CAR_Public/190731.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, July 31, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 152

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Hambaugh Files PI Suit in M.D. Florida
3M COMPANY: Hersha Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Kimball Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Tortorelli Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Claims in 3rd Amended Martin Suit Trimmed

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Zamber Seeks to Certify Two Classes
AMICA MUTUAL: Cruz-Santiago Sues over Vehicle Insurance
ARON SECURITY: Omar Seeks Refund for Security Guard Uniforms
ASPLUNDH TREE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in Belloso Case
AT&T INC: Scott et al Sue over Access to Sensitive Location Data

BAKERSFIELD MEMORIAL: Johnson Brings Class Action in Ca. Super. Ct
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
BANK OF HAWAII: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Smith EFTA Suit Ruling
BAYADA HOME HEALTH: Failed to Pay Wages Earned, Louis Says
BCFORWARD RAZOR: Settlement in Rodriguez Suit Has Prelim Approval

BOOZ ALLEN: New York Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Kocourek
BRIDGEMARK GROUP: Faces Class Action Amid Fraud Investigation
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CARIDAD RESTAURANT: Deprived Workers of Proper Wages, Guerra Says
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Depascale Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation

CDW LLC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Foon Suit Removed to E.D. California
CHATTEM INC: Martin Suit Removed to C.D. California
CHEVRON USA INC: Bradford Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
CHRONO24 INC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

CLEAN HARBORS: Alba Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
CLOUDERA INC: Zarantonello Says Securities Statements Misleading
CONTINENTAL INN: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Heisler's Summ. Judgment Bid Partly Granted
COQUILLE VALLEY: Does Not Pay Nurses Overtime Wages, Says Lytle

CRAY INC: Epstein Says Proxy Statement for Merger Misleading
CREDIT CONTROL: Davis Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
CSC SERVICEWORKS: New York Eastern District Dismisses MJM Suit
CVS HEALTH: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Corcoran Suit
DISH NETWORK: Court Leaves Key Class Action Questions Unanswered

DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM: Davis Junk Fax Row Removed to E.D. Ark.
EDDIE BAUER: Settlement in Veridian Suit Has Preliminary Approval
ENCORE BOSTON: Faces Class Action for Allegedly Cheating Gamblers
ESSEX CROSSING: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
FANDANGO MEDIA: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

FEDEX CORP: Karp Sues over Securities Fraud
FERRARA CANDY: Copland Appeals Littlejohn Suit Settlement Approval
FGF BRANDS: Illinois Court Trims Claims in Friend Suit
FIRST AMERICAN: Ingle Sues over Data Breach
FIRST CHOICE: Wolf Popper Named Lead Counsel in Maz Securities Suit

FIRST STUDENT: Judge Approves Wage Class Action Settlement
FORSTER & GARBUS: Yaakubov Sues over Debt Collection Practices
GENPACT SERVICES: Ludwig Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
GEORGE WASHINGTON: Judge Tosses ERISA Breach Class Action
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Court Dismisses 1st Amended Banaga Suit

GTX INC: Cooper Files Securities Suit Over Oncternal Merger
H&J RESTAURANT: Jones Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
HAIR RULES LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
HENKEL CORP: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Hubbard Says
HERITAGE OPERATIONS: Measaw Sues over Collection of Biometric Data

HINT INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HOME DEPOT: Eversole Suit Alleges FCRA Breach
HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces Zuniga Suit in Southern District of Texas
IDC TECHNOLOGIES: Mork Files Suit Alleging TCPA Breach
IDEMIA IDENTITY: Rueda Seeks Prelim. Approval of $2.9-Mil. Accord

INTELIDENT SOLUTIONS: Ct. Certifies Class in McGuire FLSA Suit
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
JAMES HARDIE: Law Firm Wants Parent Included in Class Action
KEH INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
KIA MOTOR: MLG Files Class Action Over Deadly Airbag Defect

KNOX COUNTY, TN: Amble's First Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
LASER SPINE: Court Grants Embry's Class Certification Bid
LG ELECTRONICS: Choi Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
MASSE CONTRACTING: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Ruiz FLSA Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ: Dumond Sues over Defective Panoramic Sunroofs

MONEYLION INC: Dicarlo Files Class Suit in C.D. California
MURAD, LLC: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Enriquez Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
NCAA: Johnson Sues for Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete
NCAA: Jones Seeks Damages for Football-related Brain Injury

NCAA: Saytumah Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
NCAA: Sevald Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
NCAA: Walker Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
NEWELL BRANDS: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OTTO GROUP: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PACIFIC BAY: Perez Seeks Overtime Pay for Construction Workers
PLASTIPAK PACKAGING: Appeals Order in Hernandez Suit to 11th Cir.
REAL ESTATE: Faces Greenberg Suit Alleging TCPA Breach
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
RECKITT BENCKISER: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action

RESIDENCE INN: Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling in Arias Suit to 9th Cir.
RITUALIST INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Renewed Summary Judgment Bid in Espejo Denied
SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Romero Suit Removed to C.D. California
SHERMAN OAKS: Reina Seeks Unpaid Wages, Meal Breaks

SHUTTERFLY INC: Miracle-Pond Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
STATE UNIV. OF NY: Court Certifies Class in Westchester ADA Suit
SWIFTWICK INTERNATIONAL: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TOTALMED STAFFING: Abrishamian Suit Removed to C.D. California
TRINITY SERVICES: Castillo Suit Removed to E.D. California

TYSON FOODS: Graham Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
UMB BANK: Garrett Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
UNITED DOMESTIC: California Homecare Providers File Class Action
VERB TECHNOLOGY: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WAL-MART: Price et al. Seek Equal Pay for Female Staff

WEBSTAURANT STORE: Conrath Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
WHEELS LABS: Feldman Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
WILLIAMS SONOMA: Faces Overton Suit in California Superior Court
WINN LAW GROUP: Caldera Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
XALER: Derval Moves for Certification of TCPA Class Under Rule 23

ZALE DELAWARE: Leos Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
ZAYO GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
ZEP LLC: Solis Suit Seeks Proper Minimum, Overtime Wages
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Fiorarancio Appeals Ruling to 3rd Circuit

                            *********

3M COMPANY: Hambaugh Files PI Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M COMPANY. The case
is styled as CHRISTOPHER HAMBAUGH, MATTHEW KUHN, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. 3M
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00853-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla., July
22, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability.

The 3M Company, formerly known as the Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company, is an American multinational conglomerate
corporation operating in the fields of industry, worker safety,
health care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
     Shamis & Gentile, PA
     14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone: (305) 479-2299
     Fax: (786) 623-0915
     Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com

          - and -

     Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
     Edelsberg Law, PA
     1945 Biscayne Blvd. # 607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com

          - and -

     Ricardo J Marenco
     Mark Jeffrey Dearman, Esq.
     Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
     120 E Palmetto Pk Rd, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Phone: (561) 750-3000
     Fax: (561) 750-3364
     Email: rmarenco@rgrdlaw.com
            mdearman@rgrdlaw.com


3M COMPANY: Hersha Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, Kent D. Hersha, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02093-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 16,
2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage Plaintiff
allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S. military,
including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff contends that
Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2") manufactured and sold
by Aearo were defectively designed and failed to provide adequate
hearing protection. 3M denies these allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Rhon E. Jones, Esq.
          William R. Sutton, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,
          PORTIS, & MILES, P.C.
          Post Office Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Telephone: (334) 269-2343
          Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
          E-mail: Rhon.Jones@BeasleyAllen.com
                  William.Sutton@BeasleyAllen.com

3M COMPANY: Kimball Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KENNETH KIMBALL, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, AEARO
HOLDINGS, LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE, LLC, AEARO, LLC and AEARO
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-02086-MCR-GRJ
(N.D. Fla., July 16, 2019), seeks to hold 3M liable for hearing
loss or damage Plaintiff allegedly suffered while serving variously
in the U.S. military, including during foreign conflicts. The
Plaintiff contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2
("CAEv2") manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed
and failed to provide adequate hearing protection. 3M denies these
allegations.

CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close collaboration with the U.S.
military, represented a revolutionary breakthrough in hearing
protection for service members. CAEv2 helped servicemembers better
maintain situational awareness (e.g., to hear nearby voice
commands) while also maintaining some protection from gunfire and
other higher decibel sounds. CAEv2 met the U.S. military's
specifications and helped the military provide hearing protection
to service members.

Despite knowing of the dangerous defects in its earplugs, Defendant
sold the Dual-ended Combat ArmsTM earplugs to the branches of the
U.S. military for more than a decade without providing the U.S.
military and/or Plaintiff with any warning of said defects, causing
Plaintiff and other service members similar permanent injuries,
such as hearing loss.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Michael W. Gaines, Esq.
          Tim L. Bowden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TIM BOWDEN
          306 Northcreek Blvd., Suite 200
          Goodlettsville, TN 37072
          Telephone: (615) 859-1996
          Facsimile: (615) 859-1921
          E-mail: mwgaines01@gmail.com
                  bowden_law@bellsouth.net
                  bowden1megan@gmail.com

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Tortorelli Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate,
LLC et al. The case is styled as Aldo A Tortorelli on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Allied
Interstate, LLC, IQOR US Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-04299
(E.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019).

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

Allied Interstate LLC is a collection agency and provides financial
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
     775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
     Huntington, NY 11743
     Phone: (631) 335-1107
     Email: mpash@verizon.net


ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Claims in 3rd Amended Martin Suit Trimmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 15-24 (D. V.I.), Judge
Anne E. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix, granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint.

The case is a securities fraud case brought against Defendant RESI
and its officers.  Defendant RESI sought to profit from buying
delinquent residential mortgages, foreclosing on the mortgaged
properties, and either selling the properties or converting them
into rental properties.  To perform these operations, Defendant
RESI had close business relationships with several other companies
(none of whom are parties to this case): Ocwen Financial Corp.);
Altisource Asset Management Corp. ("AAMC"); Altisource Portfolio
Solutions, S.A. ("ASPS"); and Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd.
("HLSS").  

Ocwen serviced the mortgages, AAMC provided managerial services,
and ASPS renovated and operated the properties.  At the time when
all alleged misrepresentations were made, Defendant Erbey was
Chairman of the Board of Defendant RESI and of the other companies.
Defendant Najour was the Chief Accounting Officer at Defendant
RESI and previously CFO of both Defendant RESI and AAMC.
Defendants Pandey, Lowe, and Ridley were executives at both
Defendant RESI and AAMC.

The Plaintiffs, representing a putative class of investors, claim
that the Defendants made two categories of misrepresentations.
First, the Defendants allegedly touted Defendant RESI's
relationship with Ocwen when, in reality, Ocwen was unable to
adequately service mortgages.  Second, the Defendants allegedly
stated that Defendant RESI was following certain policies when
conducting related party transactions when in fact these policies
were not being followed.

The Plaintiffs allege that all the Defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act (Count One); and that
Defendants Erbey, Pandey, Najour, Lowe, and Ridley ("Individual
Defendants") violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
(Count Two).

The case was filed on March 27, 2015.  On Jan. 23, 2016, the First
Amended Complaint was filed.  On Nov. 14, 2016, the case was
reassigned to the Judge Thompson.  The Court denied a Motion to
Dismiss the First Amended Complaint on March 16, 2017.  The
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint on Oct.
10, 2018.  The Court, largely in light of the Third Circuit
decision in City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Altisource Asset
Management Corp, dismissed the Second Amended Complaint on Feb. 21,
2019.  The Plaintiffs then filed the Third Amended Complaint on
March 12, 2019.  Following a stipulated briefing schedule, the
Defendants filed the present Motion to Dismiss on April 12, 2019.
The Motion is presently before the Court.

The Defendants argue that the Third Amended Complaint fails to
plead a material misrepresentation or omission, scienter, or loss
causation.  They also argue that the statute of repose bars some of
Plaintiff Saunders' claims and that the Plaintiffs lack standing
for some of their claims.

Judge Thompson finds that the Plaintiffs adequately plead that all
the Defendants made material misrepresentations or omissions.  To
support its allegations, the Third Amended Complaint cites to a
host of documents, and the Defendants argue that several of these
documents are mischaracterized.  However, the Defendants do not
identify any instance where the operant Complaint misquotes or
inaccurately paraphrases the documents; rather, they claim that it
fails to include other information that the Defendants find
important.

Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs sufficiently plead
scienter.  In denying the Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint, the Court found that the Plaintiffs adequately pleaded
scienter.  Additionally, the Court notes here that (1) Defendant
Erbey would have known whether he recused himself from
transactions.

Just as with scienter, the Court previously found that the
Plaintiffs adequately pleaded loss causation.  As the same
allegations are contained in the operant Complaint, the Judge
incorporates the Court's prior ruling.

Because the Third Amended Complaint was filed in the suit (or
action, or proceeding) that began in 2015, no allegations therein
are barred by the statute of repose, even though new Plaintiffs
have since been added.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs also lack standing for any
instance where they purchased securities after a corrective
disclosure and before any subsequent misrepresentation.  This
argument assumes that any corrective disclosure totally eliminated
the effect of preceding misrepresentations, but neither case law
nor the facts alleged in the Third Amended Complaint support that
assumption.  In fact, the Court previously wrote, albeit in the
context of loss causation, while the stated declines following
corrective disclosures were non-linear over the year and some
appear minor at first blush, given the unsettled nature of the law
on this topic, the sufficiency of the decline appears to be a
proper question for the trier of fact.  For similar reasons, the
Juduge will not dismiss claims simply because a purchase of
securities followed a corrective disclosure.

Finally, the only defect in the present Complaint is that the
Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue several of their claims.
Amendment to add more factual details would not remedy the problem
of standing and would therefore be futile.  For this reason, leave
to amend is denied.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Thompson granted in part and
denied in part the Motion to Dismiss.  An appropriate Order will
follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/wsQSTe from Leagle.com.

Eric Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin A. Rames, Law Office
of Kevin A. Rames, P.C.

Altisource Residential Corporation, Ashish Pandey, Kenneth D.
Najour, Robin N Lowe & Rachel M. Ridley, Defendants, represented by
Richard H. Hunter -- rhunter@huntercolevi.com -- Hunter, Cole &
Bennett.

William C. Erbey, Defendant, represented by Chad C. Messier --
Cmessier@dtflaw.com -- Dudley Topper & Feuerzeig, John L. Hardiman,
Sull8ivan & Cromwell LLP, Julia A. Malkina -- malkinaj@sullcrom.com
-- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Lisa Michelle Komives, Dudley Topper &
Feuerzeig & Richard H. Hunter, Hunter, Cole & Bennett.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Zamber Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KRISTIAN ZAMBER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-23901-JEM
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   1. certifying:

      -- as to Plaintiff's RICO claims, a class consisting of:

         all persons nationwide who purchased a trip insurance
         policy on American's website within the limitations
         period"; and

      -- as to Plaintiff's state-law claims, a class consisting
         of:

         "all Florida persons who purchased a trip insurance
         policy on American's website within the limitations
         period";

   2. appointing himself as representative of the certified class
      or classes; and

   3. appointing the law firm of Leon Cosgrove, LLP as class
      counsel.

The suit alleges that the Defendant uniformly fails to tell each of
its customers that it receives illegal commission profits from each
trip insurance policy sold on its website, class members can be
easily ascertained from the Defendant's business records, and
damages can be calculated with simple arithmetic using the same
evidence for all class members.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Scott B. Cosgrove, Esq.
          Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
          John R. Byrne, Esq.
          Jeremy L. Kahn, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305 740 1986
          Facsimile: 305 437 8158
          E-mail: scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com
                  aschultz@leoncosgrove.com

Counsel for American Airlines, Inc. are:

          Humberto H. Ocariz, Esq.
          Michael A. Holt, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          Miami Center, Suite 3200
          201 South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-5171
          Facsimile: (305) 358-7470
          E-mail: hocariz@shb.com
                 mholt@shb.com

               - and -

          James E. Brandt, Esq.
          Elizabeth (Betsy) Marks, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
          885 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-4834
          Telephone: (212) 906-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
          E-mail: james.brandt@lw.com
                 betsy.marks@lw.com


AMICA MUTUAL: Cruz-Santiago Sues over Vehicle Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------
TIANA CRUZ-SANTIAGO, individually similarly situated, behalf of all
others, the Plaintiff, vs. AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Rhode
Island corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 92003326 (Fla. 13th
Jud. Cir, Ct., Hillsborough Cty., July 2, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay fill
Actual Cash Value (ACV) payments or full total loss payments (FTLP)
to first-party total loss insureds with physical damage policies
containing comprehensive and and collision coverage.

The case is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff, the named
insured under an automobile policy issued by Amica for private
passenger auto physical damage, including comprehensive and
collision coverage (Insurance Policy). Under the Insurance Policy,
the Defendant is required to pay ACV in the event the Plaintiff's
insured vehicle is declared a total loss, the lawsuit says.

Amica is a private insurance company that collects tens of millions
of dollars in private-passenger physical damage coverage premiums
every year from its insureds.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
          2875 NE 191st Street, Suite 703
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: cott@edelsberglaw.com
                  utanski@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
          Jacob Phillips, Esq.
          NORMAND PLLC
          62 West Colonial Street, Suite 209
          Orlando, FL 32814
          Telephone: (407) 603-6031
          E-mail: ed@ednormand.com
                  jacob@ednormand.com

ARON SECURITY: Omar Seeks Refund for Security Guard Uniforms
------------------------------------------------------------
KASIM OMAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. ARON SECURITY, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
19-2194C (Mass. Super., July 9, 2019), seeks to recover money that
was allegedly taken by the Defendant from the Plaintiff's wages as
payment for uniforms. Aron's policy of requiring security guards to
pay for uniforms without reimbursement violates the Massachusetts
Wage Act.

By charging its security guards for uniforms, Aron Security has
failed to pay its security guards all wages earned by them, the
lawsuit says.

