virtually the same (or immaterially
different) amount of honey and/or less added sugar. Had Plaintiff
and the members of the Class been aware of Defendant’s false and
misleading advertising tactics, they would not have purchased the
Product at all, or would have paid less than what they did for it.

The Plaintiff also seeks an order directing the disgorgement and
restitution of all monies from the sale of Defendant's Products
that were unjustly acquired through act of unlawful, unfair and/or
fraudulent competition.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          George V. Granade, Esq.
          REESE LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
                  ggranade@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
          QUAT LAW OFFICES
          929 Worcester Road
          Framingham, MA 01701
          Telephone: (508) 872-1261
          E-mail: ken@quatlaw.com

PREFERRED FAMILY: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Huff Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
RANDAL HUFF, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PREFERRED FAMILY HEALTHCARE, INCORPORATED; and QUAPAW
HOUSE, INC., Case No. 3:19-cv-00193-BSM (E.D. Ark., July 8, 2019),
alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

Mr. Huff alleges that the Defendants fail to pay him and other
Mental Health Professionals lawful overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Preferred Family Healthcare, Incorporated, is a nonprofit
corporation created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of
the state of Missouri, registered to do business in the state of
Arkansas.  Preferred Family Healthcare's principal address is in
Kirksville, Missouri.  Preferred Family Healthcare provides
substance abuse treatment, prevention, and mental health services
in over 145 locations located throughout Arkansas, Missouri,
Oklahoma, Kansas and Illinois.

Quapaw House, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation created and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Arkansas,
registered to do business in the state of Arkansas.  Headquartered
in Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas, Quapaw provides substance
abuse treatment, prevention, and mental health services in over 35
locations across the state of Arkansas.  Quapaw is liable both as
the Plaintiff's direct employer following its takeover of certain
clinics from Preferred Family Healthcare and under the doctrine of
successor liability.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Lopez-Negron Suit Reinstated in Law Division
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH LOPEZ-NEGRON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE FREEDOM INSURANCE COMPANY, and DRIVE NEW
JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Respondents, ELIZABETH
LOPEZ-NEGRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, Case No. A-3590-17T2 (N.J. Super.
App. Div), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division,
reversed the trial court's dismissal order and reinstated the case
in the Law Division.

The case returns two years after the Court's 2017 opinion reversing
the Law Division's Rule 4:6-2(e) dismissal of the Plaintiff's
complaint for failure to state a claim.  On remand, after related
federal qui tam litigation settled, the Law Division dismissed the
complaint again, this time on entire controversy grounds.

New Jersey's Fair Automobile Insurance Reform Act, amended N.J.S.A.
39:6A-4.3(d), a provision of the Automobile Insurance Cost
Reduction Act, to require that automobile insurers offer applicants
the option to designate their health insurance provider as the
primary payer of Personal Injury Protection benefits.  Plans
providing such a designation are often referred to as
"health-first" policies, whereby the auto insurer serves as a
secondary payer for injuries that policyholders sustain in motor
vehicle accidents.  However, Medicare and Medicaid recipients
cannot qualify for "health-first" policies.  Federal law generally
requires Medicare and Medicaid to be secondary payers of last
resort if a primary payer exists.

Plaintiff Lopez-Negron, who was covered by Medicare, applied for
automobile insurance with Progressive online.  She obtained a
"health-first" plan from Progressive despite her ineligibility.
Progressive did not obtain other information about Lopez-Negron's
health insurance coverage and Medicare status until after she was
in the auto accident leading to the present controversy.

In May of 2010, Lopez-Negron was in a motor vehicle accident.  She
received treatment from Diagnostic Imaging, Inc.  Oxford Health
Care PC, Aria Health System, and the City of Philadelphia EMS
Division.  Particularly relevant to the state claims are the x-rays
the Plaintiff received from Diagnostic.  Diagnostic submitted its
bills to Progressive.  Progressive's claims adjuster denied the
bills because Lopez-Negron had a "health-first" auto policy.
Diagnostic then submitted its bills to Medicare, and Medicare paid
for the two x-rays.

Lopez-Negron filed a bodily injury claim against the third-party
tortfeasor in the accident and received a settlement from that
driver's insurer.  Medicare placed a subrogation lien on the
settlement proceeds.

In January 2014, Lopez-Negron filed a qui tam action on behalf of
the United States and the State of New Jersey against Progressive
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The
federal complaint alleged claims under the False Claims Act
("FCA"), and state law claims under the New Jersey False Claims Act
("NJFCA").  Generally, the federal complaint alleged Progressive
engaged in an illegal scheme by which [the insurance company]
exploited New Jersey auto insurance law to avoid paying medical
benefits to motor vehicle accident victims by causing healthcare
providers to submit false and fraudulent claims to Medicare and
Medicaid.

Meanwhile, in February 2015, Lopez-Negron filed a class action
complaint in the Law Division, pursuant to Rule 4:32, against
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., Progressive Garden State
Insurance Co., Progressive Freedom Insurance Co., and Drive New
Jersey Insurance Co.   The class action complaint raises claims
against Progressive under the NJCFA, the New Jersey
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, plus
common-law claims of fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract,
and bad faith.

Lopez-Negron brought the class action on behalf of all Medicare and
Medicaid beneficiaries who have purchased New Jersey auto insurance
policies from the Defendants that, in violation of State and
Federal law, deem Medicare or Medicaid the primary payer of medical
expenses, including those who had a Medicare or Medicaid lien
levied on a third-party recovery as a result of the purchase.
Lopez-Negron seeks various forms of relief, including statewide
class certification, injunctive relief, and damages.

In December 2015, Lopez-Negron filed a second class action
complaint in the Law Division against another Progressive entity,
Progressive Direct Insurance Co.  This complaint was substantively
identical to the Plaintiff's initial class action complaint.  She
asserts that she discovered the identity of this fifth Progressive
defendant during the first appeal in the state action, and that she
filed the separate complaint to toll the statute of limitations.

Pursuant to a consent order, this second state action was stayed
pending the resolution on appeal of the first state action. The
consent order also specified that the matter "shall be
consolidated" with the first state action once the appeal was
resolved.

Progressive filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint in both
the federal and state cases.  In each instance, it argued that
Lopez-Negron failed to present a viable claim upon which relief may
be granted.

In the federal case, Progressive moved to dismiss the case under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) in June 2015.  On March 1, 2016, the
district court denied Progressive's motion to dismiss, finding that
Lopez-Negron sufficiently pled her FCA and NJFCA claims.

Meanwhile, in June 2015, Progressive moved to dismiss the state
class action complaint under Rule 4:6-2(e) for failure to state a
claim. Progressive also moved to strike the class allegations as
deficient under Rule 4:32-1.  The Law Division granted
Progressive's motion to dismiss on Nov. 5, 2015, finding
Lopez-Negron's claims not viable as a matter of law.  The Law
Division did not rule upon Progressive's motion to strike the class
claims.

Lopez-Negron appealed the Law Division's grant of Progressive's
motion to dismiss.  On March 6, 2017, in an unpublished opinion,
the Superior Court vacated the dismissal order and remanded the
case to the Law Division.  Following the remand, Lopez-Negron filed
a motion in the district court for leave to amend her federal
complaint to include the state claims.  The New Jersey action was
stayed pending the resolution of the federal action.

On Sept. 12, 2017, the district court dismissed Lopez-Negron's
motion to amend because of a Sept. 11, 2017 letter advising that a
tentative settlement had been reached.  The court noted that
Lopez-Negron could "refile the motion if the settlement was not
consummated.

Before the federal case settled, the parties conducted a partial
amount of discovery. There were no depositions taken or expert
reports exchanged.  A proposed joint discovery plan filed on Aug.
23, 2017 states that after Progressive responded to Lopez-Negron's
initial document requests and interrogatories and made additional
productions in the fall of 2016, the parties agreed to focus
discovery on potential damages in an effort to reach an early
resolution of this matter through settlement.

On Nov. 14, 2017, the United States, the State of New Jersey,
Lopez-Negron, and Progressive entered into a settlement agreement
in the federal qui tam action.  Without any admission of
wrongdoing, Progressive agreed to pay $1.38 million plus interest
in settlement to the United States and $620,000 plus interest to
the State of New Jersey.  The settlement agreement provided that
the United States and New Jersey would pay Lopez-Negron 30% of
these settlement amounts.  Progressive also was to pay Lopez-Negron
$212,700 as payment for attorney's fees and $180,000for costs and
expenses in connection with the Civil Action.  On Feb. 15, 2018,
the district court issued an order dismissing the claims in the
federal case, pursuant to the settlement agreement.
Following the federal settlement agreement, the stay of the Law
Division case was lifted through a consent order in November 2017.
Progressive then filed a "Motion to Preclude the Complaint Under R.
4:30A."  Progressive also filed a motion to strike the class
allegations.

On March 16, 2018, a different Law Division judge who had been
assigned the case issued an oral opinion, after hearing argument
from the parties.  The judge's opinion and companion order granted
the Progressive's motion to preclude the state complaint under Rule
4:30A and dismissed all of Lopez-Negron's claims with prejudice.

After reflecting upon the parties' arguments and the rather
idiosyncratic path of the federal and state court actions, the
Superior Court concludes that the equitable factors weigh in favor
of allowing the Plaintiff's yet-to-be-adjudicated state law claims
to go forward.  There is no allegation that existence of the
federal qui tam action was not duly disclosed to Progressive when
that case was unsealed shortly after the Law Division case was
filed.  Progressive knew all along that it was defending both the
federal and state cases based on a common core set of factual
allegations.

When it initially moved to dismiss the Law Division action,
Progressive exclusively invoked Rule 4:6-2(e) (failure to state a
claim), and did not raise the entire controversy doctrine as a
separate independent ground for dismissal.  It was not until the
Court, sua sponte, inquired into the subject before oral argument
on the first appeal and requested supplemental briefing, that the
entire controversy concern came to the fore.

The Court opines that case law instructs that the entire
controversy doctrine is an affirmative defense, which can be waived
if not timely asserted.  Although Progressive complains about
having to endure four years of litigation, it could have attempted
to forestall the duplicative and piecemeal actions by asking the
court to bar the Law Division case with an early motion.  It chose
not to do so, perhaps for strategic reasons that are not obvious on
the surface. Although we do not rule that Progressive "waived" its
right to invoke the entire controversy doctrine, the belated timing
of its argument, prompted by this court's sua sponte inquiry in
2017, is at least relevant to the overall equities presented.

The Court discerns no strong institutional reasons to dismiss the
Law Division case at this juncture.  Although paper (or digital)
discovery of documents was conducted in the federal case, no
depositions were yet taken. No expert reports were exchanged.
Presumably many of the documents uncovered and supplied in the
federal case will be useful in the Law Division case.  It is not
wasteful or institutionally detrimental for the Law Division case
to proceed, now that the federal action has settled.  The
controversy is no longer fragmented into two forums.

Lastly, it concludes it would be unfair to the Plaintiff and the
putative class members to extinguish these state-law claims before
discovery is completed, followed by possible dispositive motions or
a trial.  As it has noted, the Plaintiff could not entirely control
the path of the qui tam claims, and it was not clear if the federal
court would have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state
claims if it reached the merits of that motion.  The Court also
recognizes, as did the district judge in the cognate action, that
the Plaintiff's allegations of improper conduct, as pleaded, had
enough potential merit to survive a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a viable claim.

For these reasons, the Superior Court reversed the trial court's
dismissal order and reinstated the case in the Law Division.  The
trial judge will convene a case management conference within 30
days to plan the remaining discovery and pretrial motions,
including the disposition of class certification issues.

To the extent the Court has not commented on other points raised by
both parties, it has fully considered them but concluded they lack
sufficient merit or importance to require written comment.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/PRZXL4 from Leagle.com.

Jeremy E. Abay -- jabay@sackslaw.com -- argued the cause for
appellant (Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC and Dilworth Paxson, LLP,
attorneys; John K. Weston -- jweston@sackslaw.com -- (Sacks Weston
Diamond, LLC), of the Pennsylvania bar, admitted pro hac vice,
Jeremy E. Abay, Thomas S. Biemer -- tbiemer@dilworthlaw.com --
Jerry R. DeSiderato -- jdesiderato@dilworthlaw.com -- and Erik L.
Coccia, on the briefs).

Michael K. Loucks -- michael.loucks@skadden.com -- (Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP), of the Massachusetts bar, admitted pro
hac vice, argued the cause for respondents (Carl D. Poplar, P.A.
and Michael K. Loucks, attorneys; Michael K. Loucks, of counsel;
Carl D. Poplar, on the briefs).


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Data Breach Class Action in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for Law.com, reports that in the wake of a
massive data breach, New Jersey-based laboratory testing company
Quest Diagnostics is facing investigations from the attorneys
general of Connecticut and Illinois, as well as a putative class
action in New Jersey.

The company, headquartered in Secaucus, had said the breach might
have exposed the personal information of nearly 12 million Quest
patients and 7.7 million Laboratory Corp. of America patients. The
breach was reportedly the result of malicious activity on the web
payment page of American Medical Collection Agency, a third-party
collection vendor for the two medical testing companies.

The June 7 announcement from Connecticut Attorney General William
Tong and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul came two days after
a prospective class action was filed in New Jersey federal court
against Quest, AMCA and Optum360 LLC, which provides billing
collection services to the health industry.

In a statement, Tong said the investigation is needed because
"sensitive personal information of millions of patients may have
been compromised, and I am deeply concerned about the adequacy of
the plans in place to notify and protect all affected individuals,"
he said. "It is important to determine the cause of this serious
data breach and what steps these companies are taking to ensure
this does not happen again."

Meanwhile, Florida plaintiff Traci Julin, a frequent Quest patient,
filed the prospective class action June 5 in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.

Representing the plaintiffs are James Barry of Cherry Hill-based
Locks Law Firm, John Yanchunis and Patrick Barthle of Morgan &
Morgan in Florida, Michael Galpern of Javerbaum Wurgaft Hicks Kahn
Wikstrom & Sinins in Springfield, and Jared Lee of Longwood,
Florida-based Jackson Lee.

The 36-page lawsuit says the company failed to properly notify
patients of the breach, waiting two months before disclosure.

As "proximate results of defendant's unconscionable or deceptive
acts and practices, plaintiff and class members suffered an
ascertainable loss in money or property, real or personal …
including the loss of their legally protected interest in the
confidentiality and privacy of their PII [personally identifiable
information]," the suit claims.

The complaint adds: "Defendants have not disclosed the full extent
and nature of the data breach, nor offered anything to its patients
to address and compensate the harm they have suffered."

Quest said the exposure occurred between Aug. 1, 2018, and March
30, 2019.

The breach, the lawsuit says, "was a direct result of defendants'
failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security
procedures and protocols necessary to protect patient PII."

The lawsuit seeks class certification, monetary damages and a
mandatory injunction directing the defendants to adequately
safeguard the class' personal information and implement improved
security procedures.

No one from Quest's media relations department responded to a
request for comment June 7, and the company had not assigned an
attorney to represent it in the lawsuit as of that date.

But the company posted a statement on its website, saying: "Quest
is taking this matter very seriously and is committed to the
privacy and security of our patients' personal information. Since
learning of the AMCA data security incident, we have suspended
sending collection requests to AMCA. . . . Quest is working with
AMCA and Optum360 to ensure that Quest patients are appropriately
notified consistent with the law."

In an emailed statement, Yanchunis said, "These companies, like
Quest Diagnostics, know they are at an increased risk and yet have
not taken the proper steps to protect their patients' data. We will
fight for justice on behalf of those impacted by this breach."

Will Rasmussen of New York City-based Brunswick Group, a
communications and advisory firm, issued the following statement on
behalf of AMCA: "We are investigating a data incident involving an
unauthorized user accessing the American Medical Collection Agency
system. Upon receiving information from a security compliance firm
that works with credit card companies of a possible security
compromise, we conducted an internal review, and then took down our
web payments page. We hired a third-party external forensics firm
to investigate any potential security breach in our systems,
migrated our web payments portal services to a third-party vendor,
and retained additional experts to advise on, and implement, steps
to increase our systems' security. We have also advised law
enforcement of this incident. AMCA is providing 24 months of credit
monitoring to anyone who had a Social Security number or credit
card account compromised, even if the relevant state doesn't
require it. We remain committed to our system's security, data
privacy, and the protection of personal information."

No one was available from Optum360′s media relations team. [GN]


QUEST: French Sues Over Compromised Personal Information
--------------------------------------------------------
GLENN FRENCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED and
OPTUM360, LLC Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-14956 (D. N.J., July 10,
2019) is a class action on behalf of all persons whose personal
information was compromised as a direct result of Defendants'
failure to safeguard millions of patients' highly sensitive
medical, personal, and financial information.

In providing its services, Quest collects its customers' medical,
personal, and financial information. Plaintiff, like millions of
other consumers, entrusted his sensitive medical, personal, and
financial information to Quest when he retained Quest for
diagnostic services. Quest contracts with Optum360 for revenue
services operations. In turn, Optum360 uses American Medical
Collection Agency, Inc. ("AMCA") as one of its billing collection
agencies. Optum360 and AMCA obtain and share Quest customers'
private information.

On June 3, 2019, Quest revealed that an unauthorized user had
access to AMCA's system which contained personally identifiably
information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI") of
nearly 12 million of Quest's patients. Quest promised and
agreed--throughout its Notice of Privacy Practices and other
written assurances--to safeguard and protect PII and PHI in
accordance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
("HIPAA") regulations, federal, state and local laws, and industry
standards. Contrary to those promises, and despite the fact that
the threat of a data breach has been a well-known risk to
Defendants, especially due to the valuable and sensitive nature of
the data Defendants maintain, Defendants failed to take the
reasonable steps to adequately protect the PII and PHI of millions
of its patients. The data breach was a direct result of Defendants'
failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security
procedures and protocols necessary to protect PII and PHI, says the
complaint.

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and other relief
resulting from the data breach, including but not limited to,
compensatory damages, reimbursement of costs that he and others
similarly situated will be forced to bear, and declaratory and
injunctive relief to mitigate future harms that are certain to
occur in light of the scope of this breach.

Plaintiff French went to a Quest laboratory to obtain medically
prescribed laboratory testing in or around November 2017, and
provided Quest with personal information, including PII and PHI.

Quest is one of the largest medical testing providers in the
country and annually serves one in three adult Americans, and half
the physicians and hospitals in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
     Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     55 Broadway, 10th Floor
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: (212) 363-7500
     Email: ek@zlk.com
            cmaccarone@zlk.com

          - and -

     Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 373-1671
     Email: rrivas@zlk.com


RADIUS GLOBAL: Feder Suit Seeks to Recover Damages Under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph M. Feder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-03929
(E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2019), seeks to recover damages for alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in connection
with the Defendant's debt collection attempts.

Radius Global Solutions, LLC, is a Minnesota Limited Liability
Company with a principal place of business in Hennepin County,
Minnesota.

The Defendant regularly collects or attempts to collect debts
asserted to be owed to others.  The principal purpose of
Defendant's business is the collection of such debts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203-7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
          E-mail: ConsumerRights@BarshaySanders.com


REJ PROPERTIES: Court Dismisses Badgerow Job Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DENISE A. BADGEROW, v. REJ PROPERTIES, INC., ET AL,
Civil Action No. 17-9492 (E.D. La.), Judge Jay C. Zainey of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted
Defendant REJ Properties' Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiff Badgerow has filed the action against her former
employer, REJ Properties, doing business as Walters, Meyer,
Trosclair & Associates ("WMT"), and Ameriprise Financial Services,
Inc.  Ameriprise is a registered broker dealer that offers
financial products and services to customers through several
models.  WMT was a small private financial advisory practice
affiliated with Ameriprise.  