Aron Security provides security services to clients in
Massachusetts and employs security guards to provide those
services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          FAIR WORK P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607 3261
          Facsimile: (617) 488 2261
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                  brant@fairworklaw.com

ASPLUNDH TREE: Court Denies Bid to Decertify Class in Belloso Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MILTON ANTONIO BELLOSO, the
Plaintiff, vs. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT, CO. and ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-2020-Orl-40GJK (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order:

   1. adopting and confirming summary judgment report and
      recommendation;

   2. denying Defendants' motion for summary judgment;

   3. granting Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment;

   4. adopting and confirming decertification report; and

   5. denying Defendants' motion for decertification of the
      conditionally certified class.[CC]

AT&T INC: Scott et al Sue over Access to Sensitive Location Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
KATHERINE SCOTT, CAROLYN JEWEL, and GEORGE PONTIS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AT&T
INC.; AT&T SERVICES, INC.; AT&T MOBILITY, LLC; TECHNOCOM CORP.; and
ZUMIGO, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-4063 (N.D. Cal., July
16, 2019), alleges that AT&T has knowingly breached its duties to
protect Plaintiffs' sensitive location data in order to profit from
it.

Despite the recognized sensitivity of location data and AT&T's
obligations and promises to safeguard it, AT&T has been allowing
unauthorized access to its customers' precise, real-time location
data to thousands of third parties for years.

AT&T works with location data aggregator companies which specialize
in the commercial sale of location data for widespread purposes.
AT&T uses these aggregators, including Aggregator Defendants
LocationSmart and Zumigo, to manage the sale of its data to
thousands of entities -- including bail bondsmen, bounty hunters,
and prison officials -- who routinely access and use the data
without customer knowledge or consent, and without any emergency
basis, the lawsuit says.

AT&T Inc. is an American multinational conglomerate holding company
headquartered at Whitacre Tower in Downtown Dallas, Texas.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs are:

          Thomas D. Warren, Esq.
          Abbye R. Klamann Ognibene, Esq.
          PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP
          335 S. Grand Avenue, 44th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 262-9333
          Facsimile: (213) 297-2008
          E-mail: twarren@piercebainbridge.com
                  aognibene@piercebainbridge.com

               - and -

          Aaron Mackey, Esq.
          Andrew Crocker, Esq.
          Adam D. Schwartz, Esq.
          ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
          815 Eddy Street
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: (415) 436-9333
          Facsimile: (415) 436-9993
          E-mail: amackey@eff.org
                  andrew@eff.org
                  adam@eff.org

BAKERSFIELD MEMORIAL: Johnson Brings Class Action in Ca. Super. Ct
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BAKERSFIELD MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL and DIGNITY HEALTH. The case is styled as MARQUES JOHNSON,
ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff
v. BAKERSFIELD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, A CALIFORNIA ENTITY, DIGNITY
HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No.
BCV-19-102016 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., July 22, 2019).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited".

Memorial Hospital - Bakersfield is a hospital that offers many
services, including orthopedics, surgical services, and cancer
care.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by KEVIN T BARNES, ESQ.



BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CINDY R. CASTILLO, the Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ET AL., the Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-00580-DOC-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order
denying Plaintiff's motion to certify a class consisting of:

   California Class: "All hourly-paid, non-managerial call center
   workers of Bank of America, National Association, in the
   State of California within four years prior to the filing
   of the complaint in this action until resolution of this
   lawsuit"; and

and a subclass consisting of:

   Sub-Class 1: "All Class Members who are or were employed by
   Defendants and subject to Defendant's Unfair Business
   Practices".

The Court held that BofA has provided numerous declarations
demonstrating that call center workers received compliant meal
breaks pursuant to the Bank's policy. The Court further noted that
Plaintiff has admitted that no one at BofA ever told her that if
she had a lunch that was starting late she could not then come back
late to get the full 30 minutes. The Plaintiff further testified
that it was her understanding that if she worked more than 10 hours
she was entitled to a second meal period. Again, the Plaintiff has
simply not provided this Court with enough evidence of a common
question to warrant certification of this claim. Accordingly, the
motion for class certification is denied.[CC]


BANK OF HAWAII: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Smith EFTA Suit Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Bank of Hawaii filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Rodney Smith v. Bank of Hawaii, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-00513-JMS-WRP, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Hawaii, Honolulu.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court issued an Order denying the Defendant's Second Motion for
Summary Judgment.

BOH moves for summary judgment on five causes of action or, in the
alternative, partial summary judgment as to actual damages on the
Electronic Fund Transfers Act (EFTA) claim.

Plaintiff Rodney Smith challenges the adequacy of disclosures
regarding the method used by Defendant Bank of Hawaii (BOH) to
impose overdraft fees. Smith contends that BOH charged him
overdraft fees in a manner inconsistent with what was described in
agreements he signed, by using an available-balance method rather
than a ledger-balance method to assess the sufficiency of customer
account funds to cover a transaction.

BOH seeks summary judgment on Smith's UDAP, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, money had and received, and EFTA claims and, in
the alternative, partial summary judgment as to actual damages on
the EFTA claim. Having drawn all reasonable inferences in favor of
Smith, the Court finds that the contract between BOH and Smith was
ambiguous, and that there are genuine issues of material fact
regarding the claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Rodney Smith v. Bank of Hawaii,
et al., Case No. 19-80085, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent RODNEY SMITH, individually an on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Margery S. Bronster, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          BRONSTER FUJICHAKU ROBBINS
          1003 Bishop Street, Suite 2300
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 524-5644
          E-mail: mbronster@bfrhawaii.com
                  rhatch@bfrhawaii.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Richard Dale McCune, Jr., Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP
          3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
          Ontario, CA 91761
          Telephone: (909) 557-1250
          E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com

Defendant-Petitioner BANK OF HAWAII is represented by:

          Stuart M. Richter, Esq.
          Andrew John Demko, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 788-4582
          E-mail: stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com
                  andrew.demko@kattenlaw.com

               - and -

          Eric Thomas Werlinger, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2900 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 625-3553
          E-mail: eric.werlinger@kattenlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul D. Alston, Esq.
          Nickolas Alexander Kacprowski, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          1001 Bishop Street, Suite 1800
          Honolulu, HI 96813
          Telephone: (808) 524-1800
          E-mail: paul.alston@dentons.com
                  nickolas.kacprowski@dentons.com


BAYADA HOME HEALTH: Failed to Pay Wages Earned, Louis Says
----------------------------------------------------------
MICH KAREN PIERRE LOUIS, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE,
INC., DAVID BAIADA, and J. MARK BAIADA, the Defendants, Case No.
19-1857 (Mass. Super., July 9, 2019), alleges that Defendants
violated the Massachusetts General Laws by failing to pay wages
earned, by taking unlawful deductions from wages, and by failing to
properly list and itemize all earnings deductions and the amount of
each deduction on employees' earnings statements.

The Plaintiff was employed by Bayada from March 1, 2017 through
July 1,2018, as a home health aide. During the time of her
employment she was not paid her full wages earned, the lawsuit
says.

Founded in 1975, Bayada Home Health Care is an international
nonprofit home health care provider with the purpose to help people
have a safe home life with comfort, independence, and dignity.
BAYADA has more than 360 offices in 23 states, with locations in
Germany, India, Ireland, New Zealand, and South Korea.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class:

          David Pastor, Esq.
          PASTOR LAW OFFICE LLP
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617)742-9700
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9701
          E-mail: dpaslor@pastorlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Richard B. Reiling, Esq.
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 412-4291
          Facsimile: (617) 742-9700
          E-mail: richaixi@bottonereilinK.com

BCFORWARD RAZOR: Settlement in Rodriguez Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSE RODRIGUEZ, an individual, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BCFORWARD RAZOR LLC,
an Indiana Limited Liability Company, BUCHER AND CHRISTIAN
CONSULTING, INC., an Indiana Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-03219-EJD (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement.

On June 12, 2019, the Court conducted a hearing on the Plaintiff's
Motion.  Based on a review of the papers submitted by the Parties,
the Judge Davila finds that the Settlement Agreement is the result
of arms'-length negotiations conducted after the Plaintiff's
counsel had adequately investigated the claims and become familiar
with the strengths and weaknesses of the claims.  The assistance of
an experienced mediator in the settlement process supports the
Judge's conclusion that the proposed settlement is non-collusive.
He finds on a preliminary basis that the Settlement is within the
range of reasonableness of a settlement that could ultimately be
given final approval by the Court, and granted preliminary approval
of the Settlement.

The Judge preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement,
including all of the terms and conditions set forth therein and the
Maximum Settlement Amount and allocation of payments.

He conditionally certified the Settlement Class for settlement
purposes only and will consist of all non-exempt Customer Service
Representatives, Application Support Specialists, Contact Center
Agents, Customer Support Agents, Subscription Support Agents,
Customer Service Agents, Incubation Specialists, Product Specialist
Support Agents, Premium Customer Service Representatives, Renewals
Specialists, Developer Support Operations Specialists, App
Technical Supports, Technical Support Analysts, Application Review
Analysts and In-Store Tech Supports who have provided resources to
Accenture LLP through their employment with BCForward Razor LLC in
California from April 23, 2014 through April 30, 2019.

He conditionally appointed (i) Plaintiff Jesse Rodriguez to
represent the Settlement Class Members; (ii) David Yeremian, Esq.,
and David Yeremian & Associates, Inc., as the counsel for the
Settlement Class Members; and (iii) ILYM Group, Inc. as the Claims
Administrator.  

He preliminarily approved the allocated Settlement Administration
expenses.  The Claims Administrator will prepare final versions of
the Class Notice, incorporating into it the relevant dates and
deadlines set forth in the Order and the Settlement Agreement, and
will carry out the notice procedures set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.

The Judge approved, as to form and content, the proposed Notice of
Class Action Settlement.  He directed the mailing of the Class
Notice in accordance with the schedule set forth and the other
procedures described in the Settlement Agreement.

The Plaintiff has provided notice of the settlement to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, satisfying the
requirements of PAGA.  All proceedings and all litigation of the
Action, other than those pertaining to the administration of the
Settlement, are stayed pending the Final Approval Hearing.

The following dates will govern for purposes of the Settlement:

     a. 30 days after the Court grants preliminary approval of the
Settlement - Last day for the Defendants to produce the Class List
to the Claims Administrator

     b. Not later than 21 calendar days after Defendant produces
the class data - Last day for the Claims Administrator to mail
Class Notice to all the Class Members

     c. 14 days before the deadline for objecting to the Motion for
Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Costs and Class Representative
Service Award - Last day for the Plaintiff to file Declaration from
Claims Administrator, Class Representative, and Class Counsel in
support

     d. Not later than 30 calendar days after the Claims
Administrator mails the Class Notice - Last day for the Settlement
Class Members to mail Requests for Exclusion or Objections to the
Settlement

     e. Deadline for Class Counsel to File Motion for Final
Approval of the Settlement, Declaration from Administrator, and
Supplemental Documents for Fees Motion - Sept. 19, 2019  (28 days
before Final Approval Hearing)

     f. Proposed Date for Final Approval Hearing and Fees Motion -
Oct. 17, 2019

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/rUvatP from Leagle.com.

Jesse Rodriguez, an individual on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Harmik Yeremian
-- David@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian & Associates, Inc.,
Jason Whitney Rothman -- Jason@yeremianlaw.com -- David Yeremian
and Associates, Inc. & Walter Lewis Haines --
walterhaines@yahoo.com -- United Employees Law Group, P.C.

BCForward Razor LLC, an Indiana Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, represented by Jennifer P. Svanfeldt --
jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com -- GBG LLP, Theresa C. Mak -
makthere@amazon.com -- GBG LLP & Kevin Lawrence Quan --
kquan@allenmatkins.com -- Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP.

Bucher and Christian Consulting, Inc., an Indiana Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jennifer P. Svanfeldt, GBG LLP, Theresa
C. Mak, GBG LLP & Amelia Louise Sanchez-Moran, Jackson Lewis P.C..


BOOZ ALLEN: New York Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Kocourek
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL KOCOUREK, INDIVIDUALLY and as TRUSTEE OF THE PAUL
KOCOUREK TRUST, and ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. RALPH W. SHRADER, C.G. APPLEBY, SAMUEL R.
STRICKLAND, DANIEL LEWIS, BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC., Defendants,
Case No. 09-cv-10163 (LAK)(FM), Consolidated Cases Nos. 09-cv-10203
(LAK)(FM), 09-cv-10204 (LAK)(FM), 10-cv-05255 (LAK)(FM)(S.D. N.Y.),
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The dispute relates to the sale of the government division of Booz
Allen Hamilton ("BAH") to the Carlyle Group in 2008.  The
Transaction sparked a myriad of claims litigated in a variety of
fora over the past decade.  What remains of the action are the
securities fraud claims of Kocourek, acting individually, as
trustee of the Paul Kocourek Trust, and on behalf of a purported
class of individuals who sold or exchanged BAH securities in
connection with the Transaction. Kocourek alleges that BAH and its
officers fraudulently misrepresented and omitted material
information to secure the votes of BAH partners needed to approve
the Transaction.

Kocourek first filed suit in the Court in December 2009.  The Court
consolidated his case with two others brought by former BAH
officers asserting similar claims.  In September 2010, Kocourek,
along with co-Plaintiffs Reginald Boudinot and Paul Pasternack,
filed a consolidated complaint alleging securities fraud, RICO,
ERISA and various common law claims against BAH, its former chief
executive officer, Ralph Shrader, and a number of former BAH
officers.  In addition, the consolidated complaint asserted RICO
and state law aiding and abetting claims against Carlyle and
several Carlyle-related entities, as well as claims against Credit
Suisse Securities (USA), LLC.

The Court dismissed the claims against Credit Suisse in May 20116
and granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss in February
2012.  The only claims that survived were those brought by Kocourek
based on certain alleged violations of ERISA.  The Plaintiffs filed
a motion for reconsideration, and the Court upheld its dismissal of
the Plaintiffs' claims in all relevant respects.

The Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint which
included, inter alia, Kocourek's new securities fraud claims
purportedly asserted on behalf of a class of BAH shareholders.
Following briefing and oral argument, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend in September 2012.  It did so
with respect to the newly-proposed securities fraud claims on
several grounds including waiver, undue delay and futility.  With
regard to futility, the Court noted that Kocourek had not come
remotely close to pleading fraud with the particularity required by
Rule 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

Kocourek's remaining ERISA claims were decided against him pursuant
to a motion for summary judgment in April 2013.  The Defendants'
remaining counterclaims were voluntarily dismissed thereafter in
December 2015.

The Plaintiffs appealed the judgment of the Court with respect to
several claims, including the RICO and ERISA-based claims and the
Court's denial of Kocourek's motion to re-plead securities fraud.
The Second Circuit affirmed the Court's dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' claims in all respects, save that it vacated the
judgment to the extent it had denied Kocourek leave to amend the CC
to add securities fraud causes of action.

Kocourek filed the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
("ACC") in April 2018.  It alleges that the Defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by
knowingly misrepresenting and omitting material facts in an
Information Circular ("IC") distributed to BAH partners, which
allegedly were relied upon by plaintiff and the putative class
members in connection with the sale of their BAH equity securities.
The ACC alleges also control person liability under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange
Act.

The Defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that the Plaintiff
has failed to plead adequately any material misstatement or
omission, scienter, or damages.  They move also to dismiss the
class-action claims as time-barred and to strike portions of the
ACC.

Judge Kaplan finds that the IC described Credit Suisse's outreach
to 12 potential strategic buyers, the fact that non-disclosure
agreements were signed with four of these companies, that
presentations were given to three of these companies, and that
their interest waned and none submitted bids.  The facts alleged do
not support a reasonable belief that, in contrast to this
description of BAH's consideration of strategic buyers, Shrader
actually sabotaged the auction process against them.

Next, the Judge finds that Kocourek does not allege that the board
or the finance committee was complicit in understating the revenue
projections.  It is therefore inexplicable how the board and the
finance committee could approve a business plan with understated
revenue projections if such figures were capable of the precise
estimation claimed by Kocourek.

The Judge then finds that none of the information allegedly omitted
from the IC makes the conflicts information that was disclosed
misleading.  Disclosure of omitted information is required only
when necessary to make statements contemporaneously or previously
made not misleading.

The Judge also finds that Kocourek has failed adequately to plead
damages on a theory that he would have rolled-over shares in the
Transaction had he known of the Defendants' allegedly fraudulent
conduct.  In the first consolidated complaint, Kocourek effectively
admitted that this had occurred when he alleged that a revision to
the SRP in 2000 eliminated the ability of retired partners to vote
and that Kocourek and other retired Stock Pension Plan participants
could not vote their stock.  He therefore would have been
ineligible to roll-over his shares.

Section 20(a) imposes joint and several liability on control
persons for underlying violations of the Exchange Act.  To state a
claim under Section 20(a), a plaintiff must allege both a primary
violation of the Exchange Act and the defendant's control over the
primary violator.  The Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed to
allege a primary violation of the Exchange Act, and therefore, his
claims under Section 20(a) are dismissed.

Finally, Kocourek alleges that the Transaction qualified as a
tender offer because misstatements in the IC were reasonably
calculated to result in the procurement of tenders from BAH
shareholders in favor of Caryle's offer to purchase BAH for a price
of approximately $763 per share.  The Judge finds that the claim
fails because the Transaction was not a tender offer.  Section14(e)
therefore is inapplicable.  S]tate and federal law clearly treat
mergers as distinct from tender offers, and unlike in the tender
offer context, the Transaction required the affirmative vote ofBAH
shareholders.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kaplan granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss in its entirety.  The Clerk will enter judgment
and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/m6W1nE from Leagle.com.

Reginald Boudinot, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Carroll Kelly --
mkelly@katzabosch.com -- Keahon, Fleischer, Duncan & Ferrante.

Paul Kocourek, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Mark Carroll
Kelly, Keahon, Fleischer, Duncan & Ferrante, Yonaton Aronoff --
yaronoff@sc-harris.com -- Harris, St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP,
Jonathan Andrew Harris, Harris, O'Brien, St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP
& Joseph Terence Gallagher -- jgallagher@sc-harris.com -- Harris,
St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP.

Bruce Pasternack, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Mark
Michael Elliott -- melliott@phillipsnizer.com -- Phillips Nizer
LLP, Bruce J. Turkle, Phillips Nizer Benjamin Krim & Ballon LLP &
Jared Riley Clark -- jclark@phillipsnizer.com -- Phillips Nizer
LLP.

Ralph W. Shrader, C.G. Appleby, Samuel R. Strickland & Booz Allen
Hamilton Inc., Defendants, represented by J. Christian Word --
christian.word@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, LLP, pro hac vice, Jamie
Lynne Wine -- jamie.wine@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, LLP & Sarah
Ann Tomkowiak -- sarah.tomkowiak@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
pro hac vice.