The principals of WMT were Gregory Walters, Thomas Meyer, and Ray
Trosclair, and those individuals were Ameriprise Franchise
Financial Advisors during the period of Badgerow's employment.  WMT
was a d/b/a or branding name recognized by Ameriprise to allow
franchise advisors to practice and market as a team, and it was
operated and managed by Walters, Meyer, and Trosclair.  REJ
Properties was a corporate entity that WMT used when a juridical
entity was necessary to WMT's operations.  REJ Properties is the
entity that paid WMT's employees during the time of Badgerow's
employment.

Greg Walters was the principal who hired Badgerow in January 2014.
B adgerow completed a 90-day probationary period with WMT, and was
ultimately promoted to Associate Financial Advisor ("AFA"), a title
recognized by Ameriprise, when she passed her Series 7 exam.
Walters mentored Badgerow throughout the brief period of time that
she was with WMT and he helped to shape her career.

Becoming an AFA was significant in that Badgerow would now be
eligible to earn commissions.  One of Badgerow's claims in the case
is that WMT retroactively changed her compensation structure in
October 2014 after she made a large commissioned sale.  Badgerow
contends that she was ill-used in a myriad of ways during her
employment at WMT and she attributes this to her gender.  She
contends that she was bullied by Thomas Meyer as well as her female
co-workers in the office.

On July 26, 2016, Walters terminated Badgerow after she declined to
voluntarily resign.  Badgerow contends that Walters terminated her
in retaliation for speaking with Marc Cohen, who works for
Ameriprise.  During a telephone evaluation Badgerow had told Cohen
that WMT was not paying her commissions through the
Ameripriseapproved system.  Badgerow had also complained to Cohen
that she was being treated poorly at WMT.

Badgerow filed a Charge of Discrimination against WMT on Sept. 8,
2016, claiming gender discrimination and retaliation.  On Oct. 6,
2016, she amended the charge to include class allegations.  On June
27, 2017, the EEOC issued a dismissal and notice of rights.

Badgerow filed the instant action and jury demand on Sept. 22,
2017, against WMT and Ameriprise.  Badgerow's original complaint
alleged 11 causes of action against WMT, including claims for
violations of Title VII (gender-based hostile work environment and
retaliation), and the Equal Pay Act (disparate pay based on
gender).  She also brought a claim for disparate treatment based on
gender5 as well as a breach of contract claim.

WMT now moves for summary judgment on all of Badgerow's remaining
claims.  It argues that the Plaintiff's claims of discrimination,
harassment, and retaliation should be dismissed because she does
not present a prima facie case as to those claims nor create a
triable issue of fact on the merits.  WMT argues that Badgerow's
Equal Pay Act claim is time-barred in whole or in part, and that
she otherwise has failed to present evidence of any gender-based
disparity in pay.  Finally, it argues that Badgerow's breach of
contract claim fails because she has no evidence of an agreement to
pay her a fixed salary plus commission after she became an AFA.

Judge Zainey finds no evidence whatsoever that Meyer's or anyone
else's conduct at the office interfered with Badgerow's job
performance.  Badgerow not only rejects WMT's contention that her
job performance was mediocre, she considered herself to be
performing quite well at WMT.  And Badgerow was hardly cowed by
anyone's conduct at the office.  She was comfortable confronting
Meyer in person about his comments and getting "in his face" to try
to get him to explain himself.  Although Badgerow alleged in her
Complaint that she was driven to seek medical attention for
depression, stress, and anxiety, no evidence of such was produced.
In sum, WMT is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on
Badgerow's federal and state law gender-based hostile work
environment claim.

Next, the Judge finds that Badgerow has failed to present a prima
facie case of retaliation because she did not engage in protected
activity, and even if she did, she cannot present a prima facie
case of causation.  The prima facie case aside, Badgerow has not
created an issue of fact as to but for causation.  WMT is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law on the federal and state law
retaliation claim.

He also finds that WMT is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
on Badgerow's federal and state gender discrimination claim based
on disparate treatment.  Badgerow cannot satisfy the adverse
employment action prong of a prima facie case of disparate
treatment.  This claim fails as a matter of law because Badgerow
has not shown that use of the Financial Advisor title, which
involved no difference in job duties, benefits, or pay was akin to
a promotion.  Badgerow has not even attempted to show that not
being able to use the title impeded her ability to attract
clients.

The Judge further finds that Badgerow's Equal Pay Act prima facie
case fails for the same reason that her Title VII disparate pay
claim failed.  Badgerow has not shown that any similarly situated
male employee at WMT was treated more favorably in terms of
compensation or received more pay for the same work.  WMT is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this claim.

Finally, Badgerow has failed to establish that she had an agreement
with WMT to receive a salary plus commissions.  Even if she did
have such an agreement at one time, Badgerow agreed to change it to
a salary draw plus commissions arrangement.  WMT is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law n Badgerow's breach of contract claim.

Based on the foreoing, Judge Zainey granted WMT's Motion for
Summary Judgment, and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's
Complaint.  A Rule 54(b) final judgment will be entered in favor of
WMT because the Court has expressly determined that there is no
just reason for delay.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/krSzij from Leagle.com.

Denise A Badgerow, on behalf of herself and a class of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Jeanne Butler
-- abutler@lawgroup.biz -- Business Law Group & Stephanie Dovalina,
Business Law Group.

REJ Properties, Inc., doing business as Walters, Meyer, Trosclair
and Associates, Defendant, represented by Ernst Fredrick Preis, Jr.
-- fred.preis@bswllp.com -- Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L. L. P.,
Claude F. Reynaud, Jr. -- claude.reynaud@bswllp.com -- Breazeale,
Sachse & Wilson, L. L. P., Eve B. Masinter, Breazeale, Sachse &
Wilson, L. L. P., Matthew M. McCluer, Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson,
L. L. P. & Sunny Mayhall West -- sunny.mayhall@bswllp.com --
Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L. L. P.

Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Nancy Scott Degan -- ndegan@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Jennifer Burrows McNamara, Baker
Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, John T. Sullivan , Dorsey &
Whitney, LLP, pro hac vice & Melissa Raphan --
raphan.melissa@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, pro hac vice.


RELOGIO LLC: Underpays Store Managers, Cleary Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
SHERIE CLEARY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RELOGIO LLC d/b/a COMPLETE CASH DISCOUNT
TITLE PAWN, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00130-LMM (N.D. Ga., June
24, 2019) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the
Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Cleary was employed by the Defendant as store
manager.

Relogio Llc d/b/a Complete Cash Discount Title Pawn provides cash
loans on items including all types of jewelry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Roger W. Orlando, Esq.
         THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
         315 West Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 400
         Decatur, GA 30030
         Telephone: (404) 373-1800
         Facsimile: (404) 373-6999
         E-mail: roger@OrlandoFirm.com

              - and -

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


RENO, NV: Trial Begins in Lemmon Valley Flooding Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Russell, writing for KOLO-TV, reports that more than 50
Lemmon Valley residents are involved in a class action suit against
the City of Reno over destructive flooding that hit their area in
2017. The trial got underway on June 11 in Washoe District Court
with opening statements followed by testimony from one homeowner
who lost everything in March 2017.

Lemmon Valley resident Mike Walls testified he's lived in Lemmon
Valley for 40 years and never experienced the kind of flooding he
saw in February 2017, flooding he says he first noticed at
Christmastime in 2016.

"It was beginning to fill up the ditches and the lake had gotten up
to the point where it was right here at the cul du sac," Walls
testified as he pointed to a screen of his neighborhood.

A resident of Pompei Lane, we did stories on the Walls' home -- one
of the hardest hit by flood waters in 2017.

Tens of thousands of sandbags were used to shore up his mobile
home; his street and the homes on it heavily damaged or destroyed.

He told the jury a Hesco barrier, designed to keep Swan Lake flood
waters at bay, was not installed on his street until approximately
6 months after the initial event.

He's living in a 5th wheel on a neighbor's property, and has since
March of 2017.

The plaintiff's attorney Kerry Doyle told the jury the flooding was
all a result of the City of Reno pumping water from Silver Lake and
then pumping millions of gallons of water every day out of the Reno
Stead Waste Water Facility -- all into Swan Lake.

"Will add enough water to Swan Lake to cover a property the size of
the Walls' 1,100 times," Doyle told the jury.

The other contributing factor, Doyle told the jury, also begins
with a "P". Paving from development, she says, obstructed waters
from sinking into the ground, instead running into Swan Lake.

The City of Reno was forewarned, Doyle says, by engineers in 2007.

City of Reno Attorney John Shipman told the jury the City of Reno
is not to blame; rather we should look toward Mother Nature for
bringing a record amount of rain and snow to the area.

Swan Lake, he says, is a closed basin. He says with more than usual
precipitation the lake bed could not absorb the water.

Shipman told the jury those hardest hit by the flooding had their
homes at low elevation levels and were automatically in harm's
way.

The plaintiff's attorneys are taking the same stand attorneys in
the "Little Valley Fire" did. They are asking the jury to consider
reverse condemnation.

Written in both the U.S and state constitution, it means government
cannot take, or in this case, damage personal property without
proper compensation. [GN]


RIVIANA FOODS: Clevenger and Reisfelt Sue over Slack-Filled Pasta
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHERRIE CLEVENGER AND THERESA REISFELT on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. RIVIANA FOODS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, d/b/a RONZONI; AND NEW WORLD PASTA
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
30-2019-01082583-Cll-BT-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., July 7, 2019), is a
consumer protection class action arising from Defendant's practice
of "slack-filling" boxes of its specialty pastas. The practice of
using oversized containers with significant, nonfunctional, empty
space inside them is called "slack-fill" and is illegal under
California and Federal law.

The Plaintiffs seek equitable relief, including restitution, plus
monetary recovery pursuant to the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and
Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants packaged and distributed
their specialty pasta products in the same sized boxes and
packaging as their traditional flour-based pastas, but put
substantially less of their specialty pastas in the box. These
boxes appeared to be virtually identically sized to Defendants' and
its competitors' traditional flour-based pasta products, even
though Defendants' specialty pasta products contained at least 25%
less pasta per box.

The Defendants' specialty pasta products are sold in packaging,
namely boxes, that are substantially under-filled and contain
substantial amount of unnecessary empty space, i.e. non-functional
slack-fill. Indeed, identically sized boxes of Defendants'
traditional pasta products, with the same size noodles, contain
one-third more pasta than Defendant's specialty pasta products,
thus confirming that the empty space in the box is not necessary.
Defendants' specialty pasta products have a small transparent
window to see inside the box, placed in such a manner as to suggest
to reasonable consumers that the entirety of the box is full of the
product. Most of the transparent windows appear in the bottom
portion of the packaging, where the product fully encompasses the
transparent window, while a significant portion of the space above
the window is empty space, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Robert J. Stein, III, Esq.
          Anthony E. DiVincenzo, Esq.
          DIVINCENZO SCHOENFIELD STEIN
          Park Plaza, Suite 1650
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (714) 881-7002
          Facsimile: (949) 221-0027
          E-mail: Drstein@DSSLaw.com
                  Daedivincenzo@dsschicagolaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony Lanza, Esq.
          Brodie Smith, Esq.
          LANZA & SMITH, PLC
          Park Plaza, Suite 1650
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 221-0490
          Facsimile: (949) 221-0027
          E-mail: tony@lanzasmith.com
                  brodie@lanzasmith.com

SACHS ELECTRIC: Summary Judgment Bid in Griffin Labor Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN GRIFFIN, Plaintiff, v. SACHS ELECTRIC COMPANY,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03778-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, (i) granted Defendant
Sachs' motion for summary judgment, and (ii) denied the Plaintiff's
motion for partial summary judgment.

Plaintiff Griffin filed the labor class action on behalf of himself
and other workers involved in the construction of the California
Flats Solar Project in Central California.  On behalf of the
putative class, the Plaintiff seeks payment for "hours worked"
under California law for traveling between a security gate entrance
(to the ranch where the project was located) and the solar panel
work zone set approximately 12 miles on to the property.
Individually, the Plaintiff asserts unlawful employment practice,
wrongful termination, and intentional infliction of emotional
distress claims.

The Defendants in the action are Sachs and McCarthy Building
Companies, Inc.  Both performed work on the California Flats Solar
Project that involves the construction, operation, and maintenance
of a 280-megawatt solar power generating facility in the County of
Monterey, California.  McCarthy is a general contractor and Sachs
is an electrical subcontractor.  McCarthy was retained as general
contractor for the Project and subcontracted Sachs to perform
electrical work on the Project site, including the installation and
wiring of solar panels.  Sachs employed workers on the Project from
approximately June 2016 to May 2017.

Plaintiff Justin Griffin worked for Sachs as a solar panel
installer on the Project from approximately November 20, 2016 to
March 3, 2017. See Griffin Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 50-2. Griffin obtained
employment with Sachs through International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers ("IBEW") Local Union 234 and remained an IBEW
member throughout his time working on the Project. Id. ¶ 4; Rega
Decl. ¶ 11. Griffin's employment with Sachs was terminated on
March 3, 2017.

Now before the Court are two motions: Defendant Sachs' motion for
summary judgment, filed on May 29, 2018, as to the Plaintiff's
class and individual claims; and the Plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment, filed on July 26, 2018, as to liability against
Sachs for failure to compensate the travel time in question.

The Plaintiff moves for summary judgment of a single issue: whether
Sachs is liable under the Plaintiff's first cause of action, i.e.
whether Sachs is liable for failure to pay for all "hours worked."
The Defendants' alleged failure to pay for meal and rest periods is
no longer part of the case.

Sachs moves for summary judgment of three issues: (1) whether Sachs
is liable under the Plaintiff's first cause of action; (2) whether
the Plaintiff's remaining class claims against Sachs fail as a
matter of law because they are entirely derivative of the
Plaintiff's first cause of action; and (3) whether Sachs had
legitimate and non-discriminatory grounds to terminate him such
that Sachs is not liable under his individual claims.

The principal question is whether, under California law, the
Plaintiff's travel time between the security gate and the work zone
constitutes "hours worked" mandating compensation.

Judge Freeman finds that Sachs' general workplace rules that
applied to the Plaintiff's travel time on the Access Road do not
equate to control within the meaning of "hours worked" under Wage
Order 16.  He also finds no genuine dispute of material fact as to
the level of control exercised by Sachs over the Plaintiff's travel
on the Access Road and that his travel time on the Access Road does
not constitute "hours worked" under Wage Order 16 and California
law.  Finally, he finds that as a matter of law, the Plaintiff's
pass through the Security Gate was not the first location where his
presence was required and that the Plaintiff is not entitled to
compensation for his travel time on the Access Road under Wage
Order 16.

The Judge holds that the Plaintiff's travel time on the Access Road
is not compensable under Wage Order 16 and California law.
Accordingly, Sachs' motion for summary judgment of no liability
under the Plaintiff's first cause of action is granted and the
Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment of liability is
denied.

Sachs moves for summary judgment that the Plaintiff's remaining
class claims against Sachs fail as a matter of law because they are
entirely derivative of the Plaintiff's first cause of action.  The
Judge is unable to identify any opposition by the Plaintiff to
Sachs' motion for summary judgment on the issue.  Moreover, the
Judge agrees that the Plaintiff's remaining class claims (claims 2
through 6 of the Consolidated Complaint) are entirely derivative of
claim 1.  Accordingly, having granted summary judgment in Sachs's
favor with respect to claim 1, the Judge granted summary judgment
in Sachs' favor with respect to the remaining class claims.

Finally, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff's opposition to Sachs'
motion for summary judgment as to his individual claims is wholly
insubstantial to establish pretext or raise a genuine issue of
material fact as to any of the claims.  Accordingly, the Judge
granted summary judgment in Sachs' favor with respect to the
Plaintiff's individual claims (claims 7 through 9 of the
Consolidated Complaint).

Based on the foregoing, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiff's
travel time between the security gate and his parking lot nearby
the work zone does not constitute such "hours worked," and that
there is no genuine dispute of material fact that he was
compensated for travel between his parking lot and the work zone.
Nor is the Plaintiff's travel time between the security gate and
parking lot compensable under Plaintiff's theory of liability
pursuant to California Industrial Welfare Commission Order 16-2001.
Thus, Sachs is entitled to summary judgment as to the Plaintiff's
class claims.  In addition, the Judge separately finds that Sachs
is entitled to summary judgment as to the Plaintiff's individual
claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Foipqa from Leagle.com.

Justin Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Durham Holmes --
LaborLawCA@gmail.com -- Holmes Law Group, APC, Lonnie Clifford
Blanchard, III -- lonnieblanchard@gmail.com -- The Blanchard Law
Group, APC & Peter Roald Dion-Kindem -- peter@dion-kindemlaw.com --
The Dion-Kindem Law Firm.

Sachs Electric Company, a Missouri corporation, Defendant,
represented by Alexandria Marie Witte -- awitte@fordharrison.com --
Ford & Harrison LLP, Daniel B. Chammas, Ford & Harrison LLP, David
Lishian Cheng -- dcheng@fordharrison.com -- Ford & Harrison LLP &
Stefan Hocker Black -- sblack@fordharrison.com -- Ford Harrison
LLP.

McCarthy Building Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cheryl
L. Schreck -- cschreck@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher & Phillips,
LLP, Danielle Samantha Krauthamer -- dkrauthamer@fisherphillips.com
-- Fisher and Phillips LLP & Shaun Jordan Voigt --
svoigt@fisherphillips.com -- Fisher and Phillips LLP.



SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Mediation Ordered in Ice Makers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Alina Machado, writing for NBC 6 South Florida, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed in Virginia by consumers who claim their
Samsung refrigerators have defects with their ice makers has been
ordered to mediation.  The mediation was scheduled to begin in
June.

The lawsuit was filed in 2017 by a couple alleging certain
residential refrigerators with built-in-door ice makers designed
and manufactured by Samsung are defective, "...in a number of ways,
including but not limited to, defects that affect the built-in-door
Ice Makers which results in leaking and slush, over-freezing in the
ice compartment, water leakage from the ice house to below the
refrigerator crisper trays, fan noise from an over-iced
compartment, and 'freezing up'."

NBC Responds units across the country have received more than a
dozen reports from consumers reporting similar complaints involving
their Samsung refrigerators. Tony Conetta was one of them.

Samsung did not issue a statement regarding the class-action
lawsuit, but did tell NBC 6 Responds any consumer with questions or
concerns involving their products should contact them directly at
1-800-SAMSUNG. [GN]


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Ware Appeals N.D. Illinois Order to 7th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Anthony Ware and Tawanna Ware filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in their lawsuit titled Tawanna Ware, et al. v.
Samsung Electronics Company, Limited, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-00886, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The nature of suit is stated as tort product liability.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was filed on February 2, 2018, and assigned to Judge
Sharon Johnson Coleman, then referred to Magistrate Judge Michael
T. Mason.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., together with its subsidiaries,
engages in the consumer electronics, information technology and
mobile communications, and device solutions businesses worldwide.
The Company provides mobile payment and communication system
services, as well as manufactures and sells server semiconductor
storage system.  Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies
consumer electronics and digital products in the United States.

The appellate case is captioned as Tawanna Ware, et al. v. Samsung
Electronics Company, Limited, et al., Case No. 19-2284, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by July 22, 2019; and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before August 19, 2019, for
      Anthony Ware and Tawanna Ware.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants TAWANNA WARE and ANTHONY WARE, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, are represented by:

          Paul S. Rothstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL S. ROTHSTEIN
          626 N.E. First Street
          Gainesville, FL 32601-0000
          Telephone: (352) 376-7650
          E-mail: psr@rothsteinforjustice.com

               - and -

          Thomas C. Cronin, Esq.
          CRONIN & COMPANY, LTD
          161 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 201-7100
          E-mail: tcc@cronincoltd.com

Defendants-Appellees SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LIMITED, and
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INCORPORATED, are represented by:

          Martin G. Durkin, Jr., Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          150 N. Riverside Plaza
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 263-3600
          E-mail: martin.durkin@hklaw.com


SCATTERLIGHT STUDIOS: Cedicci Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Cedicci and Magnus Persson, individually and on behalf of a
proposed Class of workers, Plaintiff, v. Scatterlight Studios, LLC
and Christopher Billig, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-05847 (C.D.
Cal., July 8, 2019), seeks unpaid wages, continuing wages, damages,
statutory penalties, civil penalties and attorneys' fees and costs
under the California labor codes.