Joseph E. Garner, Dennis O. Doughty, Francis J. Henry, Christopher
M. Kelly, Joseph W. Mahaffee, John D. Mayer & Patrick F. Peck,
Defendants, represented by J. Christian Word, Latham & Watkins,
LLP, pro hac vice & Sarah Ann Tomkowiak, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro
hac vice.

Daniel Lewis, Defendant, represented by Jamie Lynne Wine, Latham &
Watkins, LLP.


BRIDGEMARK GROUP: Faces Class Action Amid Fraud Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Graeme Wood, writing for BIV, reports that two investors have
launched a class action lawsuit against a group of alleged
purported consultants, known as the Bridgemark Group, and 11 public
companies who are subject to a fraud investigation by the B.C.
Securities Commission.

Vancouver lawyer Paul Bennett of Bennett Mounteer LLP filed a
notice of claim in BC Supreme Court July 11 under the Class
Proceedings Act on behalf of Saskatchewan resident Michael Tietz
and B.C. resident Duane Loewen.

"We are looking for people to come forward to give evidence about
their share purchases," Bennett told Glacier Media via email
July 12.

Tietz bought $44,519 in Cryptobloc Technologies Corp. while Loewen
bought $4,000 in KOPR (formerly known as New Point Exploration
Corp.). The two are suing those companies.

The notice of claim outlines when a class member (shareholder)
would have had to purchase shares in these companies, which would
have been at various points between January 2018 and November 2018,
depending on the company. The notice is posted on the website
bridgemarkclassaction.com.

Bennett is also seeking evidence from shareholders against the
following defendant companies listed on the Canadian Securities
Exchange: Kootenay Zinc Corp., Affinor Growers Inc., Green 2 Blue
Energy Corp., Beleave Inc., Citation Growth Corp. (formerly Liht
Cannabis Corp.), BLOK Technologies Inc., PreveCeutical Medical
Inc., Abattis Bioceuticals Corp. and Speakeasy Cannabis Club Ltd.

The purported consultants are listed as defendants in the claim,
just as they are listed as respondents to a BCSC notice of hearing,
which alleges violations of the Securities Act with conduct
"abusive to the capital markets."

On his clients' behalf, Bennett takes things a step further, naming
the executives of the issuing companies, at the relevant periods,
and also alleging criminal fraud on their part.

The case has spawned a number of court battles, allegations and
admissions.

The enforcement action involves an unusually high number of
operatives, who, according to the Canada Stockwatch database, have
collectively been involved in hundreds of other penny stock
companies listed on the CSE and TSX Venture Exchange. Should the
BCSC allegations be proven, they raise serious questions about the
credibility of those other companies and how the exchanges are
monitored.

Starting in January 2018 these companies, their executives and the
more than two-dozen supposed consultants — including many members
of the Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia —
are alleged to have entered into phony consulting agreements. The
companies collectively issued tens of millions of dollars worth of
shares to the consultants via private placements (sales of shares)
while simultaneously entering into contracts for services that were
never rendered, the BCSC alleges. The consultants then offloaded
their newly acquired free-trading shares on the exchanges, to
unwitting retail investors, such as Tietz and Loewen, according to
the allegations. Essentially, there was a cash swap (shares for
contracts) between the consultants and companies, the BCSC alleges.
The money the consultants made was through the offloading of shares
(sold at a below market price) to retail investors. The alleged
scheme resulted in shareholders holding depreciated and diluted
stock.

Bennett describes how the companies never disclosed the
arrangements to the public.

"The Scheme was dishonest, deceitful and deceptive, and constituted
a fraud on the market for the Issuers' (companies) shares affecting
the public market price of those shares," states the claim, which
has yet to receive a response from defendants.

"The consulting agreements entered into between the Issuers and the
Purported Consultants and concluded as part of the Private
Placements were a scam and a false pretence. Neither the Purported
Consultants nor the Issuers had any bona fide expectation that
services of any real value would be provided under the consultant
agreements, and no such services were provided."

Bennett notes that in each case there are possible arrangements
between the consultants and companies that are yet known, which may
explain the full extent of the scheme.

The lawsuit seeks damages for unlawful conspiracy, secondary market
misrepresentations and fraud, or disgorgement of the benefit the
defendants obtained as a result of the scheme.

According to the claim, the scheme was conceived in or around
January by a quartet of West Vancouver penny stock promoters:
BridgeMark Financial Corp. principal and chartered professional
accountant Anthony Jackson; Justin Liu, a man known to operate
illegal cannabis dispensaries; Cameron Paddock, a former NHL hockey
player; and Aly Babu Mawji, a convicted fraudster (in Germany).
Bennett said he asserts this because these four implemented the
first disputed private placement with Kootenay Corp., for which
Jackson then acted as both a director and Chief Financial Officer
of the company. The four men are named as pitchmen by the BCSC and
in a lawsuit by PreveCeutical against Mawji, Liu and BridgeMark
Financial, noted Bennett, when asked about his claim.

PreveCeutical meanwhile is claiming it is a victim of a
"conspiracy" by Mawji and Liu, who are alleged to have set up $2.8
million worth of consulting agreements (including their own) with
PreveCeutical while concurrently obtaining $4 million worth of
securities under exemptions of the Securities Act -- only to not
provide any such services and quickly sell the newly issued
securities back into the market.

"Unbeknownst to PreveCeutical, at no time did the defendants intend
to provide services," the Dec. 18, 2018, notice of claim states.

However, Bennett's class action claims the companies, including
PreveCeutical, knowingly deceived shareholders.

For his part, Mawji claimed PreveCeutical gave his company a
$425,000 prepaid contract to conduct online promotions. He also
stated in his counterclaim he bought 30 million shares for $1.5
million. Mawji denies selling shares contrary to the best interests
of shareholders and said it was up to PreveCeutical to do its due
diligence.

Mawji and Jackson had a business relationship before the former's
conviction related to a pump and dump. BCSC respondents also
include Jackson's father-in-law Kenneth Tollstam, brother-in-law
Ryan Venier, and sister Tara Haddad. Jackson's wife, realtor Lisa
Jackson, is a respondent to a similar investigation by the Alberta
Securities Commission involving Prize Mining Corp.

gwood@glaciermedia.ca

Here are the additional class action defendants who were, during
the relevant trading periods in 2018, executives of the issuing
companies listed in the class action application:

   -- Neil William Stevenson-Moore ("Stevenson-Moore"), is a
resident of North Vancouver, British Columbia and was the Chief
Executive Officer of Cryptobloc.

   -- Kenneth Clifford Phillippe ("Phillippe"), is a resident of
West Vancouver, British Columbia and was the Chief Financial
Officer of Cryptobloc.

   -- Brian Biles ("Biles"), is a resident of Vancouver, British
Columbia and was a director of Cryptobloc.

   -- Bryn Gardener-Evans ("Gardener-Evans"), is a resident of
Calgary, British Columbia and was the Chief Executive Officer and a
director of KOPR.

   -- Robert Tindall ("Tindall"), is a resident of Vancouver,
British Columbia and was, at all material times in 2018, a director
of Kootenay Corp.

   -- Nicholas Brusatore ("Brusatore"), is a resident of Anmore,
British Columbia and was the Chief Executive Officer and President
of Affinor Corp.

   -- Sam Chaudhry ("Chaudhry"), is a resident of the greater
Vancouver area, British Columbia and was the Chief Financial
Officer of Affinor Corp.

   -- Slawomir Smulewicz ("Smulewicz"), is a resident of Vancouver,
British Columbia and was, at all material times in 2018, the Chief
Executive Officer of Green Corp.

   -- Michael Young ("Young"), is a resident of Vancouver, British
Columbia and was the Chief Financial Officer and a director of
Green Corp.

   -- Glenn Little ("Little"), is a resident of Vancouver, British
Columbia and was a director of Green Corp.

   -- Andrew Wnek ("Wnek"), is a resident of Toronto, Ontario and
was the Chief Executor Officer and director of Beleave.

   -- Bojan Krasic ("Krasic"), is a resident of Stoney Creek,
Ontario and was the Chief Financial Officer and direct of Beleave.

   -- Linda Sampson ("Sampson"), is a resident of Kelowna, British
Columbia and was the Chief Executive Officer and director of
Citation.

   -- David Alexander ("Alexander"), is a resident of North
Vancouver, British Columbia and was a director of Citation Corp.
Alexander also was the Chief Financial Officer of BLOK.

   -- Yari Alexander Nieken ("Nieken"), is a resident of North
Vancouver, British Columbia and was a director of Citation Corp.
Neiken subsequently became a director of the Defendant, BLOK.

   -- Hanspaul Pannu ("Pannu"), is a resident of the greater
Vancouver area, British Columbia and was the Chief Financial
Officer of Citation Corp.

   -- Robert Dawson ("Dawson"), is a resident of the greater
Vancouver area, British Columbia and was the President and Chief
Executive Officer of BLOK.

   -- James Hyland ("Hyland"), is a resident of Vancouver, British
Columbia and was a Vice-President and a director of BLOK

   -- Stephen Van Deventer ("Van Deventer"), is a resident of
Vancouver, British Columbia and was the President and Chief
Executive Officer of PreveCeutical.

   -- Shabira Rajan ("Rajan"), is a resident of Richmond, British
Columbia and was the Chief Financial Officer of PreveCeutical.

   -- Robert Abenante ("Abenante"), is a resident of Vancouver,
British Columbia and was a director and the President and Chief
Executive Officer Abattis Corp.

   -- Kent McParland ("McParland"), is a resident of Richmond,
British

Columbia and was the Chief Financial Officer of Abattis Corp.
McParland was also the Chief Financial Officer and a director of
Cryptobloc.

   -- Marc Geen, is resident of Rock Creek, British Columbia and
was the Chief Executive Officer and a director of Speakeasy Ltd.

   -- Mervyn Geen, is resident of Rock Creek, British Columbia and
was a director of Speakeasy Ltd.

   -- Jeremy Ross ("Ross"), is a resident of the greater Vancouver
area, British Columbia and was a director of Speakeasy Ltd.

   -- Alexander Kaulins ("Kaulins"), is a resident of the greater
Vancouver area, British Columbia and was a director of Speakeasy
Ltd. [GN]


CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbuto & Johansson, P.A. ("BARJO") and Of Counsel, Neil Rothstein,
Esq. (with over 30 years of Securities Class Action Experience,
including cases against ENRON and Halliburton) reminds investors
that they have until September 9, 2019 to contact the Firm to learn
more about the class action filed against CannTrust Holdings
(NYSE:CTST; OTC: CNTTF), and appointment and qualifications to be
considered for the role of lead plaintiff.

According to the complaint, Defendants misrepresented and concealed
that CannTrust was growing cannabis in its Pelham greenhouse
facility in five unlicensed rooms between October 2018 and March
2019, and provided inaccurate information to regulators and false
and misleading public statements.

On July 8, 2019, the market began to learn the truth when
Defendants disclosed that Health Canada found that the Pelham
greenhouse facility was 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 and an additional
7,500 kilograms was voluntarily held by the Company.

Most recently, on July 11, 2019, Defendants announced CannTrust (1)
suspended sales and shipments of all of its cannabis products and
(2) established a special committee to investigate the matter in
its entirety.

If you've suffered damages from investing in CannTrust Holdings and
would like to discuss your options, including petitioning the court
for a leadership position, you may, without obligation or cost,
contact Anthony Barbuto, at (888) 715-2520 or via email at
anthony@barjolaw.com; or Neil Rothstein at (330) 860-4092 or email
at neil@barjolaw.com.

BARJO -- http://www.barjolaw.com-- follows the principles set
forth in the case Berger v. Compaq, 257 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2001)
which states "[c]lass action lawsuits are intended to serve as a
vehicle for capable, committed advocates to pursue the goals of the
class members through counsel, not for capable, committed counsel
to pursue their own goals through the class members." BARJO
believes strongly that the choice of qualified Lead Plaintiff(s)
can have a significant impact on the successful outcome of a case.
If you wish to be considered to serve as lead plaintiff, you must
request this position by application to the Court by September 9,
2019. [GN]


CARIDAD RESTAURANT: Deprived Workers of Proper Wages, Guerra Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ignacio Guerra, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. J.A.E.-L.A.R. Restaurant Corp., dba Caridad Restaurant, Amaury
Espinal, Amin Espinal and Laura Rodriguez, Case No. 1:19-cv-04144
(S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have deprived the
Plaintiff and his co-workers of minimum wages and overtime pay
since at least May 8, 2016 in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants
have also violated notice-and-recordkeeping requirements by failing
to provide plaintiff with wage notices, in violation of NYLL.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Bronx County, State of New York and
was employed by the Defendants from December 1, 2008 until April
10, 2017, when he was subjected to an unlawful termination. The
Plaintiff was tasked with food preparation, cleaning, stocking,
heavy lifting, and making deliveries.

The Defendant J.A.E.-L.A.R. dba Caridad Restaurant is a restaurant
that serves Dominican cuisine located at 3533 Broadway, New York,
New York, 10031.

The Defendants Amaury Espinal, Amin Espinal and Laura Rodriguez
were jointly the operators, managers, principles and owners of
Caridad Restaurant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ria Julien, Esq.
      MIRER MAZZOCCHI & JULIEN, PLLC
      150 Broadway, 12th floor
      New York, NY 10038
      Tel: (212) 231-2235


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Depascale Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Depascale, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case
1:19-cv-02681  (E.D. N.Y., May 7, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's collection letter is
reasonably susceptible to an inaccurate reading by the least
sophisticated consumer in violation of the FDCPA.

The Plaintiff is an individual who is a citizen of the State of New
York residing in Kings County, New York.

The Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection
of debts allegedly owed by consumers and uses the mails in its debt
collection business. Its principal place of business is in
Westchester County, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7600
      Fax: (516) 706-5055
      E-mail: csanders@barshaysanders.com


CDW LLC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CDW LLC. The case is
styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CDW LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06975-JMF (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019).

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

CDW LLC distributes technology products and services. The Company
provides notebooks, desktops, printers, servers and storage,
unified communications, security, wireless, power, and cooling
products, as well as networking, software licensing, and mobility
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


CENTENE MANAGEMENT: Foon Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned MICHELE FOON, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTENE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC,
and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. STKCVUOE20197891
was removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for
the County of San Joaquin to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California on July 25, 2019, and assigned
Case No. 2:19-cv-01420-MCE-AC.

Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) Failure to
Provide Rest Breaks; (2) Failure to Provide Meal Breaks; (3)
Failure to Reimburse; (4) Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage
Statements; (5) Unfair Business Practices; (6) Violation of the
Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"); and (7) Failure to Produce
Records Upon Request.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     TIMOTHY LONG, ESQ.
     GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
     1201 K Street, Suite 1100
     Sacramento, CA 95814
     Phone: (916) 442-1111
     Facsimile: (916) 448-1709
     Email: longt@gtlaw.com

          - and -

     LINDSAY E. HUTNER, ESQ.
     ALEXA R. HANKARD, ESQ.
     GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
     Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 655-1300
     Facsimile: (415) 358-8139
     Email: hutnerl@gtlaw.com
            hankarda@gtlaw.com


CHATTEM INC: Martin Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned RUTHIE MARTIN, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHATTEM, INC.; SANOFI,
INC.; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19STCV17036
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on July 25, 2019, and assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-06464.

The Complaint alleges eight causes of action: 1) violation of
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act; 2) violation of
California's False Advertising Law; 3) violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law; 4) breach of express warranty; 5) breach of
implied warranty of merchantability; 6) unjust enrichment; 7)
strict products liability; and 8) negligence.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     CHRISTOPHER M. YOUNG, ESQ.
     KATHERINE J. PAGE, ESQ.
     DLA PIPER LLP (US)
     401 B Street, Suite 1700
     San Diego, CA 92101-4297
     Phone: 619.699.2700
     Fax: 619.699.2701
     Email: christopher.young@dlapiper.com
            katherine.page@dlapiper.com


CHEVRON USA INC: Bradford Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Joann Bradford, Liza Mosqueriola, Jason Rohrbach
and Brian White, on behalf of themselves and other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., and Does 1
through and including 25, Defendants, Case No. C19-01155 (Cal.
Super., June 7, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on July 15, 2019, under Case
No. 19-cv-04051.

Plaintiffs are operators who seek redress for Defendant's failure
to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum wages, overtime,
complete and accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties for
unpaid wages due upon termination in violation of the California
Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code. The
Plaintiffs further seek declaratory relief, damages, penalties,
equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees.

Clean Harbors provides environmental, energy, and industrial
services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kristina L. Hillman, Esq.
     Jannah V. Manansala, Esq.
     Alexander S. Nazarov, Esq.
     WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
     1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
     Alameda, CA 94501
     Telephone: (510) 337-1001
     Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
     Email: courtnotices@unioncounsel.net
            khillman@unioncounsel.net
            jmanansala@unioncounsel.net
            anazarov@unioncounsel.ne

Chevron is represented by:

     Robert D. Eassa, Esq.
     Delia A. Isvoranu, Esq.
     DUANE MORRIS LLP
     Spear Tower
     One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Telephone: (415) 957-3093
     Facsimile: (415) 520-0814
     Email: rdeassa@duanemorris.com
            disvoranu@duanemorris.com


CHRONO24 INC: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chrono24 Inc. The
case is styled as Jon R. Morgan on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chrono24 Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06938-JGK (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019).

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

Chrono24 is one of the main new actors of the watch market in the
digital age. It has established itself as a  global marketplace for
buyers and sellers of vintage, pre-owned and, increasingly, new
watches.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748
     Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com


CLEAN HARBORS: Alba Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Armando Alba, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Clean Harbors
Environmental Services, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV20233 (Cal. Super., June 11, 2019), was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on July 15, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-06072.

Alba seeks redress for Defendant's failure to provide meal periods,
rest periods, minimum wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage
statements, reimbursement of business-related expenses and
resulting from unfair business practices, waiting time penalties
for unpaid wages due upon termination in violation of the
California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code,
including declaratory relief, damages, penalties, equitable relief,
costs and attorneys' fees.