Scatterlight is a production company that produced filmed content
for Domo, Inc., a publicly traded cloud software company that
creates software solutions for businesses. Cedicci and Persson
worked as production crew members in the first and last week of May
in 2018. They were thereafter laid off without a return date for
any further work and have not worked for Scatterlight since. They
never received their payments, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan Harris, Esq.
     David Garrett, Esq.
     Min Ji Gal, Esq.
     HARRIS & RUBLE
     655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
     Glendale CA 91203
     Tel: (323) 962-3777
     Fax: (323) 962-3004
     Email: harrisa@harrisandruble.com
            mgal@harrisandruble.com
            dgarrett@harrisandruble.com


SMALL FOX: Underpays Painters, Villanueva Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
ALFREDO VILLANUEVA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMALL FOX INC.; ABRACADABRA
PAINTING CO., INC.; and L&M DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 156237/2019(N.Y., Sup., New York Cty., June 24, 2019)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

The Plaintiff Villanueva was employed by the Defendants as
painter.

Small Fox Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the
State of New York, and is engaged in the painting business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna Lusher, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          E-mail: Lambinder@vandallp.com


               -and-

          Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
          Meredith R. Miller, Esq.
          RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2430
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212)382-1600
          E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: 7th Cir. Affirms Miller Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, JENNIFER MILLER, SCOTT POOLE, and KEVIN ENGLUND,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
Defendant-Appellee, DAVID JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of a
class, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., and UNITED
CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants-Appellants, Case Nos.
18-3476, 19-1785 (7th Cir.), Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (ii) affirmed the case
dismissal judgment of the district court in Miller; and (ii)
vacated the case dismissal judgment in Johnson.

The Court has consolidated two appeals that pose a common question:
whether persons who contend that air carriers have violated state
law by using biometric identification in the workplace must present
these contentions to an adjustment board under the Railway Labor
Act ("RLA"), which applies to air carriers as well as railroads.
The answer is yes if the contentions amount to a "minor dispute" --
that is, a dispute about the interpretation or application of a
collective bargaining agreement.  The Plaintiffs insist that a
judge should resolve their contentions, while the Defendants
contend that resolution belongs to an adjustment board.

The claims in each suit arise under the Biometric Information
Privacy Act, which Illinois adopted in 2008.  The law applies to
all biometric identifiers, which the statute defines to include
fingerprints.  Before obtaining any fingerprint, a "private entity"
must inform the subject or "the subject's legally authorized
representative" in writing about several things, such as the
purpose of collecting the data and how long they will be kept, and
obtain the consent of the subject or authorized representative.
The private entity also must establish and make available to the
public a protocol for retaining and handling biometric data, which
must be destroyed when the initial purpose for collecting or
obtaining such identifiers or information has been satisfied or
within three years of the individual's last interaction with the
private entity, whichever occurs first.  Sales of biometric
information are forbidden, and transfers are limited.  Private
entities must protect biometric information from disclosure.

Both Southwest Airlines and United Airlines maintain timekeeping
systems that require workers to clock in and out with their
fingerprints.  The Plaintiffs contend that the air carriers
implemented these systems without their consent, failed to publish
protocols, and use third-party vendors to implement the systems,
which the Plaintiffs call a forbidden disclosure.  Southwest and
United contend that the Plaintiffs' unions have consented -- either
expressly or through the collective bargaining agreements'
management-rights clauses -- and that any required notice has been
provided to the unions.  The air carriers insist that, to the
extent these matters are disputed, an adjustment board rather than
a judge must resolve the difference -- and that if state law gives
workers rights beyond those provided by federal law and collective
bargaining agreements, it is preempted by the Railway Labor Act.

The suits were assigned to different district judges.

Judge Aspen found that the Plaintiffs have standing under Article
III but dismissed the suit against Southwest Airlines for improper
venue.  He made clear, however, that the suit did not belong in
state court or some other federal district court; he held, rather,
that it belongs to an adjustment board under the Railway Labor Act
and that any attempt by Illinois to give workers rights to bypass
their union (Transportation Workers Union Local 555) and deal
directly with an air carrier is preempted by federal law.  Thus
dismissal has nothing to do with venue.

The suit against United Airlines was filed in state court and
removed to federal court on two theories: federal-question
jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act plus removal jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1453, part of the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").  Judge Kendall concluded that the subject is in the
bailiwick of Plaintiffs' union (International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers) and an adjustment board; this
aspect of her decision reaches the same conclusion as Judge Aspen.
But Judge Kendall added that the complaint did not present a case
or controversy, because the class asserted only a bare procedural
right.  This led her to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

The class, which wants to litigate in state court, protested,
observing that if there is no federal jurisdiction then the suit
must be remanded.  Judge Kendall agreed.  United also complained
about the initial decision.  Observing that the jurisdictional
question had not been raised or briefed by the parties, United
maintained that the Plaintiffs have standing because they allege
(or at least imply) that biometric data had been transmitted
outside United and may have reached inappropriate hands.  Judge
Kendall refused to revisit that subject, however, and entered an
order returning the case to state court.

Judge Easterbrook finds that the dismissal should have been labeled
either as a judgment on the pleadings, or a dismissal for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction, as the circuit's decisions suggest.
None of the circuit's decisions considers the effect of the Supreme
Court's modern understanding of the difference between
"jurisdiction" and other kinds of rules.  It is unnecessary to do
so here, for either a substantive or a jurisdictional label ends
the litigation between these parties and forecloses its
continuation in any other judicial forum.

He disagrees with Judge Kendall's conclusion, for two principal
reasons.  First, the stakes in both suits include whether the air
carriers can use fingerprint identification.  If the unions have
not consented, or if the carriers have not provided unions with
required information, a court or adjustment board may order a
change in how workers clock in and out.  Second, the Plaintiffs
assert that the air carriers are not following the statutory
data-retention limit and may have used outside parties to
administer their timekeeping systems.  The longer data are
retained, and the more people have access, the greater the risk of
disclosure (including by dissatisfied employees who misuse their
access or by criminals who hack into a computer system).

The Judge begins with the suit against Southwest, for in that suit
the Plaintiffs are content to litigate in federal court.  He
postpones the question whether the suit against United was properly
removed.  He explains that a dispute about the interpretation or
administration of a collective bargaining agreement must be
resolved by an adjustment board under the Railway Labor Act.  There
is no doubt that Southwest has a collective bargaining agreement
with the union that represents the three Plaintiffs.  As a matter
of federal law, unions in the air transportation business are the
workers' exclusive bargaining agents. A state cannot remove a topic
from the union's purview and require direct bargaining between
individual workers and management.

What the Judge hassaid about the suit against Southwest applies
equally to the suit against United -- and the conclusion that it is
impossible to litigate under the state statute without examining
what the union knew and agreed to also means that United was
entitled to remove the suit to federal court under the
federal-question jurisdiction.  Although the class attempted to
frame a complaint relying entirely on state law, the complaint
concerns collective bargaining regulated by federal law.  That
brings into play a doctrine misleadingly called "complete
preemption," but perhaps better labeled as a rule that when federal
law completely occupies a field any claim within that scope rests
on federal law, no matter how a plaintiff tries to frame the
complaint.

If the Court's wrong about how the Railway Labor Act affects
collective bargaining over fingerprinting in the workplace, then
the doctrine of complete preemption would not authorize removal of
the suit against United.  So, just in case, the Judge adds that the
CAFA probably authorized the removal—probably, but not
certainly.

Given his conclusion that the federal-question jurisdiction
supports removal, the Judge holds he need not remand for the
district court to explore the question whether, on the date the
case was removed, one class member was a citizen of Wisconsin or
Indiana, or conceivably some third state other than Illinois or
Delaware -- say, a citizen of California temporarily detailed to
work at O'Hare.

In Miller, Judge Easterbrook affirmed the judgment of the district
court; and vacated the judgment in Johnson, and remanded the case
with instructions to refer the parties' dispute to an adjustment
board.

A full-text copy of the Court's May 28, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/4i5Iti from Leagle.com.

Melissa A. Siebert -- masiebert@shb.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Steven Alan Hart -- shart@hmelegal.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew C. Wolfe -- mwolfe@shb.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Jonathon Studer -- jstuder@shb.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

John Shannon Marrese, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


STATE FARM: DiCarlo Claims Website Not Blind Friendly
-----------------------------------------------------
David DiCarlo, on behalf of themselves and the Class, Plaintiff, v.
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-06292, (S.D. N.Y., July 8, 2019), seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and compensatory damages under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and the New York
City Human Rights Law.

Defendant owns and operates https://www.statefarm.com offering auto
insurance, rental insurance, retirement planning, and loan
services. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that the website is
not accessible to the blind. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


STATER BROS: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Decision in Ross Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Stater Bros. Markets filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Cheylyn Ross v. Stater Bros. Markets, et
al., Case No. 5:19-cv-00755-SJO-KK, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
(assigned Case No. CIV-DS1902518) was filed on January 25, 2019, in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino.  The lawsuit was removed on April 24, 2019, to the
District Court.

In the complaint, Plaintiff Cheylyn Ross asserted seven causes of
action against Defendant Stater Bros. Markets for: (1) failure to
pay all wages owed, including overtime; (2) failure to provide
second meal periods; (3) failure to authorize and permit rest
periods; (4) failure to timely pay wages owed upon separation from
employer; (5) failure to reimburse necessary expenses; (6) knowing
and intentional failure to comply with accurate itemized wage
statement provisions (7) violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

Headquartered in San Bernardino, California, Stater Bros. Markets
operates 172 supermarkets in seven counties throughout the Southern
California, and has approximately 18,000 employees with annual
sales of over $4 billion.

The appellate case is captioned as Cheylyn Ross v. Stater Bros.
Markets, et al., Case No. 19-80082, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

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

          James R. Hawkins, Esq.
          Christina Lucio, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387-7200
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com

Defendant-Petitioner STATER BROS. MARKETS, a California
Corporation, is represented by:

          Brendan William Brandt, Esq.
          VARNER AND BRANDT LLP
          3750 University Avenue
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Telephone: (951) 274-7777
          Facsimile: (951) 274-7770
          E-mail: Brendan.Brandt@varnerbrandt.com


SUNDANCE INC: Appeals Opinion & Order in Morgan Suit to 8th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Sundance, Inc., filed an appeal from an Opinion and Order
issued on June 28, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Robyn Morgan v.
Sundance, Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-00316-JAJ, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Iowa City.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that Sundance willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act by knowingly failing to compensate the Plaintiff for overtime
wages for the hours she worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and
failing to compensate her regular hourly rate for all hours worked
under 40.

Sundance, Inc., is a for-profit corporation incorporated in
Brighton, Michigan, and with locations throughout the state of
Iowa.  Sundance owns well over 150 Taco Bell franchises throughout
the United States.

The appellate case is captioned as Robyn Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.,
Case No. 19-2435, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on August 19, 2019;

   -- Brief of Appellant Sundance is due on August 19, 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]

Plaintiff-Appellee Robyn Morgan, on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated individuals, is represented by:

          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 900
          Southfield, MI 48075-1100
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: crash@sommerspc.com
                  jthompson@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Paige Fiedler, Esq.
          Madison Elizabeth Fiedler-Carlson, Esq.
          FIEDLER LAW FIRM, P.L.C.
          8831 Windsor Parkway
          Johnston, IA 50131
          Telephone: (515) 254-1999
          Facsimile: (515) 254-9923
          E-mail: paige@employmentlawiowa.com
                  madison@employmentlawiowa.com

Defendant-Appellant Sundance, Inc., is represented by:

          Kevin J. Driscoll, Esq.
          FINLEY LAW FIRM
          699 Walnut Street, Suite 1700
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 288-0145
          E-mail: kdriscoll@finleylaw.com

               - and -

          Scott C. Fanning, Esq.
          Joel W. Rice, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          10 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3450
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 346-8061
          E-mail: sfanning@fisherphillips.com
                  jrice@fisherphillips.com


TABLEAU SOFTWARE: Curtis Files Suit Over Sale to salesforce.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCY C. CURTIS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. TABLEAU SOFTWARE, INC., ADAM SELIPSKY,
BILLY BOSWORTH, BROOKE SEAWELL, CHRISTIAN CHABOT, CHRISTOPHER
STOLTE, ELLIOTT JURGENSEN, JR., GERRI MARTIN FLICKINGER, HILARIE
KOPLOW MCADAMS, JOHN MCADAM, PATRICK HANRAHAN, SALESFORCE.COM,
INC., and SAUSALITO ACQUISITION CORP., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01290-UNA (D. Del., July 10, 2019) is an action stemming
from a proposed transaction announced on June 10, 2019, pursuant to
which Tableau Software, Inc. will be acquired by salesforce.com,
Inc. and Sausalito Acquisition Corp.

On June 9, 2019, Tableau's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with salesforce.com.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub commenced
an exchange offer to acquire all of Tableau's outstanding Class A
and Class B common stock for 1.103 shares of Parent common stock
per share of Tableau. The Offer is scheduled to expire on July 31,
2019. On July 3, 2019, defendants filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. Accordingly,
plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 in connection with the Solicitation Statement, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is the owner of Tableau common stock.

Tableau is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices at 1621 North 34th Street, Seattle, Washington
98103. Tableau's self-service analytics platform empowers people of
any skill level to work with data.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


TPUSA INC: Underpays Call Center Agents, Brown Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
PAULINE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. TPUSA, INC. d/b/a TELEPERFORMANCE USA,
Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00228 (N.D. Ind., June 25, 2019) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendant as call center
agent.

Teleperformance Group, Inc. is a holding company operating through
its subsidiary TPUSA, Inc. which provides call center services to
United States-based companies in various industries.
Teleperformance Group, Inc. is headquartered in Miami Beach,
Florida. Teleperformance Group, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Teleperformance. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert T. Dassow, Esq.
          10201 N. Illinois Street, Suite 500
          Indianapolis, IN 46290
          Telephone: (317) 818-3100
          Facsimile: (317) 818-3111

               - and -

          Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
          Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
                  mnephew@johnsonbecker.com


TRADER JOE'S: Webb Sues Over False Labels on Chicken Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA WEBB, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. TRADER JOE'S
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 37-2019-00035568-CU-BT-CTL (Cal.
Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., July 10, 2019) is a consumer class
action for violations of express and implied warranties, negligent
and intentional misrepresentations, fraudulent omissions, and
consumer protection laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's labeling of its chicken
products is false and misleading and the Products are thus
misbranded under consumer protection laws. Specifically, the
Products claim to contain only 5% retained water, when they
actually contain unlawful amounts of excess Retained Water, far
greater than that disclosed on the product labels. Some of the
products were found to contain as much as 16% excess Retained
Water, for which California consumers are unlawfully charged the
per-pound of price poultry. The Defendant's conduct violates
several California consumer protection laws including the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law,
and Song-Beverly Act, the complaint asserts. Each of these state
laws either incorporate the requirements of the Federal Poultry
Products Inspection Act by reference or impose by statute
requirements identical to those of the PPIA. The Products as
labeled and sold are also in breach of express and implied
warranties and constitute theft by false pretenses under California
law, says the complaint.

Plaintiff purchased Trader Joe's chicken products from several
Trader Joe's store locations in San Diego County, California.

Defendant manufactures, packages, distributes, advertises, markets,
and sells of Joe's a variety Trader Joe's branded raw poultry
products, including, without limitation, the Joe's Trader All
Natural Boneless Chicken Breasts, Trader Joe's All Natural Chicken
Thighs, and Trader Joe's All Natural Chicken Wings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     RONALD A. MARRON, ESQ.
     MICHAEL T. HOUCHIN, ESQ.
     LILACH HALPERIN, ESQ.
     LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
     651 Arroyo Drive
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Phone: (619) 696-9006
     Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
     Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
            mike@consumersadvocates.com
            lilach@consumersadvocates.com


TRANSPORT FINANCIAL: Webman Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CAMERON WEBMAN, the Plaintiff, vs. TRANSPORT FINANCIAL SERVICES,
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-22855-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 11, 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.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Social Agent
Text Messages without obtaining Plaintiff's or the other
recipients' Prior Express Written Consent to send text messages
using an automatic telephone dialing system, and without obtaining
the signature of Plaintiff or the other recipients on a written
agreement.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative Classes are:

          Richard Bennett, Esq.
          Peter Bennett, Esq.
          BENNETT & BENNETT
          1200 Anastasia Ave., Ofc 360
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 444-5925
          E-mail: richardbennett27@gmail.com
                  peterbennettlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
                  josh@sjlawcollective.com

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ryan Sues over Healthcare Plan Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, RYAN S., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., a
Delaware corporation; UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Minnesota
corporation; UNITED HEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut
corporation; UHC OF CALIFORNIA, a California corporation; UNITED
HEALTHCARE SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC., a California corporation;
OPTUMINSIGHT, INC., a Delaware corporation; OPTUM SERVICES, INC, a
Delaware corporation; and OPTUM, INC., a Delaware corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01363 (C.D. Cal., July 11, 2019),
seeks an order:

     -- declaring UnitedHealthcare's access, coverage and
claims-handling policies, practices and decisions to be in
violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), including ERISA's loyalty and mental health and substance
use disorder parity provisions, as well as the governing plan
documents;

     -- requiring UnitedHealthcare to reevaluate all claims of
Class Members who received substance use disorder and mental health
treatment and laboratory services under an ERISA-compliant
procedure and, where warranted, to pay the correct amounts on
claims that were not paid or that were underpaid in violation of
ERISA and the plan documents;

     -- requiring UnitedHealthcare to remove its unlawful barriers
to access to substance use disorder treatment and services;

     -- requiring UnitedHealthcare to disgorge the profits it has
realized by virtue of its violations of ERISA and other fiduciary
breaches;

     -- awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs;
and

     -- providing other injunctive and appropriate equitable relief
to remedy UnitedHealthcare's violations of ERISA and other
fiduciary breaches.

Plaintiff contends that he is insured by UnitedHealthcare. He
sought and obtained critically needed substance use disorder and
mental health treatment, but because of UnitedHealthcare's unfair,
unreasonable, incomplete and systematic access, coverage and
claims-handling policies, practices and decisions, was unable to
obtain timely access to and coverage from UnitedHealthcare for the
costs of treatment.[BN]

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

          Daniel J. Callahan, Esq.
          Edward Susolik, Esq.
          Richard T. Collins, Esq.
          Damon D. Eisenbrey, Esq.
          CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC
          Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor
          Santa Ana, CA 92707
          Telephone: (714) 241-4444
          Facsimile: (714) 241-4445
          E-mail: dan@callahan-law.com
                  es@callahan-law.com
                  rcollins@callahan-law.com
                  deisenbrey@callahan-law.com

               - and -

          Lisa S. Kantor, Esq.
          Elizabeth Hopkins, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525
          Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
          E-mail: lkantor@kantorlaw.net
                  ehopkins@kantorlaw.net

VEGGIE GRILL: Underpays Cashiers, Flores Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
ALLISON FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE VEGGIE GRILL; and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV22152 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
June 24, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal
and rest periods, and provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff Flores was employed by the Defendants as cashier.

The Veggie Grill, Inc. owns and operates a chain of vegetarian
restaurants in California, Oregon, Washington, and Illinois. The
company offers salads, sandwiches, snacks, and more. The Veggie
Grill, Inc. was formerly known as Better Eating Concepts, LLC. The
company was incorporated in 2005 and is based in Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carney R. Shegerian, Esq.
          Anthony Nguyen, Esq.
          Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
          SHEGERIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
          225 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone Number: (310) 860-0770
          Facsimile Number: (310) 860-0771
          E-mail: CShegerian@Shegerianlaw.com
                  ANguyen@Shegerianlaw.com
                  CKenner@Shegerianlaw.com


VESTA PROPERTY: Faces Cioci Suit over Background Checks
-------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA CIOCI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VESTA PROPERTY SERVICES, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 8:19-cv-01531 (Fla. Cir., June 25, 2019) alleges violation
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The case is assigned to Judge
Steven D. Merryday and referred to Magistrate Amanda Arnold
Sansone.