Clean Harbors provides environmental, energy, and industrial
services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan Harris, Esq.
     David Garrett, Esq.
     HARRIS AND RUBLE
     655 North Central Ave., 17th Floor
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Tel: (323) 962-3777
     Fax: (323) 962-3004

Clean Harbors is represented by:

     Betsy Johnson, Esq.
     OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
     400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 239-9800
     Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
     Email: betsy.johnson@ogletree.com

            - and -

     Hanna B. Raanan, Esq.
     Sean M. Kim CA Bar No. 271901
     OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
     Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor
     695 Town Center Drive
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (714) 800-7900
     Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
     Email: hanna.raanan@ogletree.com


CLOUDERA INC: Zarantonello Says Securities Statements Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RENATO ZARANTONELLO, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CLOUDERA, INC., THOMAS J.
REILLY, JIM FRANKOLA, and MICHAEL A. OLSON, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:19-cv-04007 (N.D. Cal., July 12, 2019), is a securities class
action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Cloudera securities between April 28, 2017 and
June 5, 2019, inclusive.  The complaint alleges that Defendants
failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to Cloudera, Inc.'s
business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to
or recklessly disregarded by defendants.

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

The truth began to be revealed on April 3, 2018 when, in connection
with its fourth quarter ("Q4") and full year ("FY") 2018 financial
results, the Company provided a disappointing outlook for fiscal
2019 along with missed revenue numbers. This news contradicted
defendants' prior positive statements and were all the more
surprising as they had come less than a year after Cloudera had
gone public. As a result of the defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of
Cloudera's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Cloudera, Inc. is a US-based software company that provides a
software platform for data engineering, data warehousing, machine
learning and analytics that runs in the cloud or on premises.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 405-7190
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

CONTINENTAL INN: Honeywell Files ADA Suit in S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CONTINENTAL INN
BEACHSIDE, INC. The case is styled as Cheri Honeywell, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
CONTINENTAL INN BEACHSIDE, INC. a Florida corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 0:19-cv-61864-JEM (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2019).

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

Continental Inn in Marathon, Florida is a tropical retreat with a
private beach on the Atlantic Ocean, located in the heart of the
Florida Keys.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
     Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
     200 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 504
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: (954) 282-1858
     Fax: (844) 786-3694
     Email: service@advocacypa.com


CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE: Heisler's Summ. Judgment Bid Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHAD H. HEISLER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONVERGENT HEALTHCARE RECOVERIES,
INC., and JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, Defendants, Case
No. 16-CV-1344 (E.D. Wis.), Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted
in part and denied in part Heisler's motion for summary judgment as
to the judicial estoppel defense.

Heisler brought the class action complaint against Convergent,
alleging that Convergent sent a debt collection letter that
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").   In its
answer, Convergent asserted as an affirmative defense that Heisler
is judicially estopped from claiming or recovering sums in excess
of amounts claimed in his separate action in Bankruptcy Court.  The
Magistrate denied Heisler's motion for class certification because
Convergent had an arguable judicial estoppel defense to Heisler's
claim that was legally and factually specific to Heisler, rendering
Heisler an inadequate class representative.

On Sept. 26, 2016, Heisler, represented by counsel, filed a Chapter
7 bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.  His Bankruptcy Schedule E/F lists
Convergent as a creditor with an unsecured claim.  He reported
$6,250 worth of property and claimed $6,250 in exempt property,
including "2 FDCPA claims against collection agencies" valued at
$2,000.  Heisler did not schedule a class representative incentive
reward as an asset in his original bankruptcy petition, although he
later amended his schedules to include it.

On Nov. 18, 2016, the trustee filed its Report of No Distribution,
meaning there was no property available for distribution from the
Plaintiff's bankruptcy estate.  The trustee reported $6,250 in
exempt assets and stated that there is no property available for
distribution from the estate over and above that exempted by law.

On Jan. 9, 2017, Heisler, through counsel, filed an Amended
Property Schedule in his bankruptcy case.  His Amended Schedule
reported and exempted $11,250 worth of property, including "1 FDCPA
claims against collection agencies (up to $1,000 claim) and Class
Representative Incentive Reward Case (up to $6000 claim)."  On Jan.
23, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order discharging
Heisler's debts and a final decree closing the case.

Convergent asserts that on Jan. 24, 2018, while the case was
referred to Magistrate Judge David E. Jones for mediation, Heisler
issued a class settlement demand in which he requested a $10,000
class incentive award.  Heisler asserts that the $10,000 demand was
a scrivener's error that he immediately took steps to correct,
notifying the court and opposing counsel that Heisler was seeking a
$6,000 incentive award.

Heisler moves for summary judgment as to Convergent's judicial
estoppel defense.  Heisler bears the burden of proving that, even
making all reasonable inferences in Convergent's favor, there are
no genuine issues of material fact regarding Convergent's judicial
estoppel defense.  Convergent has the burden of proof on its
judicial estoppel defense, so for that defense to survive this
motion, Convergent must produce evidence to reasonably support it.
Heisler argues that Convergent cannot meet this burden.  Convergent
argues that Heisler's motion is procedurally improper, or in the
alternative, that there are genuine issues of material fact
precluding summary judgment.

Magistrate Judge Joseph concludes that to prevail on the motion,
Heisler must show that there are no genuine issues of material fact
and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the
judicial estoppel defense.  Because Heisler consistently asserted a
$1,000 statutory damages claim in Bankruptcy Court and in the
court, she will grant Heisler's motion for summary judgment on the
judicial estoppel defense as to the statutory damages claim.
Because there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that
Heisler's initial omission of the potential incentive award in his
bankruptcy petition was intentional, she will also grant Heisler's
motion for summary judgment on the judicial estoppel defense as to
his potential class representative incentive award, but only up to
$6,000.

Based on the foregoing, the Magistrate granted in part and denied
in part Heisler's motion for summary judgment on the judicial
estoppel defense.  Heisler is not judicially estopped from pursuing
statutory damages up to $1,000 or a class representative incentive
award up to $6,000.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/QlSuJD from Leagle.com.

Chad H Heisler, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman --
dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC,
Francis R. Greene -- fgreene@edcombs.com -- Stern Thomasson LLP,
Andrew T. Thomasson -- andrew@sternthomasson.com -- Stern
Thomasson
LLP, Philip D. Stern -- philip@sternthomasson.com -- Stern
Thomasson LLP & Heather B. Jones -- heather@sternthomasson.com --
Stern Thomasson LLP.

Convergent Healthcare Recoveries Inc, Defendant, represented by
Avanti D. Bakane -- abakane@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani LLP & Chirag Haresh Patel -- cpatel@grsm.com -- Gordon
Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP.


COQUILLE VALLEY: Does Not Pay Nurses Overtime Wages, Says Lytle
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Lytle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Coquille Valley Hospital, Case No. 6:19-cv-00722 (D.
Ore., May 9, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated nursing staff have been denied
payment for all hours worked, including overtime; were subject to
improper deductions from wages; and were denied meal and rest
periods by the Defendant, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Coos Bay, Oregon and was
employed as a nurse by the Defendant in Coquille, Oregon.

The Defendant is a domestic company doing business in Coos County,
Oregon. The Defendant is a hospital that provides general medical
and surgical care for inpatients and outpatients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dana L. Sullivan, Esq.
      BUCHANAN ANGELI
      ALTSCHUL & SULLIVAN LLP
      921 SW Washington Street, Suite 516
      Portland, OR 97204
      Tel: (503) 974-5023
      Fax: (971) 230-0337
      E-mail: dana@baaslaw.com


CRAY INC: Epstein Says Proxy Statement for Merger Misleading
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Cray Inc. and the
members of its board of directors for their violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed
merger between Cray and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. The case is
captioned MICHAEL EPSTEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CRAY INC., STEPHEN C. KIELY,
PETER J. UNGARO, SALLY G. NARODICK, DANIEL C. REGIS, DR. PRITHVIRAJ
BANERJEE, CATRIONA M. FALLON, BRIAN V. TURNER, MAX L. SCHIRESON,
and STEPHEN E. GOLD, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01026 (W.D.
Wash., July 2, 2019).

This class action is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and
the other public holders of the common stock of Cray Inc. On May
16, 2019, the Board caused Cray to enter into an agreement and plan
of merger, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to
receive $35.00 in cash for each share of Cray stock they own.  On
June 12, 2019, in order to convince Cray shareholders to vote in
favor of the proposed merger, the Board authorized the filing of a
materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy
Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On June 25,
2019, the Cray filed a Form DEFM14A Definitive Proxy Statement that
did not correct the incomplete and misleading nature of the
preliminary proxy. While touting the fairness of the merger
consideration to the Cray'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.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections
for the Cray that were prepared by the Cray and relied on by
Defendants in recommending that Cray shareholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation
analyses conducted by Cray's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC in support of its opinion that the merger consideration is
fair to shareholders on which the Board relied.

Cray is incorporated in Washington and maintains its principal
executive offices at 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1000, Seattle, WA
98164. The Cray's common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the
ticker symbol CRAY. The company designs, develops, manufactures,
markets and services computer products for high-end computing, data
analytics, and AI markets. Its products include supercomputers,
high-performance storage, data analytics, and AI solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103
     Telephone: (206) 816-6603
     Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
     E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

             - and –

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 983-9330
     Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
     E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
             jwilson@faruqilaw.com

CREDIT CONTROL: Davis Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control
Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit Collection Services. The case is styled
as Allyson Davis on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Credit Control Services, Inc.
d/b/a Credit Collection Services, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06816
(S.D. N.Y., July 22, 2019).

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

Credit Control Services, Inc. was founded in 1966. The Company's
line of business includes collection and adjustment services on
claims and other insurance related issues.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
     Fagenson & Puglisi
     450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
     New York, NY 10123
     Phone: (212) 268-2128
     Fax: (212) 268-2127
     Email: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


CSC SERVICEWORKS: New York Eastern District Dismisses MJM Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge I. Leo Glasser of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted CSC' motion to dismiss the case, MJM
VISIONS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CSC SERVICEWORKS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 18-CV-04452 (E.D. N.Y.), for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff MJM brings the putative class action against Defendant
CSC, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.  CSC is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Plainview, New York, and provides coin-operated laundry machines to
universities, laundromats, and residential multi-unit buildings.
Over the last several years, CSC has acquired many of its
competitors and their pre-existing service contracts, some of which
are in the form of leases where CSC rents building space for its
laundry machines and pays the landlords of those buildings a share
of the net revenue generated by the machines.

The Plaintiff owns multi-unit apartment buildings in California and
is a party to three lease agreements with one of CSC' predecessors,
Coinmach.  Those agreements provide that Coinmach, now CSC, will
pay the Plaintiff an annual rent equal to $20 or 50% of the gross
monthly receipts from the laundry machine sales, whichever is
greater.  

On May 17, 2017, CSC wrote to the Plaintiff announcing that, going
forward, it will deduct an "Administrative Fee" of 9.75% from MJM's
gross collections.  It claimed that the fee will help offset costs
related to taxes, vandalism, and applicable administrative and
other costs.  The Plaintiff claims that none of its leases with CSC
allow for such a fee, which resulted in loss to it of hundreds of
dollars in revenue.

On Aug. 7, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of
itself and other similarly situated landlords who were charged the
9.75% Administrative Fee.  Approximately one month later, on Sept.
6, 2018, CSC wrote to the Plaintiff stating that (1) under the
lease agreements, the Plaintiff was required to provide CSC with
notice of the alleged breach and a 30-day opportunity to cure it
before filing suit, (2) while CSC believes it is permitted to
deduct the Administrative Fee, it nevertheless reimbursed the
Plaintiff for the fees it collected up to that point, and (3) CSC
would not deduct the Administrative Fee for the remainder of the
leases' terms.  The Plaintiff neither cashed CSC' reimbursement
checks nor responded to CSC' letter.

Pending before the Court is CSC' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
or, in the alternative, to strike the Plaintiff's class allegations
pursuant to Rules 12(f) and 23 of the same.

Judge Glasser holds that contracts are to be considered as whole
and their language interpreted in context.  Having reviewed the
notice-and-cure provision in context, it is clear that while the
Plaintiff need not give CSC notice of every perceived default under
the lease, CSC cannot be sued for breach of the lease unless it is
provided first with notice and an opportunity to cure.  Considering
the lease as a whole and given that the purpose of including the
notice-and-cure provision was to prevent litigation by providing
CSC an opportunity to cure, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff
failed to comply with a condition precedent in the lease agreements
and its claims are dismissed.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, the Plaintiff's action is
not ripe for adjudication and CSC' motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/6j2jXf from Leagle.com.

MJM Visions, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin H. Richman
-- brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, pro hac vice & Michael Ovca
-- movca@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, pro hac vice.

CSC Serviceworks, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by William Edward Vita -- wvita@westermanllp.com --
Westerman Ball Ederer Miller & Sharfstein, LLP, Paul B. La Scala,
Shook Hardy & Bacon, pro hac vice & Paul A. Williams --
pwilliams@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., pro hac vice.


CVS HEALTH: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Corcoran Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION and CVS PHARMACY, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-16996 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's
summary judgment order, its class certification order, and its
order excluding the expert opinion and striking the expert report
of Dr. Joel W. Hay.

The Plaintiffs filed a multi-state consumer putative class action
against CVS, alleging that CVS misrepresented the usual and
customary ("U&C") prices of certain generic prescription drugs by
not submitting the lower prices CVS charged to members of its
Health Savings Pass ("HSP") program to third-party insurance
providers ("TPPs") and pharmacy benefits managers ("PBMs").  The
district court: granted in part plaintiffs' motion for class
certification; granted CVS' motion to exclude and strike the expert
opinion of the Plaintiffs' pharmaceutical economist, Prof. Hay; and
granted CVS' motion for summary judgment.  The Plaintiffs appeal
the district court's decisions.

The Court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo.  It finds
that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to CVS,
because, having found the Plaintiffs' evidence "relevant" but
"inconsequential" or "unavailing," the district court nonetheless
placed CVS' and the Plaintiffs' evidence on equal footing and
impermissibly weighed the evidence and failed to credit and draw
all reasonable inferences from the evidence in the Plaintiffs'
favor.

The Plaintiffs argue that certain emails and presentations (that
CVS produced) show that CVS employees had expressed concerns about
whether CVS needed to report its HSP price as usual and customary,
but the district court found that those materials failed to create
a triable issue, because CVS did not misrepresent, based on the
PBMs' testimony, the U&C price.  The Court disagrees.  A jury
weighs the evidence and determines whether CVS engaged in wrongful
conduct in its reporting of U&C prices, which resulted in the PBMs
calculating higher copayments.  Contrary to CVS' assertion, the
Court holds that the Plaintiffs need not produce evidence that the
PBMs believed that CVS misrepresented the U&C price.  It is enough
for them to show that CVS failed to report the HSP prices as U&C
prices contrary to the PBM contracts, and that, as a result, the
Plaintiffs were charged higher copayments.

CVS also argues that summary judgment was properly granted, because
the testimony of the PBM witnesses established that the parties to
the contracts agreed on the meaning of the U&C provisions.  While
the district court set forth the definitions of the U&C provisions
contained in the relevant PBM agreements and noted that the
Plaintiffs were relying on the language in those agreements, the
district court did not discuss or explain why the contractual
provisions, in conjunction with the evidence proffered by the
Plaintiffs, were insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material
fact.  Instead, it court noted that in some cases, the PBMs even
amended the agreement to exclude explicitly membership programs
from their definition of U&C."  But this same evidence could show
the opposite, i.e., that the U&C definitions in the PBM contracts
encompassed the HSP prices.  A jury could reasonably infer that
subsequent modifications of the agreements indicate that the prior
definitions of U&C included HSP prices.

Although CVS and the PBMs agreed during the litigation (as opposed
to when the agreements were negotiated) that the PBM contracts did
not require CVS to submit its HSP prices as the U&C prices, the
Plaintiffs proffered some evidentiary support for their competing
interpretation of the contracts' language.  Given the extrinsic
evidence proffered by the Plaintiffs to support their reasonable
interpretation of the U&C language in the PBM contracts, the Court
finds that the district court erred in granting summary judgment.

The district court narrowed the Plaintiffs' proposed classes by
limiting each class to the PBM(s) in California, Florida, Illinois,
and Massachusetts that adjudicated the respective class
representative's claims based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)'s typicality requirement.  The district court found that,
since the evidence relating to one PBM does not necessarily apply
to the other PBMs, typicality was lacking.  The Court finds that
the district court abused its discretion in narrowing the proposed
classes on typicality grounds.  The named Plaintiffs and the absent
class members are insured customers who were charged copayments
higher than the HSP prices, which the Plaintiffs maintain should
have been CVS's actual U&C prices.  As a result, the named
Plaintiffs were injured in the same manner as the absent class
members and they suffered the same type of damages, i.e., the delta
between the actual copayment and the HSP price.  The Plaintiffs'
action is not based on conduct that is unique to the named
Plaintiffs.

The Court reviews the district court's decision to exclude and
strike Dr. Hay's testimony for abuse of discretion.   The district
court found that Dr. Hay's testimony lacked foundation, it excluded
his report on that basis, and it struck Dr. Hay's testimony that
CVS' HSP prices are the U&C prices as defined in CVS's contracts.
The Court disagrees that Dr. Hay's opinion lacks foundation.  Based
on its review of Dr. Hay's disclosed report and the record before
it, it is apparent that Dr. Hay formed his opinion regarding the
U&C price based on his experience, industry standards, and his
review of the materials produced by CVS during the course of the
litigation. Dr. Hay's review of these materials provides an
adequate basis for his disclosed testimony.

Based on the foregoing, the Court therefore reversed the district
court's summary judgment order, its class certification order, and
its order excluding the expert opinion and striking the expert
report of Dr. Hay.  It remanded for further proceedings.  The
parties will bear their own costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/8uumZg from Leagle.com.


DISH NETWORK: Court Leaves Key Class Action Questions Unanswered
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Cook County Record, reports that an
opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has left fluid
just who can be part of a class action, leaving unanswered the
question of how to identify members, a defense attorney says.

The case involves Thomas Krakauer who sued Dish Network under the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), claiming he
received multiple calls from a Satellite Systems Network (SSN)
trying to sell him Dish Network services. His lawsuit claimed his
phone number was on a do-not-call list.

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
certified the class and denied a Dish Network motion to dismiss on
the basis that most members were not injured. The case proceeded to
trial and a jury decided SSN was acting as an agent for Dish
Network and had made multiple calls. It awarded damages of $400 per
call.

This amount was trebled to a total award of approximately $61
million because Dish Network acted "willfully and knowingly." The
satellite company appealed to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals,
arguing that it was not clear who was injured and that Dis Network
did not control the actions of SSN.