Vesta Property Services, Inc. provides real estate management
services. The Company specializes in offering association and
amenities management and financial services for real estate
properties. Vesta Property Services serves customers in the State
of Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick K. Elliott, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK K. ELLIOTT, LLC
          100 S. Ashley Drive, Suite 600
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 379-3090
          Facsimile: (813) 261-3542
          E-mail: elliottp@employmentandconsumerlaw.com


VIRGINIA: Fourth Circuit Appeal Filed in Scott Civil Rights Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Cynthia Scott, Toni Hartlove and Melissa Atkins 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.

The appellate case is captioned as Cynthia Scott, et al. v. Harold
Clarke, et al., Case No. 19-1719, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 11,
2019, 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.  That appellate case is styled Cynthia
Scott, et al. v. Harold Clarke, et al., Case No. 19-1687.

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

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.[BN]

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

          Brenda Erin Castaneda, Esq.
          LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER
          1000 Preston Avenue
          Charlottesville, VA 22901
          Telephone: (434) 977-0553
          E-mail: brenda@justice4all.org

               - 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-Appellees 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.
          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) 786-8191
          E-mail: dabato@oag.state.va.us
                  jisaacs@oag.state.va.us
                  jparsons@oag.state.va.us
                  rvorhis@oag.state.va.us

               - 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 -

          Ruth Griggs, Esq.
          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: rgriggs@sandsanderson.com
                  emcnelis@sandsanderson.com
                  emuldowney@sandsanderson.com

               - 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


WENCO ASHLAND: Adams Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Jason Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wenco Ashland, Inc., Wenco Akron LLC,
Wenco Indiana LLC, Wenco Management LLC and Wenco Wooster, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-01544, (N.D. Ohio, July 8, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio wage laws.

Defendants operate approximately 64 franchise locations of the
Wendy's fast food restaurant chain in Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana.
Adam worked as an Assistant General Manager at their Ashland, Ohio
location from approximately June 2016 to approximately December
2016. He assists in the cooking and preparing food, serving
customers, unpacking and stocking products and supplies, taking out
the trash, washing equipment and cleaning the restaurant. He claims
to have worked long hours, often in excess of 40 hours per workweek
without overtime compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicole Fiorelli, Esq.
     DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
     60 South Park Place
     Painesville, OH 44077
     Telephone: (216) 861-4211
     Email: nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com

            - and -

     Molly Brooks, Esq.
     Nina Martinez, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 245-1000
     Fax: (646) 509-2060
     Email: mb@outtengolden.com
            nmartinez@outtengolden.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Removes Cortes et al. Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of VANESSA CORTES; and MARLENA MCGOWAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. XPO LOGISTICS FREIGHT, INC.; XPO ENTERPRISE SERVICES,
INC.; XPO LOGISTICS, INC.; XPO LOGISTICS WORLDWIDE, INC.; and DOES
1 through 100, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Riverside (Case No. RIC1902668) to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on June 24, 2019. The clerk of court
for the Central District of California assigned Case No.
5:19-cv-01165. The case is assigned to Dale S Fischer and referred
to Magistrate Sheri Pym.

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Michael J. Burns, Esq.
           SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
           560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
           San Francisco, CA 94105
           Telephone: (415) 397-2823
           Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
           E-mail: mburns@seyfarth.com

                - and -

           David D. Jacobson, Esq.
           SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
           2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
           Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
           Telephone: (310) 277-7200
           Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
           E-mail: djacobson@seyfarth.com

                - and -

           Zaher Lopez, Esq.
           SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
           601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
           Los Angeles, CA 90017
           Telephone: (213) 270-9600
           Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
           E-mail: zlopez@seyfarth.com


ZUORA INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, reminds that an
investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed
against Zuora, Inc. (ZUO) on behalf of those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Zuora securities between April 12, 2018 and May
30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Zuora investors who purchased securities during the Class Period
may, no later than August 13, 2019, seek to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class.

Investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action
lawsuit or request additional information about this litigation are
encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check attorneys James
Maro, Jr. or Adrienne Bell at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or online
at: www.ktmc.com/zuora-inc-securities-class-action.

According to the complaint, Zuora is a cloud-based subscription
management platform. Its business consists of three components:
Zuora Central Platform, a subscription management hub;
order-to-revenue products; and an application marketplace. Its
flagship products are Zuora RevPro ("RevPro"), a revenue
recognition automation solution that enables customers to group
transactions into revenue contracts and performance obligations,
and Zuora Billing ("Billing"), which is designed for subscription
billing.

The Class Period commences on April 12, 2018, when Zuora filed its
Initial Public Offering Prospectus.

According to the complaint, on May 30, 2019, in connection with its
first quarter 2020 financial results, Zuora lowered its fiscal 2020
revenue guidance to a range of $268 million to $278 million, from
prior guidance of $289 million to $293.5 million. Zuora reported
that the product integration for Billing and RevPro "is taking
longer than expected" and that "the technical work to complete the
integration is taking time as these are complex mission-critical
systems."

As a result of the product integration delay, Zuora slowed down
RevPro implementations. Zuora also reported certain sales execution
problems that slowed down its ability to cross-sell its products,
which "resulted in lower professional services and subscription
revenue in the quarter." Following this news, Zuora's share price
fell $5.91 per share, nearly 30%, to close at $13.99 per share on
May 31, 2019.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Zuora would
focus on implementing RevPro for new customers ahead of the
deadline to comply with accounting standard ASC 606; (2) as a
result, Zuora lacked adequate resources to integrate RevPro with
the core business; (3) Zuora would focus on RevPro integration a
year after the acquisition closed; (4) delays in integrating RevPro
would materially impact the business; (5) the market for RevPro was
limited to customers seeking to implement new accounting standards
such as ASC 606; (6) after the deadline for ASC 606 compliance
passed, demand for RevPro was reasonably likely to decline; and (7)
as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements
about Zuora's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Zuora investors may, no later than August 13, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         Toll Free: (844) 887-9500
         Website: www.ktmc.com
         Email: info@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


ZUORA INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Zuora, Inc. (NYSE: ZUO) from April
12, 2018 through May 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") of
the important August 13, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Zuora investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Zuora class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1603.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Zuora would focus on implementing RevPro for new
customers ahead of the deadline to comply with accounting standard
ASC 606; (2) Zuora lacked adequate resources to integrate RevPro
with the core business; (3) Zuora would focus on RevPro integration
a year after the acquisition closed; (4) delays in integrating
RevPro would materially impact the business; (5) the market for
RevPro was limited to customers seeking to implement new accounting
standards such as ASC 606; (6) after the deadline for ASC 606
compliance passed, demand for RevPro was reasonably likely to
decline; and (7) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about Zuora's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 13,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.

If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1603.html

Contact:

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


[*] Adero Law Firm Accuses Unions of Vacating Class Action Space
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Patty, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
lawyers and litigation funders are helping workers bypass unions
and mount class actions to settle wage underpayment disputes with
their employers.

Rory Markham established his law firm Adero to be a workplace
relations "disruptor" and has accused unions of vacating the class
action space.

"There is a class of worker that really needs this intervention
from class action activities because they are just not represented
elsewhere," he said. "We set up Adero expressly to be that
disruptor."

The national construction union rejects claims unions have vacated
this area and accuses Adero of being an "ambulance-chasing"
interloper. Employer groups have also raised concerns about the
firm making super profits at the expense of plaintiffs.

Former Mount Arthur Mine worker Simon Turner said he turned to
Adero after losing faith in the Construction Forestry Maritime
Mining And Energy Union (CFMMEU) to represent the interests of the
mine's workers under an enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) it
had negotiated on their behalf.

"I am not a member of the union and the union won't help me, but
they negotiated and endorsed the EBA on behalf of all workers at
the mine," he said. "They sold me out."

Mr Turner is the lead claimant in a $40 million class action being
run by Adero against labour hire firms TESA and Chandler Macleod
alleging the companies misclassified the workers as casuals.

Adero says it has $21 million in secured class action litigation
funding across eight proceedings seeking to enforce workplace laws.
It uses five Australian and UK litigation funders that consider the
Australian workplace relations system "fertile ground for
litigation enforcement".

Mr Markham said some unions had become hostile to litigation as a
means of enforcing workers' rights and had "abandoned the field
since 2001".

CFMMEU national president Tony Maher said class actions were a
relatively new business model for law firms and a more expensive
option for workers. "Unions aren't vacating the field," he said. "I
think you'll find unions increasingly involved in this space.

"Adero for commercial reasons wants it all for themselves ... I
think they are ambulance chasers. We don't want any interlopers
effectively taxing our members."

He said workers had already paid for legal services through their
union dues.

The CFMMEU ran the landmark Skene case in the Federal Court last
year. The court ruled Paul Skene, who was a truck driver employed
as a casual by labour hire firm WorkPac, was a permanent employee
entitled to annual leave.

"So there is a third business model which costs members nothing,"
Mr Maher said.

The Australian Industry Group is pressing the federal government
for tighter ASIC regulation of class action laws to protect workers
from being exploited. It says overseas litigation funding firms
have moved into Australia "in a big way because of the lack of
regulation here compared to the US and UK".

"The reported excessive returns to Adero Law are just one example
of a major problem that exists," Ai Group chief executive Innes
Willox said.

"Reforms are urgently needed to Australia's class action laws,
including legislative amendments to protect plaintiffs from
unreasonable returns to lawyers and litigation funders.

"We would hope there would be a unity ticket between employers and
unions on at least some aspects of the necessary reforms. It is not
in the interests of employers or workers for law firms and
litigation funders to be receiving unreasonable returns because
that reduces the returns to plaintiffs."