Esther Slater McDonald, an attorney with Seyfarth Shaw who analyzed
the case, said that while the contract between Dish Network and SSN
stated that SSN was not an agent, the court found that the
satellite company was controlling the actions of the service
seller.

"This was fact driven," McDonald told the Cook County Record. For
example, evidence indicated Dish Network was involved in settling
lawsuits with various state attorneys general over the same alleged
practices.

"That is what hurt Dish," McDonald said.

But there are serious issues relating to exactly who has standing
in a class action, McDonald said, adding that Dish Network argued
that while a subscriber may be included, it was not known who was
at the other end of a particular call.

The other issue of concern is the trebling of damages, McDonald
said. Both of these questions – who is a class member and the
damages -- could form the basis of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court, she said. [GN]


DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM: Davis Junk Fax Row Removed to E.D. Ark.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Davis Neurology, P.A., on behalf of itself and
all other entities and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Doctordirectory.Com, Llc, Everday Health, Inc. and John Does 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-CV-00095, (Ark. Cir., June 29, 2016) was
removed to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas
on July 15, 2019 under Case No. 19-cv-00499.

Davis seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief for violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

DoctorsDirectory.com is a service that helps match patients seeking
medical services while Everyday Health, Inc. provides digital
health and wellness solutions. On or about November 17, 2015, Davis
received a fax transmission from the Defendants requesting
participation in a study in return for $15 compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      223 Rosa L. Parks Ave, Suite 200
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 254-8801
      Email: jleniski@branstetterlaw.com

             - and -

      James A. Streett, Esq.
      Alex G. Streett, Esq.
      STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
      107 West Main
      Russellville, AR 72801
      Tel: (479) 968-2030
      Email: Alex@StreettLaw.com
             James@StreettLaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Joshua C. Ashley, Esq.
      Donald H. Bacon, Esq.
      FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
      400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
      Little Rock, AR 72201-3493
      Tel: (501) 370-3395
      Fax: (501) 244-5308
      Email: jashley@fridayfirm.com

             - and -

      Maria Z. Vathis, Esq.
      BRYAN CAVE LLP
      161 North Clark Street, Suite 4300
      Chicago, IL 60601-3315
      Tel: (312) 602-5127
      Email: maria.vathis@bclplaw.com


EDDIE BAUER: Settlement in Veridian Suit Has Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VERIDIAN CREDIT UNION, on behalf of itself and a class
of similarly situated financial institutions, Plaintiff, v. EDDIE
BAUER LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00356-JLR (W.D. Wash.),
Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement.

Judge Lobart provisionally certified the following Settlement
Class:  All banks, credit unions, financial institutions, and other
entities in the United States (including its Territories and the
District of Columbia) that issued Alerted on Payment Cards.
Excluded from the Settlement Class is the judge presiding over the
matter and any members of his judicial staff, Eddie Bauer, and
persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the
Settlement Class.  The Settlement Class is provisionally certified
for purposes of settlement only.

The Plaintiff is designated and appointed as the Settlement Class
Representative.

The following lawyers, who were previously appointed by the Court
as the interim Co-Lead Counsel, are designated as the Class Counsel
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g): Joseph P. Guglielmo of
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP; and Gary F. Lynch of Carlson
Lynch LLP.

The proposed Settlement is preliminarily approved.  

A Final Approval Hearing will take place before the Court on Oct.
25, 2019, at 9:00 a.m.

The Class Counsel will submit their application for fees, costs,
and expenses and the application for a Service Award 100 days after
entry of the Order.  The deadline to file an objection and any
response to the Class Counsel's motions is no later than 114 days
after entry of the Order.  By no later than 128 days after entry of
the Order, responses will be filed, if any, to any filings by
objectors, and any replies in support of final approval of the
Settlement and/or the Class Counsel's application for attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses and for a Service Award will be filed.

Any Settlement Class Member that has not timely and properly
excluded itself from the Settlement Class in the manner described
may appear at the Final Approval Hearing in person or by counsel
and be heard, to the extent allowed by the Court, regarding the
proposed Settlement.

Analytics Consulting, LLC is appointed as the Settlement
Administrator, with responsibility for Claims Administration, the
Notice Program, and all other obligations of the Claims
Administrator, as set forth in the Settlement.  The Settlement
Administrator's fees, as well as all other costs and expenses
associated with notice and administration, will be paid by Eddie
Bauer, as provided in the Settlement.

The Notice Program set forth in the Settlement, including the forms
of Notice and Claim Form attached as exhibits to the Settlement,
satisfy the requirements of Rule 23 and due process and thus are
approved. Non-material modifications to the exhibits may be made
without further order of the Court.  The Settlement Administrator
is directed to carry out the Notice Program in conformance with the
Settlement and to perform all other tasks that the Settlement
requires.

Any Settlement Class Member that wishes to be excluded from the
Settlement Class must mail a written notification of the intent to
exclude itself to the Settlement Administrator, the Class Counsel,
and Eddie Bauer's counsel at the addresses provided in the Notice,
postmarked no later than Sept. 10, 2019, and sent via first class
postage pre-paid U.S. mail.

The Settlement Administrator will provide the Parties with copies
of all opt-out notifications promptly upon receipt, and a final
list of all that have timely and validly excluded themselves from
the Settlement Class in accordance with the terms of the
Settlement, which the Class Counsel may move to file under seal
with the Court no later than 10 days prior to the Final Approval
Hearing.

A Settlement Class Member that complies with the requirements of
the Order may object to the Settlement, the request of the Class
Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses,
and/or the request for a Service Award.  The objection deadline is
Oct. 4, 2019.

The Settlement establishes a process for assessing and determining
the validity and value of claims and a methodology for paying
Settlement Class Members that submit a timely, valid Claim Form.
Judge Lobart preliminarily approved the process.

The Judge stayed and enjoined, pending Final Approval of the
Settlement, any actions, lawsuits, or other proceedings brought by
the Settlement Class Members against Eddie Bauer in relation to the
Cyber Attack.

The Settlement, as preliminarily approved in the Order, will be
administered according to its terms pending the Final Approval
Hearing.  The Deadlines arising under the Settlement and the Order
include, but are not limited to, the following:

     a. Notice Deadline: July 12, 2019;

     b. Opt-Out Deadline: Sept. 10, 2019;     

     c. Claims Deadline: Oct. 10, 2019;

     d. Application for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Service
Award (Fee Application): Sept. 20, 2019;

     e. Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement (Final Approval
Motion): Sept. 20, 2019;

     f. Objection Deadline: Oct. 4, 2019;

     g. Replies in Support of Final Approval and Fee Motion: Oct.
18, 2019; and

     f. Final Approval Hearing: Oct. 25, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/POfLtB from Leagle.com.

Veridian Credit Union, on behalf of itself and a class of
similarly
situated financial institutions, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur
Mahony Murray , MURRAY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Brian C. Gudmundson
-- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN REED LLP, pro hac
vice, Bryan L. Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com --
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA, pro hac vice, Caroline Thomas White, MURRAY
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Chase Christian Alvord --
calvord@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS, Christopher P. Renz
-- crenz@chestnutcambronne.com -- CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA, pro hac
vice, Erin Green Comite --ECOMITE@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT + SCOTT
LLP, pro hac vice, Gary F. Lynch --glynch@carlsonlynch.com --
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP, pro hac vice --
JGUGLIELMO@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
LLP,
pro hac vice, Karen H. Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE
GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac vice, Kate M. Baxter-Kauf --
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, pro hac
vice,
Kevin W. Tucker -- ktucker@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP, pro hac vice, Kim D. Stephens --
kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS & Sean C. Russell
-- SEAN.RUSSELL@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM -- SCOTT + SCOTT LLP, pro hac
vice.

Eddie Bauer LLC, Defendant, represented by Dyanne Cho --
Dyanne.Cho@lewisbrisbois.com --LEWIS BRISBOIS BIGAARD & SMITH LLP,
pro hac vice, Gordon Calhoun -- Gordon.Calhoun@lewisbrisbois.com
--
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Jon P.
Kardassakis -- Jon.Kardassakis@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS
BIGAARD & SMITH LLP, pro hac vice, Ethan A. Smith --
Ethan.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
LLP, Kathleen A. Nelson -- Kathleen.Nelson@lewisbrisbois.com --
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Sarah Demaree Macklin --
Sarah.Macklin@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
LLP.


ENCORE BOSTON: Faces Class Action for Allegedly Cheating Gamblers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danny McDonald, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed on July 15 alleges that the newly opened
Encore Boston Harbor casino is cheating gamblers through its
blackjack and slot machine practices.

The suit, filed in Middlesex Superior Court against the casino and
its parent companies, claims that the casino's "6 to 5" blackjack
games violate state rules "to maximize the casino's advantage far
in excess of that which is permitted."

A 6-to-5 blackjack game pays out at 6-to-5 odds, rather than the
standard 3 to 2, when a player hits blackjack. Under a 3-to-2
payout, someone who placed a wager of $50 and is dealt a blackjack
would be paid $75, while under a 6-to-5 payout, the gambler would
be paid $60. [GN]


ESSEX CROSSING: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Essex Crossing
Builders LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett Individually and
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Essex Crossing Builders LLC doing business as: The Rollins,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06777 (S.D. N.Y., July 22, 2019).

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

Essex Crossing is a collection of over 1,000 new residences,
400,000 square feet of office space and 450,000 square feet of
retail spaces over nine sites in New York City's Lower East
Side.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FANDANGO MEDIA: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fandango Media, LLC.
The case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Fandango Media, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04291 (E.D.
N.Y., July 25, 2019).

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

Fandango Media, LLC is an American ticketing company that sells
movie tickets via their website as well as through their mobile
app.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDEX CORP: Karp Sues over Securities Fraud
-------------------------------------------
A securities fraud class action has been filed against FedEx
Corporation for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The case is captioned SELWYN
KARP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, vs. FEDEX CORPORATION, FREDERICK W. SMITH, ALAN B. GRAF,
JR., DAVID J. BRONCZEK, RAJESH SUBRAMANIAM, DAVID L. CUNNINGHAM,
DONALD F. COLLERAN, and MICHAEL C. LENZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-06183 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2019).

In July 2016, FedEx significantly expanded its international
operations through its $4.8 billion acquisition of TNT Express
N.V., a Netherlands-based logistics company with operations
concentrated in Europe. To date, this has been the largest
acquisition in FedEx history. This acquisition instantly added
billions of dollars of European revenues to FedEx's topline and
increased the FedEx's international revenue mix from 24% in fiscal
year 2016 to 33% in fiscal year 2017.  On June 27, 2017, however,
TNT's operations were crippled by a cyberattack known as NotPetya,
which involved the spread of a malware virus throughout TNT's
systems. NotPetya is considered one of the largest cyberattacks in
history, having affected a multitude of companies on a global
scale. The timing of the attack was particularly problematic for
FedEx, as TNT's systems were paralyzed during the critical period
involving the integration of TNT with the FedEx's legacy European
operations.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) TNT's
overall package volume growth was slowing as TNT's large customers
permanently took their business to competitors after the
cyberattack; (ii) 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; (iii) the
anticipated costs and timeframe to integrate and restore the TNT
network were significantly larger and longer than disclosed; (iv)
FedEx was not on track to achieve the TNT Income Improvement
Target; and (v) 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.

FedEx is a global logistics company that provides a broad portfolio
of transportation, e-commerce, and business services. Through its
fleets of airplanes and trucks, FedEx ships goods to commercial and
residential customers throughout the world. The Company offers its
customers with a variety of shipping services, including express
freight, which tends to generate lower margins for FedEx than its
ground delivery services. The company has four principal operating
segments: FedEx Express; FedEx Freight; FedEx Ground; and FedEx
Services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

FERRARA CANDY: Copland Appeals Littlejohn Suit Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Objector James Copland filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Jessica Littlejohn v. Ferrara Candy Company, Case
No. 3:18-cv-00658-AJB-WVG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 9, 2019, the
District Court issued a Judgment and Order granting Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement in the case.

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Jessica Littlejohn v. Ferrara
Candy Company, Case No. 19-55805, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by August 12, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on September 9, 2019;

   -- Appellant James Copland's opening brief is due on
      October 21, 2019;

   -- Appellees Ferrara Candy Company and Jessica Littlejohn's
      answering brief is due on November 21, 2019; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee JESSICA LITTLEJOHN, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, is represented
by:

          Michael Houchin, Esq.
          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: mike@consumersadvocates.com
                  ron@consumersadvocates.com

Objector-Appellant JAMES COPLAND is represented by:

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

Defendant-Appellee FERRARA CANDY COMPANY is represented by:

          Kelley B. Harrington, Esq.
          Neal Potischman, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
          1600 El Camino Real
          Menlo Park, CA 94025
          Telephone: (650) 752-2000
          E-mail: kelley.harrington@davispolk.com
                  neal.potischman@davispolk.com


FGF BRANDS: Illinois Court Trims Claims in Friend Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMILY FRIEND, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. FGF BRANDS (USA)
INC., a Delaware corporation, and FGF BRANDS, INC., a Canadian
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18 CV 7644 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Robert W. Gettleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied
in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim, lack of Article III standing, and lack of personal
jurisdiction.

A traditional tandoor oven, Plaintiff Friend alleges, is
cylindrical, insulated with sand, operated over a wood- or
charcoal-burning fire, and so small that only one or two pieces of
naan—a leavened flatbread popular in South and Central Asian
cuisine -- can be hand-baked at a time.

At grocery stores across North America and Canada, the Defendants
sell packaged naan products, boasting that their naan is
"hand-stretched and tandoor oven-baked to honor 2,000 years of
tradition."  That statement, the Plaintiff alleges, is deceptive:
The Defendants do not bake their naan in a traditional tandoor
oven, but in a patented, gas-heated commercial oven capable of
baking 15,000 pieces of naan an hour.  She alleges that there is no
substitute for the flavor imparted by baking naan in a traditional
tandoor oven, and that the Defendants misleadingly portray their
naan products as a high-quality, hand-stretched, low-volume
alternative to other mass-produced flatbreads, while in fact they
mass-produce their naan on an endless conveyor belt.

The Plaintiff's complaint, filed under the Class Action Fairness
Act, on behalf of three putative classes of people who bought the
Defendants' naan, claims that the Defendants: (1) violated the
consumer fraud laws of California, Florida, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,
and Washington (Counts I and II); (2) violated the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq. (Count III);
(3) fraudulently concealed that they mass-produced their naan in
commercial ovens (Count IV); and (4) were unjustly enriched by
their deceptive packaging (Count V).

The Defendants move under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss all
claims.  They argue that: the Plaintiff fails to state a claim
under the consumer fraud laws because the allegedly mislabeled naan
products could not plausibly deceive a reasonable consumer; the
Plaintiff fails to plead fraud with particularity; the Plaintiff
lacks Article III standing to assert claims as to the naan products
that she did not purchase; and the Court lacks personal
jurisdiction over the Defendants as to the claims that the
Plaintiff brings on behalf of non-Illinois class members.

Judge Gettleman holds that: (1) the Plaintiff states a claim under
the consumer fraud laws; (2) the Plaintiff has pleaded fraud with
particularity; (3) the Plaintiff's Article III standing as to
unpurchased products must be decided at class certification; and
(4) the Defendants may file a new motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction after the Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit decides Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., No. 19-1204.

For these reasons, he granted in part and denied in part the
Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of
Article III standing, and lack of personal jurisdiction.  

The Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is
denied except as to the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
Act claim (Count III), which is dismissed.  

Their motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing as to the
products that the Plaintiff did not purchase is denied without
prejudice.  The Defendants may file a new motion when the Plaintiff
moves to certify the classes.  The new motion must contain only
those arguments fairly presented in section I.D of the Defendants'
memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss.

The Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
over non-Illinois putative class members is denied without
prejudice.  After the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
decides Mussat v. IQVIA, Inc., No. 19-1204, the Defendants may file
a new motion.  The new motion must contain only those arguments
fairly presented in the second paragraph of section I.E of the
Defendants' memorandum supporting their motion to dismiss.

The Judge directed the Defendants to answer all counts of the
complaint except Count III by July 8, 2019.  The parties are
directed to file a joint status report using the court's form by
July 15, 2019.  The matter is set for a report on status on July
23, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.

The case has been assigned to the calendar of Judge Gettleman.  To
assist the Court in acquiring the requisite knowledge of the case,
it is ordered:

     1. The counsel and any unrepresented party should obtain a
copy of Judge Gettleman's Revised Standing Order Regarding Motion
Practice, Briefs and Protective Orders in Civil Cases, which is
available in chambers or on the court website
(www.ilnd.uscourts.gov).

     2. The counsel are to confer, prepare and file a brief, joint
status report, not to exceed five pages.  As with all filings, a
hard copy should be submitted to the court within one day of any
electronic filing.  If the Defendant's counsel has not yet filed an
appearance, the status report should be prepared by the Plaintiff's
counsel.  The report will contain a full caption showing all
parties and will provide the following information in the order set
forth below in the following format:

          A. The date and time this case is set for a status report
before the Court.

          B. The attorneys of record for each party, indicating
which attorney is expected to try the case.

          C. The basis of federal jurisdiction.

          D. Whether a jury has been requested and by which party.

          E. The nature of the claims asserted in the complaint and
any counterclaim, including a brief statement of the factual
context of the case.

          F. The relief sought by any party, including computation
of damages, if available.

          G. The name of any party who or which has not been
served, and any fact or circumstance related to service of process
on such party.

          H. The principal legal issues (including the citation to
any key legal authority related to such issue).

          I. The principal factual issues, including the parties'
respective positions on those issues.

          J. A brief description of all anticipated motions.

          K. A proposed discovery plan pursuant to F. R. Civ. P.
26(f), including a brief description of what discovery has been
taken, if any, what remains to be taken, a schedule for expert
designations and discovery, and a proposed discovery cutoff.

          L. The earliest date the parties would be ready for trial
and the probable length of trial.

          M. The status of any settlement discussions and whether a
settlement conference would be appropriate.  In this regard, the
counsel is directed to consider and discuss with the respective
clients and each other the possibility of attempting to resolve the
matter through alternative dispute resolution, and to briefly set
forth the results of such consideration and discussion.  For Lanham
Act cases, the parties must comply fully with Local General Rule
16.3.

          N. Whether the parties will consent to jurisdiction and
trial before a magistrate judge.

The principal trial attorney for each party, or an attorney with
sufficient familiarity with and responsibility for the case, will
appear at that time prepared to discuss all aspects of the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/SOn3wc from Leagle.com.

Emily Friend, Plaintiff, represented by Richard R. Gordon , Gordon
Law Offices, Ltd., Kyle Alan Shamberg -- KShamberg@LiteDePalma.com
-- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Nicholas Rudolph Lange --
NLange@LiteDePalam.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC & Katrina
Carroll -- KCarroll@LiteDePalma.com -- Carlson Lynch, LLP.

FGF Brands (USA), Inc. & FGF Brands, Inc., Defendants, represented
by Diana Marie Torres -- diana.torres@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis Llp, Dale M. Cendali -- dale.cendali@kirkland.com -- Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, Joseph Myer Sanderson -- joseph.sanderson@kirkland.com
-- Kirkland & Ellis Llp, Lauren J. Schweitzer --
lauren.schweitzer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis Llp & Megan
Margaret New -- megan.new@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP.


FIRST AMERICAN: Ingle Sues over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------
WILLIAM INGLE, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No.
8:19-cv-01316-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal., July 2, 2019), alleges that First
American failed to keep Plaintiff's and the Class's sensitive
information safe.

The Defendants, as the largest parent/subsidiary title insurer in
the nation, collects and promises to safeguard vast amounts of
amounts of personal information, including names, addresses,
telephone numbers, proof of identity and income, Social Security
numbers, income tax information, and bank account routing
information needed for wire transfers.

First American did not institute the most basic security measures
and left its customers' Sensitive Information entirely open and
available to the public. First American assigned its customers a
URL with a Document ID number embedded. By changing the last digit
in either direction, anyone with one of First American's URL's
could review all the documentation with respect to another
customer's transaction that came before or after their own. By
continuing to change the last digit, a malign party could review
the documentation for all of First American's customers'
transactions (up to 885 million documents) dating back as far as at
least 2003.

By leaving their Sensitive Information wide open to the public in
this manner, First American breached its promises to and was
negligent toward its customers, including Plaintiff Ingle and the
Class he seeks to represent, as their Sensitive Information was
compromised, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff seeks compensation for his increased risk of identity
theft and other financial harms, for overpayment for First
American's services (which did not include the promised data
security safeguards), and for equitable relief including reformed
data security practices, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

                - and -

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2048
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
          E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
                  kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
          Michael J. Laird, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  michael.laird@zimmreed.com

               - and -

          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5 th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: 412 322 9243
          Facsimile: 412 231 0246
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com


FIRST CHOICE: Wolf Popper Named Lead Counsel in Maz Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAZ PARTNERS LP, Plaintiff, v. FIRST CHOICE HEALTHCARE
SOLUTIONS, INC. and CHRISTIAN ROMANDETTI, SR., Defendants, Case No.
6:19-cv-619-Orl-40LRH (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Leslie R.
Hoffman of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval
of Selection of Counsel, and Accompanying Memorandum of Law.

On March 29, 2019, Plaintiff MAZ filed a purported class action
complaint against the Defendants, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.  The proposed "class" consists of all
persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
First Choice common stock from April 1, 2014 through Nov. 14, 2018,
both dates inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Romandetti, the former CEO and
Chairman of the Board of Trustees of First Choice Healthcare,
engaged in a "classic pump and dump scheme" that artificially
inflated the price of First Choice's stock.  It also alleges that
the Defendants issued misleading statements due to material
omissions regarding the trading of First Choice's stock.

In November 2018, the Department of Justice filed a criminal
indictment against Romandetti and co-conspirators based on the
stock manipulation scheme.  The Securities and Exchange Commission
also filed an SEC complaint against Romandetti and his
co-conspirators.  Thereafter, First Choice Healthcare common stock
declined dramatically.

Both the Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint.  The
motions will not become ripe until June 28, 2019.  Accordingly,
discovery in the matter is stayed pending the Court's ruling on the
motions to dismiss.

In the instant motion, the Plaintiff seeks to be appointed the Lead
Plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act ("PSLRA").  It also asks that the Court approve the law
firm of Wolf Popper, LLP, as the lead counsel and the law firm of
Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC as the liaison counsel
on behalf of the class.  

The Defendants have not filed responses to the motion, and the time
for doing so has passed.  The matter was referred to Magistrate
Judge Hoffman.

She finds that the Plaintiff states that its claims are typical of
those of the purported class because it alleges that the Defendants
violated federal securities law by failing to disclose material
facts regarding First Choice; the Plaintiff purchased First Choice
common stock at artificially inflated prices as a result of those
omissions; and the Plaintiff was damaged upon disclosure of those
omissions.  Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that its claims are based
on the same legal theory, and arise from the same events and course
of conduct, as the class.  As to adequacy, the Plaintiff asserts
that its claims are not in conflict with the class, it is not
subject to any unique defenses, and its monetary losses will ensure
its "vigorous advocacy."  

In the absence of objection, she recommends that the Court accepts
the Plaintiff's representations and finds that it has satisfied the
typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23.  Based on the
foregoing, she respectfully recommends that the Court appoints
Plaintiff MAZ as the Lead Plaintiff in the case pursuant to 15
U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i).

The Plaintiff asks the Court to appoint the law firm of Wolf
Popper, LLP as the lead counsel, and the law firm of Rice Pugatch
Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC as liaison counsel, on behalf of the
class.  As to Wolf Popper LLP, the Plaintiff asserts that the law
firm is highly experienced in the area of securities litigation and
class actions and has successfully prosecuted numerous securities
litigations and securities fraud class actions on behalf of
investors, as well as other class actions, citing two federal and
one state case in support.  It has also filed a document titled,
"Biographical Sketch of Wolf Popper LLP," in support.  Based on the
Plaintiff's representations and attached documentation, and in the
absence of objection, the Magistrate recommends that the Court
approves Wolf Popper, LLP as the lead counsel in the case.  

As to the law firm of Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC,
the Plaintiff seeks to have the firm appointed as the liaison
counsel.  However, the Plaintiff provides no authority for
appointing "liaison counsel" under the PSLRA.  Moreover, while some
courts have approved the selection of multiple law firms, others
have refused to do so, noting the danger of lawyers seizing control
of the litigation, contrary to Congress's intent, the inherent
inefficiencies of too many cooks in the kitchen, and the potential
for undue pressure on the lead plaintiff.

Accordingly, absent compelling reasons from the Plaintiff why it
requires "liaison counsel" in the case, the Magistrate recommends
that the Court denies the Plaintiff's request to appoint the law
firm of Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC as the "liaison
counsel."  She further recommends that Attorney Ronald J. Cohen of
the law firm Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC remain
appointed as the local counsel for the case.

Based on the foregoing, Magistrate Hoffman granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment as Lead
Plaintiff and Approval of Selection of Counsel, and Accompanying
Memorandum of Law.  Plaintiff MAZ is appointed the Lead Plaintiff
in the case; and the law firm of Wolf Popper, LP as the lead
counsel.  The Magistrate denied (i) the Plaintiff's request to
appoint the law firm of Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC
as tge liaison counsel in the case; and (ii) the motion in all
other respects.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/cVVBLA from
Leagle.com.

Maz Partners LP, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Chet B. Waldman --
cwaldman@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper, LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua
W. Ruthizer -- jruthizer@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper, LLP &
Ronald Jay Cohen, Rice Pugatch Robinson Storfer & Cohen PLLC.

First Choice Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Brian P. Miller -- brian.miller@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Ross
Elliot Linzer -- ross.linzer@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Jonathan
Lamet, Akerman LLP & Samantha Joy Kavanaugh --
samantha.kavanaugh@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP.

Christian Romandetti, Sr., Defendant, represented by Fritz J.
Scheller, Fritz Scheller, PL.


FIRST STUDENT: Judge Approves Wage Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Doug Alden, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports that a
federal judge gave preliminary approval on July 15 to a proposed
settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed by school bus drivers
and assistants claiming they were owed back wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Judge Paul Barbadoro verbally approved of the settlement agreement
during a brief hearing on July 15 in U.S. District Court. Barbadoro
said he found terms of the agreement to be "reasonable, fair and
appropriate" during the hearing, which included lawyers for the
plaintiffs and the employer, First Student LLC.

Under terms of the settlement, First Student does not admit any
liability or wrongdoing, but does agree to pay $146,790.50 -- an
amount agreed upon by both sides -- to settle the case. The
settlement sets aside $101,830 to cover attorney fees and costs,
leaving $44,960.50 to be dispersed among the 65 plaintiffs, who
claimed they were owed straight time and overtime for hours
worked.

Shawn Sullivan, a Concord attorney who was part of the team
representing the drivers, said each of the plaintiffs will get
$691.70 as their share of the settlement.

Christopher Kaczmarek, an attorney representing First Student,
declined comment after the hearing. [GN]


FORSTER & GARBUS: Yaakubov Sues over Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dina Yaakubov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Forster, Garbus & Garbus, Ronald
Forster, Mark Garbus and Glenn Garbus, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04104 (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2019), seeks to recover damages
for Defendants' violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

In Defendants' efforts to collect the alleged Debt, the Defendants
contacted Plaintiff by a letter dated October 24, 2018. The Letter
conveyed information regarding the alleged Debt. The Letter fails
to identify by name and label any entity as "creditor," "original
creditor," "current creditor," "account owner," or "creditor to
whom the debt is owed", the lawsuit says.

Forster & Garbus handles all aspects of creditor's rights
litigation.[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

GENPACT SERVICES: Ludwig Class Suit Removed to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Synchrony Bank removed on July 15, 2019, the class action
lawsuit entitled ERIK LUDWIG, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. GENPACT SERVICES LLC, and SYNCHRONY BANK,
Case No. 603126/2019, from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-04068 to the
proceeding.

Mr. Ludwig seeks to recover damages for alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  He also purports to seek
damages pursuant to New York General Business Law based on a
certain letter, which letter he also claims supports his FDCPA
claim.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          MITCHELL PASHKIN ATTORNEY AT LAW
          775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 388-6466
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

Defendant Synchrony Bank is represented by:

          Melissa A. Brown, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          599 Lexington Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 521-5400
          Facsimile: (212) 521-5450
          E-mail: mabrown@reedsmith.com


GEORGE WASHINGTON: Judge Tosses ERISA Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pensions & Investments reports that a U.S. District Court judge in
Washington dismissed an ERISA fiduciary breach claim by a
participant in two defined contribution plans managed by The George
Washington University, saying the plaintiff lacked standing to
sue.

The complaint was dismissed because the participant, a former
university employee, had signed a confidential settlement agreement
with university in 2016, wrote U.S. District Judge John Bates in a
July 15 opinion. "The court lacks subject matters jurisdiction over
released claims," the judge wrote. The settlement agreement
included a "general release" provision insulating the university
from future legal claims covered by several federal laws -- but not
ERISA.

The plaintiff, Melissa Stanley, "does not dispute that she
voluntarily executed, and is subject to, the agreement's terms,
including the general release," the judge wrote in the case of
Stanley vs. The George Washington University et al.

Ms. Stanley sued the university in April 2018 claiming, among other
things that, its retirement plans charged "unreasonable"
record-keeping and administrative fees and offered expensive and
underperforming investment options. Her lawsuit sought class-action
status.

The university moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Ms.
Stanley lacked standing to sue.

She countered that her complaint should be allowed because the
general release provision allows for "claims for vested benefits
under employee benefits plans" and because ERISA wasn't identified
as being covered by the release document.

Her argument saying "the release lists numerous federal statutes
but does not include ERISA is unpersuasive," the judge wrote. "The
court finds that Stanley has released her claims under the
agreement and thus lacks standing to sue."

The George Washington University Retirement Plan for Faculty and
Staff, a 401(a) plan, had assets of $990.3 million as of Dec. 31,
2017, according to the latest Form 5500 filing. The George
Washington University Supplemental Retirement Plan, a 403(b) plan,
had assets of $1.2 billion as of Dec. 31, 2017, as of Dec. 31,
2017, according to the latest Form 5500 filing. [GN]


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Court Dismisses 1st Amended Banaga Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JESSE BANAGA, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02756-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.), Judge
Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
Banaga's First Amended Complaint.

Banaga was employed at the Government Employees Insurance Co.
("GEICO") first as a Customer Service Representative and then as a
Sales Representative.  Shortly after his promotion to Sales
Representative, Banaga began to suffer from acute stress and
anxiety which ultimately forced him to take a medical leave of
absence.

During his absence, Banaga contends that GEICO unlawfully
considered FMLA and ADA leaves in determining -- through a rating
system called a power-selling ratio ("PSR") -- both his ability to
receive a bonus and the requisite amount, if any, of the bonus
payout.  Upon his return to GEICO, Banaga further alleges that the
Defendant company demoted him from his Sales Representative
position.  The Plaintiff maintains that this decision was largely
motivated by his taking of FMLA and CFRA leave, which in turn
impacted his ability to meet the sales quota to remain a Sales
Representative.

As a result of these claims, the Plaintiff now brings his FAC,
which alleges violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act
("FMLA"), the California Family Rights Act ("CFRA"), the Americans
with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the California Fair Employment &
Housing Act ("FEHA").

Presently before the Court is GEICO's motion to dismiss Banaga's
FAC filed on March 15, 2019.  The Defendant moves to dismiss
Banaga's claims for violations of FMLA, CFRA, ADA, and FEHA on the
basis that they lack sufficient factual allegations to state
plausible claims for relief.  Banaga's claims stem from two forms
of harm: (1) denial of a bonus because the Plaintiff failed to meet
sales goals under a production quota and performance-based rating
system; and (2) demotion because he failed to meet sales goals as a
result of his medical leave of absence.

Judge Curiel finds that the Plaintiff's first FMLA claim fails as a
matter of law because the heart of it -- that GEICO prohibited him
from earning bonuses while on protected leave -- is not cognizable
under the FMLA. No additional amendment to the Plaintiff's pleading
could overcome this defect.  As such, he dismissed with prejudice
the Plaintiff's FMLA claims that are premised on GEICO's
reason-neutral bonus and performance evaluation practices.

Next, the Judge finds that while employers do not have the right to
take adverse actions against employees based on protected FMLA
leave already taken simply because they have exhausted their FMLA
leave, the Plaintiff does not assert that his first 12 weeks of
leave wrongfully contributed to his demotion.  As it stands, the
Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not put forth a plausible claim
under Rule 12(b)(6) that GEICO unlawfully considered his FMLA leave
as a negative factor in his demotion.  Thus, he granted this
portion of the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's FMLA
claim based on his demotion after approximately six months of
sanctioned leave.  Because it is not impossible that the Plaintiff
might overcome the defects detailed herein, dismissal is with leave
to amend.

The Plaintiff brings the same allegations that GEICO unlawfully
used his medical leave of absence as a negative factor that led to
his demotion.  He also asserts that GEICO refused to grant him his
full entitlement under the CFRA.  The Court Judge finds this claim
to be a non-sequitur.  Under the CFRA, the Plaintiff is not
entitled to additional time off beyond the FMLA's 12-week
sanctioned leave.  After 12 weeks, employers are not prohibited
under either the CFRA or the FMLA from basing adverse employment
decisions on subsequent absences.  Since the Plaintiff was well
beyond the protected 12-week period, he fails to state a plausible
claim for relief that his demotion was the wrongful result of his
medical leave.  Accordingly, the Judge dismissed with leave to
amend the Plaintiff's CFRA claims based on his demotion after
approximately six months of sanctioned leave.

The Judge granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
ADA claims.  Since the Plaintiff may only bring claims under the
ADA for wrongful acts that occurred on or after Aug. 30, 2017, the
Judge finds at this stage that the Plaintiff is time-barred from
bringing these present allegations.  And since these claims are
statutorily untimely and cannot be cured through amendment, the
Plaintiff's ADA claims will be dismissed with prejudice.

Finally, the Judge granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's claims under the FEHA, with the Plaintiff being granted
leave to amend.  He finds that (i) the Plaintiff has satisfied his
obligation to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to
claims between June 26, 2017 and June 26, 2018; (ii) the Plaintiff
did not provide any evidence that a facially neutral policy falls
more harshly on a protected group than the whole under the bonus
policies; (iii) the Plaintiff cannot adequately plead his FEHA
claims for disability discrimination or for failure to prevent
disability discrimination; and (iv) there is nothing in the FAC
that suggests that the Plaintiff was treated differently from
others on account of his disability.

For the reasons enumerated, Judge Curiel granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss.  The dismissal as to the FMLA and CFRA claims
based on the Plaintiff's demotion, as well as the Plaintiff's FEHA
claims, are without prejudice.  If the Plaintiff wishes to file an
amended complaint, he must do so no later than within 20 days of
the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/OGZbA7 from Leagle.com.

Jesse Banaga, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Corey Patrick Hanrahan
-- corey@hanrahanfirm.com -- The Hanrahan Firm, Joshua B. Swigart,
Hyde & Swigart & Veronica Cruz -- veronica@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni
Law Group, APC.

Government Employees Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Julie A. Vogelzang -- julie@schorvogelzang.com -- Schor Vogelzang
LLP.


GTX INC: Cooper Files Securities Suit Over Oncternal Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Micheal Cooper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GTx, Inc., Robert J. Wills, Marc S. Hanover, J.R. Hyde,
III, J. Kenneth Glass, Michael G. Carter, Kenneth S. Robinson, and
Garry A. Neil, Case 1:19-cv-04103 (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2019), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger between
GTx and Oncternal Therapeutics, Inc.

The Defendant GTx is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the
discovery, development, and commercialization of medicines to treat
serious and/or significant unmet medical conditions. Its principal
place of business is located at 17 W Pontotoc Ave., Suite 100,
Memphis, Tennessee 38103. The Individual Defendants are the
Company's Board of Directors.

On March 6, 2019, the Board approved the terms of and caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, which was
subsequently amended on April 30, 2019 (the "Merger Agreement"),
pursuant to which Grizzly Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of GTx, will merge with and into Oncternal, with
Oncternal surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of GTx (the
"Proposed Transaction").