Josh Bornstein, national head of employment law at Maurice
Blackburn Lawyers, said unions had been active in pursuing wage
theft claims "whether they are class actions or not". His law firm
worked closely with the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees'
Association to recover underpayments for 7-Eleven workers.

"Unions can't pursue cases for non-members, there is a very big
free-loading problem in our system at the moment," he said.

"The whole compliance issue in IR is enormous and neither the union
movement nor state supported regulators have the resources to
manage the sheer volume."

Class actions have been available in the Federal Court of Australia
since March 1992.

Professor Vince Morabito from the Monash University Department of
Business Law and Taxation, an expert on class actions in Australia,
said Adero were "new kids on the block".

Professor Morabito said there were 45 class actions brought on
behalf of employees in Australia from March 1992 until September
2005. Only 20 were brought since until March 2019.

"The figure of 20 has come through in the last couple of years
[with] . . . unions teaming up with litigation funders to bring
class actions," he said. [GN]


[*] Calif. Consumer Privacy Act Will Likely Prompt Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Miller Buese, Esq. -- alexis.buese@sidley.com –- Colleen
Theresa Brown, Esq. -- ctbrown@sidley.com -- and Amy P. Lally, Esq.
-- alally@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP, in an article for
Lexology, report that when the California Consumer Privacy Act
(CCPA) enters into force on January 1, 2020, it will grant
consumers extensive new data rights and place new obligations on
companies. This means that just about every company doing business
in California or with Californians and meeting certain thresholds
(by revenue or data collection) should know about the CCPA, risks
for class action litigation and incentives to plaintiff's attorneys
to bring suit in California. While the California Senate
Appropriations Committee blocked a bill on May 17 that would expand
a private right of action under the CCPA beyond data breaches,
business should still anticipate litigation once the CCPA takes
effect and build litigation defense considerations into their
compliance plans.

Given the unprecedented change to California law, the CCPA could
invite a wave of consumer litigation as plaintiffs seek to recover
statutory damages under the CCPA's private right of action. In
addition, the California Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Sec. 17200) (UCL) always presents a serious background threat
of litigation. As businesses continue to develop new and innovative
ways to sell their goods and services to customers in California,
including through expanding e-commerce, they must remain vigilant
in preparing for litigation that will stem from CCPA enactment.

The Private Right of Action as a Predicate for Consumer Class
Action Litigation

The CCPA allows consumers to bring lawsuits when their
"nonencrypted or nonredacted personal information . . . is subject
to an unauthorized access and exfiltration, theft, or disclosure as
a result of the business' violation of the duty to implement and
maintain reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate
to the nature of the information." Significantly, the CCPA provides
consumers with the ability to seek either actual damages or
statutory damages up to $750 per incident.

In determining the proper amount of statutory damages, courts are
obligated to consider, among other elements, "the nature,
seriousness . . . and persistence of the misconduct," number of
violations, "the length of time over which the misconduct
occurred," willfulness and ability to pay. Further, the court may
order injunctive or declaratory relief or any other relief deemed
proper for violations of this provision.

The private right of action is available only if it involves
unauthorized access to the data and also results from unreasonable
security. But significantly, the CCPA does not define "reasonable"
security measures, nor has California codified what is meant by
"reasonable security." The Federal Trade Commission and other
states have addressed and defined "reasonable" information security
practices in other statutory and regulatory regimes. However,
California courts will likely have to determine the boundaries of
what is or is not reasonable, at least with respect to the CCPA.

Furthermore, the right to statutory penalties did not previously
exist for data breaches involving California residents' personal
information. The fact that statutory damages are now available is
expected to provide incentive for plaintiffs to bring class action
litigation, and with a statutory damages award of up to $750 per
violation, the CCPA creates a possibility for staggering verdicts
in the consumer class action context.

A California resident may initiate a lawsuit only after giving
businesses notice and a 30-day opportunity to cure. If the business
cures the violation and provides the consumer with an "express
written statement that the violations have been cured and that no
further violations shall occur," the consumer cannot initiate an
action. As drafted, the safe harbor provision is a double-edged
sword.

On the one hand, the safe harbor provision will provide businesses
with advance notice of claims and the ability to engage plaintiffs
before litigation progresses. On the other hand, because of the
uncertainty in the statute as drafted, it is not clear what an
actual cure of the data breach would look like. Questions abound,
including how to cure a security breach that has already occurred.
This cure period is similar to the notice and cure period under the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, in which the plaintiffs
bar is well versed at requesting "cures" that may be difficult to
achieve. Businesses can expect to grapple with the question of
whether a cure was adequately provided in a CCPA class action
lawsuit.

California Consumer Laws as a Predicate for Consumer Class Action
Litigation

The CCPA may also spark expanded class action litigation as
plaintiffs' attorneys use existing California consumer laws to try
to enable lawsuits for CCPA violations beyond the data breach
provision. The unfair competition law permits any person, acting
for the interests of itself, its members or the general public, to
initiate an action for restitution or injunctive relief against a
person or business entity that has engaged in "any unlawful, unfair
or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive,
untrue or misleading advertising."

The UCL has historically been a powerful tool for plaintiffs who
use its extensive equitable remedies and far-reaching liability
standard to pursue consumer class action claims. Consequently,
plaintiffs' lawyers are likely to try to use the CCPA to advance
two principal arguments.

First, plaintiffs' counsel will likely argue that if there has been
a violation of the data breach provision (i.e., a breach that was
caused by unreasonable information security), plaintiffs may pursue
"unlawful" claims for data breaches. While the CCPA expressly --
and helpfully -- provides that "[n]othing in this title shall be
interpreted to serve as the basis for a private right of action
under any other law," the boundaries of this limitation are likely
to be tested in litigation.

Litigants will likely argue that there is sufficient California
case law that permits consumers to base UCL violations on laws that
do not explicitly provide a private right of action. Second, the
plaintiffs bar will likely pursue violations of the CCPA not
related to data breaches to advance secondary UCL claims. While
plaintiffs will argue that the limiting clause in the CCPA applies
only to the data breach claims, businesses will of course counter
that the natural reading of the limitation on using the CCPA as a
predicate for a private right of action applies to anything "in
this title" (other than the private right of action defined for
data breaches).

Besides the plain language, defendants can also advance policy
arguments that the language of the CCPA bars private suits based on
general violations of the law because the California attorney
general is ultimately vested with that authority. The scope of the
private right of action has been contentious from the beginning
through the recent unsuccessful attempt to amend the CCPA to expand
the private right of action, providing substantial legislative
history to support the limitation. While much remains to be seen,
courts will likely be focused on whether the legislature
specifically intended to preclude UCL claims.

Consider Ways to Reduce Litigation Exposure

In addition to instituting CCPA compliance and preparedness in
order to comply with the CCPA's obligations, companies should
consider including an arbitration clause and a class action waiver
in the website's terms and conditions, prohibiting users from
litigating en masse. While the CCPA includes a prohibition on
contract terms that appear targeted at arbitration clauses and
class action waivers, this should be preempted by the Federal
Arbitration Act, or FAA.

In recent decisions like AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S.
333 (2011) and DirecTV Inc. v. Imburgia, 36 S. Ct. 463 (2015) the
U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that class action waivers in
arbitration provisions are enforceable. In 2017 the Supreme Court
in Kindred Nursing Centers L.P. v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421 (2017)
reaffirmed that the FAA preempts state laws placing agreements to
arbitrate on weaker footing than other types of contracts. The
Supreme Court found that a state court rule was really an attempt
to target and disfavor arbitration agreements and, on that basis,
held that the arbitration agreement at issue was to be enforced.
Based on the recent Supreme Court decisions vacating
anti-arbitration state rules, it seems likely the CCPA's attempt to
prevent arbitration and class action waivers will be preempted.

Businesses also should critically analyze the conspicuity of their
websites' notices of the terms and conditions, the accessibility
and the timing of the notices, as well as the notice and placement
of the arbitration provision itself. The terms and conditions must
be presented in a manner that provides adequate notice to the user,
focusing on the design and content of the website and on the terms
and conditions page. To maximize the likelihood of enforcement, the
terms should be clear and conspicuous, easily accessible and
displayed in a sufficiently large viewing window to provide the
user an adequate opportunity to review the terms, thereby
eliminating any doubts that a reasonable user would have noticed
them. Courts have been more willing to enforce terms and conditions
communicated through "clickwrap" agreements that require the user
to affirmatively accept the contractual terms before proceeding to
the next step in the transaction.

To maximize enforceability when including an arbitration clause,
e-commerce businesses should also consider including a delegation
clause to the arbitrator. On January 8, 2019, the U.S. Supreme
Court issued its decision in Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White
Sales Inc., No. 17-1272 holding that a court may not override the
contractual agreement that delegates arbitrability questions to the
arbitrator and rejected the "wholly groundless" exception to the
contractual delegation of arbitrability questions. Schein gives
online businesses an even greater ability to limit courtroom
litigation, and businesses should consider vesting an arbitrator
with the power to decide both substantive and threshold questions
affecting the parties' rights to litigate.

The placement of the arbitration provision is also essential to
providing the user notice in order to form a binding arbitration
agreement. The terms and conditions can ensure sufficient notice of
the arbitration agreement by

   -- including a statement up front that the terms and conditions
contain a binding arbitration clause
   -- stating unequivocally that the parties have agreed to binding
arbitration
   -- explaining how an arbitration proceeding can be commenced
   -- providing users an opportunity to opt out of the arbitration
agreement and informing them that by not doing so, they are
agreeing to the arbitration clause
Finally, in addition to presenting the arbitration provision in a
manner that provides adequate notice to the user, businesses should
evaluate whether their arbitration provision includes easily
understandable, balanced provisions to avoid a finding of
unconscionability.

Concluding Thoughts

The CCPA has potentially far-reaching implications for class action
litigation and will not go unnoticed by the plaintiffs bar when it
goes into effect January 1. Practitioners should anticipate class
action litigation issues early and be aware of the preventative
measures that businesses can take even beyond a comprehensive and
effective compliance program to support the new consumer data
privacy rights, including a defensive review of the information
security program, and implementing effective terms and conditions,
to minimize the potential for significant exposure. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***