The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the Exchange Act
by disseminating a false and misleading proxy statement, which
failed to disclose material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made not misleading. The Proxy was issued by the
Defendants with the intention of soliciting stockholder support for
the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from taking any steps
to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the
material information is disclosed to GTx stockholders in advance of
the special meeting of the Company's stockholders or, in the event
the Proposed Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting
from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff is a GTx shareholder.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue,
      Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118
      Tel: (212) 971-1341
      Fax: (212) 202-7880
      E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


H&J RESTAURANT: Jones Files FLSA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H & J Restaurants,
LLC. The case is styled as Devan Jones and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. H & J Restaurants, LLC doing business as:
Tokyo Hibachi, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00105-TBR (W.D. Ky.,
July 22, 2019).

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

Tokyo Hibachi is a Japanese restaurant located at 3535 James
Sanders Blvd, Paducah, KY 42001.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David W. Garrison, Esq.
     Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
     414 Union Street, Suite 900
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Phone: (615) 244-2202
     Fax: (615) 252-3798
     Email: jfrank@barrettjohnston.com
            dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com


HAIR RULES LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hair Rules LLC. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Hair Rules LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04221 (E.D. N.Y.,
July 22, 2019).

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

Hair Rules sells hair products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HENKEL CORP: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Hubbard Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEBOARH HUBBARD, on behalf of herself all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HENKEL CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. C19-01273 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 22, 2019), alleges that
Defendants routinely acquire consumer, investigative consumer
and/or consumer credit reports (collectively as "credit and
background reports") to conduct background checks on Plaintiff and
other prospective, current and former employees and use information
from credit and background reports in connection with their hiring
process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper
authorization in compliance with the law pursuant to the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated current, former and prospective employees, seeks
compensatory and punitive damages due to Defendants' systematic and
willful violations of the FCRA.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendants for
alleged violations of the Labor Code and Business and Professions
Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to:

     1. provide him and all other similarly situated individuals
with meal periods;

     2. provide them with rest periods;

     3. pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest
periods;

     4. pay them premium wages for missed meal and/or rest periods
at the regular rate of pay;

     5. pay them at least minimum wage for all hours worked;

     6. pay them overtime wages at the correct rate;

     7. pay them overtime and/or double time wages by failing to
include all applicable remuneration in calculating the regular rate
of pay;

     8. provide them with accurate written wage statements; and

     9. pay them all of their final wages following separation of
employment.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          Farrah Grant, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
          thomas@setarelUaw.com
          farrah@setarehlaw.com


HERITAGE OPERATIONS: Measaw Sues over Collection of Biometric Data
------------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON MEASAW, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HERITAGE OPERATIONS GROUP, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2019CH08321 (Ill. Cir., July 16, 2019), seeks
to redress and curtail Defendant's unlawful collection, use,
storage, and disclosure of Plaintiffs sensitive and proprietary
biometric data in violation of the Biometric Information Privacy
Act.

According to the complaint, when Heritage hires an employee,
including Plaintiff, he or she is enrolled in its employee
database(s) using a scan of his or her fingerprint. Heritage uses
the employee database(s) to monitor the time worked by its hourly
employees.

While many employers use conventional methods for tracking time
worked (such as ID badges or punch clocks), Heritage's employees
are required, as a condition of employment, to have their
fingerprints scanned by a biometric timekeeping device, the lawsuit
says.

Heritage Operations provides nursing facility care for
seniors.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 233 1550
          Facsimile: 312 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan(custephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com

HINT INC: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hint, Inc.  The case
is styled as Linda Slade individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Hint, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06806 (S.D. N.Y., July 22, 2019).

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

Hint, Inc. provides drinking water products. It offers unsweetened
flavored water.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


HOME DEPOT: Eversole Suit Alleges FCRA Breach
---------------------------------------------
Lori Eversole, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Home Depot USA, Inc., Case 89131744  (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
May 7, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendant routinely takes adverse action against applicants and
employees on the basis of information contained in background
reports without first providing those individuals with a copy of
the report and a summary of their rights, says the complaint. This
conduct violates the FCRA. Specifically, the Defendant failed to
first provide Plaintiff with a copy of the consumer report it
obtained on her from its consumer reporting agency before she was
abruptly fired.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of Florida and a former employee of
Defendant.

The Defendant owns and operates a chain of home improvement
discount stores throughout the country, and is one of the country's
largest employers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      Luis Cabassa, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 224-0431
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              lcabassa@wfclaw.com


HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces Zuniga Suit in Southern District of Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, et al. The case is captioned as Santos Zuniga,
On his own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
through his next friend, Santos Alberto Castillo; Jorge Landaverde,
On his own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
through his next friend, Rosalinda Landaverde; Hugo Flander, On his
own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated, through
his next friend, Ernesto Giron; and Kevin McAleenan, Acting
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Commissioner,
United States Customs & Border Protection, the Petitioners, vs.
John P. Sanders, Acting Commissioner of CBP; Carla Provost, Chief
of the United States Border Patrol; Rodolfo Karisch, Chief Patrol
Agent-Rio Grande Valley Sector; and Michael J Pitts, Field Office
Director, ICE/ERO, Port Isabel Service Processing Center, the
Respondents, Case No. 1:19-cv-00118 (S.D. Tex., July 2, 2019).

The suit alleges violations over alien detention. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Fernando Rodriguez, Jr.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is a cabinet
department of the U.S. federal government with responsibilities in
public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home
ministries of other countries.[BN]

Attorneys for the Petitioners are:

          Elisabeth Lisa S. Brodyaga, Esq.
          17891 Landrum Park Rd
          San Benito, TX 78586-7197
          Telephone: (956) 421-3226
          Facsimile: (956) 421-3423
          E-mail: lisabrodyaga@aol.com

               - and -

          Jaime M Diez, Esq.
          Jones Crane, Esq.
          PO Box 3070
          Brownsville, TX 78523
          Telephone: (956) 544-3565
          E-mail: JaimeMDiez1@gmail.com

               - and -

          Manuel E. Solis, Esq.
          6657 Navigation Dr
          Houston, TX 77011
          Telephone: (713) 844-2700
          E-mail: lawofficemanuelsolis@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Thelma Odilia Garcia, Esq.
          301 E Madison St
          Harlingen, TX 78550
          Telephone: (956) 425-3701
          Facsimile: (956) 428-3731
          E-mail: lawofctog@gmail.com

Attorneys for the Respondents are:

          Christopher D. Pineda, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE
          600 E. Harrison, Suite 201
          Brownsville, TX 78520
          Telephone: (956) 548-2554
          Facsimile: (956) 548-2776
          E-mail: christopher.pineda@usdoj.gov

IDC TECHNOLOGIES: Mork Files Suit Alleging TCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Chris Mork, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IDC Technologies Inc., Case No. 5:19-cv-02502 (N.D.
Calif., May 9, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the TCPA by
placing over 25 autodialed calls to him and sent autodialed text
messages to his cellular phone, despite the fact that Plaintiff did
not engage the Defendant for its job recruiting services or give
them consent to call him using an auto dialer, and despite repeated
requests for the calls to stop.

The Plaintiffs is a Cincinnati, Ohio resident.

The Defendant is a staffing and recruiting company that solicits
consumers for jobs on behalf of clients needing employees primarily
in the IT field and for Payroll/HR services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Ratner, Esq.
      DAVID RATNER LAW FIRM, LLP
      33 Julianne Court
      Walnut Creek, CA 94595
      Tel: (917) 900-2868
      E-mail: David@davidratnerlawfirm.com

          - and -

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


IDEMIA IDENTITY: Rueda Seeks Prelim. Approval of $2.9-Mil. Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Connie Rueda, Jessica Cotton,
and Shelia Spencer, individually, on behalf of others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Idemia Identity &
Security USA, LLC, MorphoTrust USA, LLC, and Does 1-50, Case No.
3:18-cv-03794-VC (N.D. Cal.) ask the Court to:

   (1) preliminarily approve the Amended Stipulation of Class
       Action, Collective Action, and Representative Action
       Settlement and Release ("Amended Settlement");

   (2) certify the proposed California Class and FLSA Collective
       for settlement purposes only;

   (3) name Bryan Schwartz Law as Class Counsel, and the
       Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;

   (4) name Rust Consulting as Claims Administrator;

   (5) approve the Notices to be sent to the California Class and
       FLSA Collective; and

   (6) schedule a final approval hearing date.

The proposed settlement:

   * defines the "California Class" or "California Class Members"
     as:

     all persons who are or who have been employed by one or more
     of the Defendants as Enrollment Agent Is, Enrollment Agent
     IIs, Lead Enrollment Agents, and Mobile Enrollment Agents,
     and similarly situated employees ("Enrollment Agents") in
     the State of California from May 22, 2014 through June 24,
     2019.

   * defines the "FLSA Collective" or "FLSA Collective Members"
     as:

     all persons who are or who have been employed by one or more
     of the Defendants as Enrollment Agent Is, Enrollment Agent
     IIs, Lead Enrollment Agents, and Mobile Enrollment Agents,
     and similarly situated employees ("Enrollment Agents")
     outside the State of California, from May 22, 2015 through
     May 3, 2019.

The proposed Amended Settlement settles the claims of an estimated
1,072 Class Members for $2,948,867, not including the employer's
share of payroll taxes.  The Settlement Fund shall be distributed
among:

   1. 1,072 enrollment agents, resulting in a gross recovery of
      $2,751 each;

   2. Attorney fees, not to exceed $425,000 from the Settlement
      Fund;

   3. Attorneys' litigation costs, estimated not to exceed
      $20,000;

   4. Settlement Administration costs, not to exceed $20,000, to
      be paid to Rust Consulting;

   5. Enhancement Awards, not to exceed $27,000 total - $7,500
      for named-Plaintiffs Rueda and Cotton, $4,000 for
      named-Plaintiff Spencer, and $1,000 for the eight opt-in
      Plaintiffs who provided declarations in support of
      conditional certification;

   6. PAGA Allocations of $50,000 total, with $37,500 to be
      distributed to California's Labor Workforce Development
      Agency ("LWDA").

The Court will commence a hearing on August 22, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
          Rachel Terp, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          180 Grand Ave., Suite 1380
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
          E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
                  rachel@bryanschwartzlaw.com


INTELIDENT SOLUTIONS: Ct. Certifies Class in McGuire FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James S. Moody, Jr., granted in part the Plaintiff's
Motion to Conditionally Certify an FLSA Collective Action and
Authorize Notice to Potential Collective Members in the lawsuit
entitled JOAN MCGUIRE v. INTELIDENT SOLUTIONS, LLC and COAST DENTAL
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 8:18-cv-02995-JSM-SPF (M.D. Fla.).

The Court conditionally certifies a class of Office Managers,
excluding Office Managers who signed a valid arbitration
agreement.

The parties shall file a joint proposed notice and notice plan, or
separate notices and notice plans, by August 7, 2019.

Ms. McGuire worked for the Defendants as an Office Manager from
approximately February of 2013 to March of 2017.  She alleges that
she and the class are owed unpaid overtime wages.  She alleges the
Defendants willfully misclassified OMs as exempt employees under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and failed to keep accurate time
records.[CC]


INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, with nine offices in eight cities
around the country and eighty attorneys, alerts investors in
Intelligent Systems Corporation (NYSE: INS) to the securities class
action, Skrzeczkoski v. Intelligent Systems Corporation et al., No.
1:19-cv-03949, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Intelligent Systems
securities between January 23, 2019 and May 29, 2019 (the "Class
Period") and suffered losses you do not need to sign up to be
included in the putative class of investors.

If you suffered significant losses (in excess of $50,000), you may
qualify to be a lead plaintiff -- one who selects and oversees the
attorneys prosecuting the case.  If you wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later
than September 9, 2019 (the "Lead Plaintiff deadline").  Contact
Hagens Berman immediately for more information about the case and
being a lead plaintiff:

https://www.hbsslaw.com/intelligent-systems-corporation-nyse-ins

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

According to the complaint, Defendants misled investors by
concealing (1) Intelligent Systems' Audit Committee's financial
expert previously engaged in accounting fraud as the CEO of MiMedx
Group, (2) the Company's CEO engaged in undisclosed related-party
transactions and had an undisclosed personal relationship with its
auditor, and (3) the Company had its employees set up or take
control of shell companies in Asia so they could either fabricate
Company revenues or siphon money out of the Company.

"We're focused on investors' losses and whether the Company and
senior executives may have misled investors about the economic
substance of certain transactions," said Hagens Berman partner Reed
Kathrein.

Whistleblowers:  Persons with non-public information regarding
Intelligent Systems should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC.  For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email INS@hbsslaw.com.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national law firm
representing investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in
complex litigation. [GN]


JAMES HARDIE: Law Firm Wants Parent Included in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation Finance Journal reports that Law firm Adina Thorn is
bringing a class action -- funded by Harbour Litigation Funding --
on behalf of homeowners who experienced damage to their properties
due to leaky cladding installed by the James Hardie multi-national
conglomerate. The James Hardie parent company is based in Ireland,
and attempting to exclude it and all international subsidiaries
from liability, leaving the New Zealand subsidiary as the sole
defendant. However, Thorn claims the New Zealand subsidiary is
insolvent, and that the parent company should therefore be on the
hook. [GN]


KEH INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keh, Inc. The case is
styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Keh, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06977
(S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019).

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

Keh, Inc. was founded in 2013. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of cameras, film, and other photographic
supplies and equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


KIA MOTOR: MLG Files Class Action Over Deadly Airbag Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
MLG, APLC, along with class action powerhouse Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, has filed a national class action lawsuit against
seven automotive manufacturers and a tier-one parts supplier for
what it calls a "deadly airbag defect." The case, Ryan Baldwin v.
Kia Motor America, Inc. (Case No. 8:19-cv-1376), was filed in
federal court on July 15 in Los Angeles. The named parties are
automakers Kia, Hyundai, FCA, Mitsubishi, Acura, Honda and Toyota,
and supplier ZF TRW Automotive.

The lawsuit alleges that 12.3 million vehicles have a defective
airbag control unit (ACU), which causes airbags to not deploy and
seatbelt locks to fail during a collision. According to the
complaint, the ACU manufactured by ZF TRW experiences "electrical
overstress" during an accident -- described as an overload of
electrical impulses -- causing a failure of the vehicle's safety
restraint systems.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
received numerous complaints from consumers about airbag and
seatbelt failures during accidents, compelling the agency to launch
an investigation. So far, NHTSA has confirmed that the defect is
responsible for four deaths and many more injuries, but the
investigation is continuing.

This airbag defect comes on the heels of the Takata airbag scandal,
which resulted in a recall of 42 million cars in the U.S. According
to Jonathan Michaels, head of the MLG legal team, if the number of
impacted vehicles remains at 12.3 million, this would be the fourth
largest automotive recall in the nation's history. But Michaels
believes the number is going to climb much higher.

"Right now, NHTSA is investigating 12.3 million vehicles for the
deadly airbag defect. However, our office receives calls every week
from families who have experienced the exact same defect in cars
that are not on the investigation list," said Michaels. "This
situation is going to be much larger than Takata." Michaels notes
that when the Takata recalls began, it was thought that only 3.6
million vehicles were impacted.

The lawsuit claims the automakers have known of the defect since
2011, but have refused to issue a recall because of economics.
Under federal law, car manufacturers are required to issue a recall
within five days of learning of a defect. "This is one of the most
egregious breaches of public trust," said Michaels. "Clearly, the
manufacturers learned very little from the Takata situation." Among
other remedies, the lawsuit seeks punitive damages in an amount
sufficient to deter future misconduct.

                          About MLG, APLC

Located in Orange County, California, MLG is a leading firm for
protecting consumers from automotive defects. The firm has
litigated cases against nearly every major automotive manufacturer
in the world, and has been involved in numerous class actions
against automakers for malfeasance. [GN]


KNOX COUNTY, TN: Amble's First Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas A. Varlan denied as moot the Plaintiffs' first
motion to certify class in the lawsuit styled MICHAEL AMBLE, FLOYD
COULSON, JOHN HICKS, ALONZO HOSKINS, DAVID JOHNSON, CURTIS LANE,
JESSICA MASE, JESSICA MORGAN, MICHAEL RICE, RICK SAYLES, ROBERT
THOMAS, and MATTHEW WALLS v. KNOX COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Case No.
3:18-cv-00538-TAV-DCP (E.D. Tenn.).

Judge Varlan notes that as the Plaintiffs made substantively
similar arguments in their amended motion to certify class and it
appears that the Plaintiffs intended this amended motion to
supersede their previous motion, their first motion to certify
class is denied as moot.[CC]


LASER SPINE: Court Grants Embry's Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuits against Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et
al., the Hon. Judge Steven D. Merryday entered an order:

   1. granting Embry's request to certify a class consisting of:

      "all Laser Spine Institute employees throughout the
      United States who were not given a minimum of 60 days'
      written notice of termination and whose employment was
      terminated on or about March 1, 2019, as a result of a
      'mass layoff' or 'plant closing' as defined by the
      Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of
      1988, excluding the directors and officers of Laser
      Spine Institute";

   2. appointing Deanna E. Ali and Heather Embry as class
      representatives;

   3. appointing Ryan D. Barack, Luis A. Cabassa, Brandon J.
      Hill, and Michelle Erin Nadeau as class counsel;

   4. directing clerk to consolidate for all purposes,  
      two of the cases against Defendant:

      Ali v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et al., Case No.
      8:19-cv-535-T-23JSS; and

      Embry v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et al., Case No.
      8:19-cv-539-T-23AAS.

   5. designating Ali v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et al.,
      8:19-cv-535-T-23JSS (Consolidated) as the lead case;

   6. directing Ali and Embry to file documents in only
      8:19-cv-535-T-23JSS (Consolidated).

   7. directing clerk to closed Case No. 8:19-cv-539-T-23AAS.

   8. directing clerk to terminate Higdon's class
      certification motion (Case No. 8:19-cv-547-T-23TGW),
      in accord with Higdon's notice; and

   9. directing Ali and Embry to revise the proposed class
      certification notice, and move for approval of the
      certification notice, no later than July 15, 2019.

The Court said Ali and Embry can "fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class" because neither appears to have a
"substantial conflict of interest" with the rest of the class and
because both appear willing and able to "adequately prosecute the
action." Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181,
1189 (11th Cir. 2003). The Court also held that the proposed class
satisfies Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(3) because common legal and
factual issues -- such as whether the WARN Act's obligations
applied to LSI and, if so, whether LSI failed to provide the notice
required by the WARN Act -- predominate over class members'
individualized issues, such as damage determinations. Resolving
those common issues in a single action is superior to a mass of
individual claims addressing the same issues. Jackson v. Motel 6
Multipurpose, Inc., 130 F.3d 949, 1006 (11th Cir. 1997).

The Court also held that Ali and Embry's attorneys -- Ryan D.
Barack, Luis A. Cabassa, Brandon J. Hill, and Michelle Erin Nadeau
-- are experienced employment law litigators. Barack has held two
leadership positions within The Florida Bar's Labor and Employment
Law Section, and Cabassa and Hill have served as class counsel in
two WARN Act class actions in the Middle District of Florida. The
attorneys have declared that they are willing and able to commit
attention and resources to representing the class. Further, the
attorneys have demonstrated diligence by briefing thoroughly the
class certification motion, by proposing a class certification
notice, by creating an informative website that presents useful
information about the class action, by hosting a conference call
with more than forty former LSI employees to discuss the class
action, by reviewing LSI employment records, and by monitoring
LSI's assignment action in the state court.

The three cases are:

   Ali v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-
   535-T-23JSS;

   Embry v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-  

   539-T-23AAS; and

   Higdon v. Laser Spine Institute, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:19-
   cv-547-T-23TGW.


LG ELECTRONICS: Choi Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Misa Choi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., and Joowan Cho, Case
2:19-cv-12236 (C. N.J., May 7, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

The complaint alleges that Defendants intentionally and willfully
failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation at a rate of one
and one-half times the regular rate of pay for each and every hour
worked in excess of forty hours in a week, in violation of the NJLL
and FLSA.

The Plaintiff resides in Palisades Park, New Jersey. The Plaintiff
was employed by the Defendants as an entry-level associate in the
Defendants' account receivable department in 2007, was promoted as
an assistant manager in 2010, then manager in March 2016, and
currently as manager for the Defendants in same department.

The Defendant LGEUS conducts business in the State of New Jersey as
a foreign profit corporation with its principal place of business
located at 1000 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.
LGEUS is part of the LG family of corporations, which is headed by
LG Electronics, a Korean multinational corporation with its
principal offices located in Seoul, South Korea.

The Defendant Cho holds the title as President of the Defendant
LGEUS and held the right and power to determine and establish all
employment practices. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua S. Lim, Esq.
      Seokchan Kwak, Esq.
      KIM, CHO & LIM, LLC
      460 Bergen Boulevard, Suite 305
      Palisades Park, NJ 07650
      Tel: (201) 585-7400
      Fax: (201) 585-7422
      E-mail: joshualim@kcllawfirm.com
              seankwak@kcllawfirm.com


MASSE CONTRACTING: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Ruiz FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE RUIZ, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated v. MASSE CONTRACTING, INC. AND BOLLINGER
SHIPYARDS, L.L.C., SECTION M (2), Civil Action No. 18-5721 (E.D.
La.), Judge Barry W. Ashe of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) for failure to join necessary parties,
or motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Rule 12(e).

Ruiz brought the action, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, raising claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") for unpaid overtime wages.  Ruiz, a resident of Morgan
City, Louisiana, alleges that Masse hired him in 2015 to work as a
pipefitter at Bollinger's shipyard in Amelia, Louisiana, and he
held that job for approximately three years.  He alleges that
Bollinger employed at its Amelia shipyard at least 200 workers
whose services were obtained from labor subcontractors.  Masse was
one of those labor subcontractors and supplied about 50 of the
workers at Bollinger's Amelia shipyard.  Ruiz alleges that he was
employed by both Masse and Bollinger, and that both entities
supervised his activities, determined his work schedule, and kept
an employment file on him.  However, Ruiz also alleges that
Bollinger largely supervised and controlled the workers as de facto
employees, but that Masse paid him.

Ruiz alleges that he normally worked more than 40 hours per week,
and on average worked at least 67 hours per week.  He alleges that
his regular rate of pay was $13 per hour, and he received overtime
pay of $19.50 per hour and a $70 per diem for days he worked at
least five hours.  He further alleges that he did not incur any
expenses in furtherance of the Defendants' interests that would
qualify as reimbursable per diem payments under the FLSA, and thus
the payments to him amounted to "disguised wages" that the
Defendants did not include in calculating Ruiz's overtime premium
pay.

Ruiz seeks to represent the following two classes:

     a. Amelia Overtime Class: All current and former employees of
Defendants at the Bollinger Shipyard in Amelia, Louisiana, who are
or have been employed by Bollinger, either through Masse or another
labor subcontractor, during the three years immediately preceding
the filing of the suit as hourly employees and who, during that
period, received daily per diem payments and worked in excess of 40
hours in any work week and failed to receive the correct rate of
premium pay, a rate of oneand-a-half times their regular rate of
pay, for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek.

     b. Masse Overtime Class: All current and former employees of
Masse who are or have been employed by Masse during the three years
immediately preceding the filing of the suit as hourly employees
and who, during that period, received daily per diem payments and
worked in excess of 40 hours in any work week and failed to receive
the correct rate of premium pay, a rate of one-and-a-half times
their regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of forty
in a workweek.

The Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss arguing that
Ruiz's complaint does not adequately allege FLSA claims against
them and fails to include necessary parties.

Judge Ashe finds that Ruiz's complaint plausibly alleges that
Bollinger controlled his work by supervising him, setting his
schedule, and maintaining an employment file on him.  Further, it
is also plausible that Ruiz's employment was dependent upon
Bollinger's need for employees and that his pay could have been
determined by whatever Bollinger paid Masse for his services.  Ruiz
alleges that Masse hired him to work at Bollinger, as opposed to
any site where Masse had a contract to provide workers.  Thus, it
is reasonable to infer that Ruiz would have become unemployed had
Bollinger terminated its contract with Masse.  Consequently, Ruiz
has plausibly alleged that Bollinger was one of his FLSA employers,
while it is undisputed that Masse was the other.

Next, the Judge finds that Ruiz has alleged enough facts in the
complaint to state a plausible claim of an FLSA violation related
to the per diem payments.  Ruiz's allegations put Defendants on
notice that he claims he did not incur any expenses on the
employer's behalf that would justify the payment of a per diem
excludable from his regular rate.  Thus, he contends such payments
were disguised wages that were improperly excluded from his regular
rate of pay in the calculation of overtime payments.  These
allegations state that Ruiz did not incur any qualifying expenses,
why the per diem payments should have been factored into his
regular rate of pay, and how Ruiz believes Defendants' per diem
payments violate the FLSA.

The Judge also finds that the Defendants' challenge on the
pleadings seeks to end-run the certification process by trying
certification on the face of the complaint.  At the certification
stage, the Judge will analyze whether the putative class members
are similarly situated, and whether certification is otherwise
appropriate.  To consider the Defendant's arguments against
certification
now would be premature.

Finally, because the Judge has already found that Ruiz's complaint
is adequate to put the Defendants on notice of his claims, a more
definite statement is not warranted.  Under Rule 12(e), a party may
move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a
responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous
that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Ashe denied the Defendants'
motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/LTCEbc from Leagle.com.

Jose Ruiz, On behalf of himself and other persons similiarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Roberto L. Costales --
rlc@beaumontcostales.com -- Costales Law Office & William Henry
Beaumont -- whb@beaumontcostales.com -- William H. Beaumont Law.

Masse Contracting, Inc. & Bollinger Shipyards, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Brandon E. Davis -- brandon.davis@phelps.com --
Phelps Dunbar, LLP & Rebecca Sha -- rebecca.sha@phelps.com --
Phelps Dunbar, LLP.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Dumond Sues over Defective Panoramic Sunroofs
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC and Daimler AG for breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and for
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act. The case is captioned LEIKA DUMOND, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
DAIMLER AG, a foreign corporation, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-14723 (D.N.J., July 3, 2019).

Plaintiff alleges that Mercedes failed to design and manufacture
panoramic sunroofs that meet the new engineering challenges. She
claims that Mercedes' panoramic sunroofs are defective in that they
are unable to withstand foreseeable stresses of ordinary use, which
ultimately leads to a catastrophic failure usually described as an
explosion of the sunroof in both moving and stationary
environments. The defects in design and manufacture of the
panoramic sunroofs are compounded by Mercedes’ use of thinner
glass. Class Vehicles include but are not limited to all models of
2003 present C-Class; 2007-present CL-Class; 2013-present
CLA-Class; 2003-present E-Class; 2008-present G-Class; 2007-present
GL-Class; 2013-present GLK/GLC-Class; 2012-present ML-Class;
2010-present M-Class; 2015 Mercedes Maybach S-600; 2007-present
R-Class; 2013-present S-Class; 2013-present SL-Class; and
2013-present SLK-Class.

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is a Delaware limited-liability corporation
whose principal place of business is 303 Perimeter Center North,
Suite 202, Atlanta, Georgia 30346. The company, through its various
entities, designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells
Mercedes automobiles in New Jersey and New York as well as multiple
other locations in the United States and worldwide. Mercedes USA
and/or its agents designed, manufactured, and installed the
panoramic sunroofs in the Class Vehicles. Mercedes USA also
developed and disseminated the owner's manuals and warranty
booklets, advertisements, and other promotional materials relating
to the Class Vehicles. Daimler Aktiengesellschaft (Daimler AG) is a
foreign corporation headquartered in Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg,
Germany. It is engaged in the business of designing, engineering,
manufacturing, testing, marketing, supplying, selling, and
distributing motor vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, in the
United States. It is and was at all relevant times doing business
in a continuous manner through a chain of distribution and dealers
throughout the United States, including within the District of New
Jersey, by selling, advertising, promoting, and distributing
Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
     Eric S. Johnson, Esq.
     SIMMONS HANLY CONROY
     112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
     New York, NY 10016-7416
     Telephone: (212) 784-6400
     Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
     E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com
             ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com

             - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
     Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Telephone: (865) 247-0080
     Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
     E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
             adam@gregcolemanlaw.com

MONEYLION INC: Dicarlo Files Class Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Moneylion, Inc. The
case is styled as Marggieh Dicarlo Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Moneylion, Inc.,
Moneylion of California LLC, ML Plus LLC, ML Wealth LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01374 (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2019).

The suit is filed pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.

MoneyLion is a next-generation online financial services company,
built on a proprietary data-driven platform. It provides access to
personal loans and financial products across the credit spectrum,
personalized for each customer's unique financial needs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kolin Tang, Esq.
     Shepherd Finkelman Miller and Shah LLP
     1401 Dove Street Suite 540
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Phone: (323) 510-4060
     Fax: (866) 300-7367
     Email: ktang@sfmslaw.com


MURAD, LLC: Gonzalez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE GONZALEZ, on behalf of herself and other current or former
aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act,
the Plaintiff, vs. MURAD, LLC, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19TRCV00576 (Cal.
Super., July 9, 2019), alleges that Defendants jointly and
severally acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and
conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in failing to
pay all meal period wages and rest break wages, failing to properly
calculate and pay all minimum and overtime wages, failing to
provide accurate wage statements, failing to pay all wages due and
owing upon termination of employment, and failing to reimburse all
necessary business expenses, pursuant to the California Labor
Code.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-gharajeh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259

NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Enriquez Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Enriquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC and Ted Schroeder, Case No.
1:19-cv-04183 (S.D. N.Y., May 8, 2019), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934.

This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Nabriva securities between November
1, 2018 and April 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

On April 30, 2019, the Company revealed that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") would not approve its New Drug Application
for CONTEPO due to "issues related to facility inspections and
manufacturing deficiencies at one of Nabriva's contract
manufacturers."

The Defendants failed to disclose to investors that the Company's
manufacturers failed to meet good manufacturing practices. As a
result of the manufacturing deficiencies, it was unlikely to be
approved by the Food and Drug Association. Thus, the Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations and
prospects, were materially misleading and or lacked reasonable
basis, notes the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Nabriva securities during November 1, 2018
and April 30, 2019.

The Defendant Nabriva is a biopharmaceutical company that purports
to develop novel anti-infective agents to treat serious infections.
Its principal executive offices located in Dublin, Ireland.  One of
the Company's product candidates is CONTEPO, an epoxide antibiotic
developed by Zavante Therapeutics, which the
Company acquired in July 2018.

The Defendant Ted Schroeder has been the Chief Executive Officer of
the Company since the closing the Zavante acquisition and had been
CEO of Zavante. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCAA: Johnson Sues for Injuries Sustained as a Student-Athlete
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Timothy Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02810 (S.D. Ind.,
July 9, 2019), seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential,
compensatory, and punitive damages, past, present and future
medical expenses, other out of pocket expenses, lost time and
interest, lost future earnings, litigation and attorney fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, breach of third-party express contract
and unjust enrichment.

Aaron Timothy Johnson played football at Grambling State University
between 2001-2005. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well
as countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and
gameplay. Johnson is suffering from several symptoms indicative of
long-term brain and neurocognitive injuries.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Johnson alleges NCAA knew
about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.

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
     Tel: (817) 697-4942
     Email: gpy@cwylaw.com
            vinny@cwylaw.com
            kelli@cwylaw.com


NCAA: Jones Seeks Damages for Football-related Brain Injury
-----------------------------------------------------------
LaCurtis Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA), Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-02811 (S.D. Ind., July 9, 2019),
seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and
punitive damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other
out-of-pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future
earnings, litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and
such other and further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent
concealment, breach of express contract, breach of implied
contract, breach of third-party express contract and unjust
enrichment.

LaCurtis Jones played football at Baylor University between
1992-1999. He suffered from numerous concussions, as well as
countless sub-concussive hits as part of routine practice and
gameplay. He is suffering from several symptoms indicative of
long-term brain and neurocognitive injuries.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.
The NCAA is the governing body of collegiate athletics that
oversees twenty-three college sports and over 400,000 students who
participate in intercollegiate athletics. Jones alleges NCAA knew
about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries and sub-concussive injuries that
resulted from playing college football, but did nothing.

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
     Tel: (817) 697-4942
     Email: gpy@cwylaw.com
            vinny@cwylaw.com
            kelli@cwylaw.com


NCAA: Saytumah Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
----------------------------------------------------------
MORRIS SAYTUMAH, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ASSOCIATION, AND SOUTHWESTERN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-02818-JRS-DML (S.D. Ind., July 9, 2019), seeks
redress for injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless
disregard for the health and safety of generations of
student-athletes.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.

But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.

Football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would
haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff
experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to
protect Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term
dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for
profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive
injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this
Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights
and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          George Parker Young, Esq.
          Kelli L. Walter
          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

NCAA: Sevald Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
--------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN S. SEVALD, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, MID-AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE, INC. AND
THE BIG TEN CONFERENCE, INC., the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-02819-RLY-TAB (S.D. Ind., July 9, 2019), seeks redress for
injuries sustained a result of Defendant's reckless disregard for
the health and safety of generations of student-athletes.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.

But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.

Football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would
haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff
experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to
protect Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term
dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for
profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive
injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this
Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights
and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          George Parker Young, Esq.
          Kelli L. Walter
          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

NCAA: Walker Sues over Student-Athletes' Health & Safety
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL WALKER, the Plaintiff, vs. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-02820-JMS-MPB (S.D.
Ind., July 9, 2019), seeks redress for injuries sustained a result
of Defendant's reckless disregard for the health and safety of
generations of student-athletes.

According to the complaint, nearly 100,000 student-athletes sign up
to compete in college football each year, and it's no surprise why.
Football is America's sport and Plaintiff and a Class of football
players were raised to live and breathe the game. During football
season, there are entire days of the week that millions of
Americans dedicate to watching the game. On game days, hundreds of
thousands of fans fill stadium seats and even more watch around the
world. Before each game, these players -- often mere teenagers --
are riled up and told to do whatever it takes to win and, when
playing, are motivated to do whatever it takes to keep going.

But up until 2010, NCAA kept players and the public in the dark
about an epidemic that was slowly killing college athletes. During
the course of a college football season, athletes absorb more than
1,000 impacts greater than 10 Gs (gravitational force) and, worse
yet, the majority of football-related hits to the head exceed 20
Gs, with some approaching 100 Gs. To put this in perspective, if
you drove your car into a wall at 25 miles per hour and weren't
wearing a seatbelt, the force of you hitting the windshield would
be around 100 Gs. Thus, each season these 18, 19, 20, and
21-year-old student-athletes are subjected to repeated car
accidents.

Over time, the repetitive and violent impacts to players' heads led
to repeated concussions that severely increased their risks of
long-term brain injuries, including memory loss, dementia,
depression, Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy ("CTE"), Parkinson's
disease, and other related symptoms. Meaning, long after they
played their last game, they are left with a series of neurological
events that could slowly strangle their brains. For decades, NCAA
knew about the debilitating long-term dangers of concussions,
concussion-related injuries, and sub-concussive injuries (referred
to as "traumatic brain injuries" or "TBIs") that resulted from
playing college football, but recklessly disregarded this
information to protect the very profitable business of "amateur"
college football.

Football players were under Defendant's care. Unfortunately,
Defendant did not care about the off-field consequences that would
haunt students for the rest of their lives. Despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like those Plaintiff
experienced, Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures to
protect Plaintiff and other football players from the long-term
dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly and for
profit.

As a direct result of Defendant's acts and omissions, Plaintiff and
countless football players suffered brain and other neurocognitive
injuries from playing NCAA football. As such, Plaintiff brings this
Class Action Complaint in order to vindicate those players' rights
and hold the NCAA accountable, the lawsuit says.

NCAA is a non-profit organization which regulates athletes of 1,268
North American institutions and conferences.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
          George Parker Young, 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

NEWELL BRANDS: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newell Brands Inc.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Newell Brands Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06979 (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019).

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

Newell Brands, Inc. retails consumer products. The Company offers
housewares, home furnishings, office supplies, tools and hardware,
and hair accessories. Newell Brands markets its products
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


OTTO GROUP: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Otto Group, LLC. The
case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Otto Group, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06972 (S.D. N.Y., July 25, 2019).

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

The Otto Group, or Otto GmbH & Co KG (formerly Otto Versand), is a
mail order company and currently one of the world's biggest
e-commerce companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


PACIFIC BAY: Perez Seeks Overtime Pay for Construction Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
ISMAEL PEREZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PACIFIC BAY MASONRY, INC. and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19CV349938 (Cal.
Super., July 2, 2019), seeks relief from Pacific Bay Masonry,
Inc.'s violations of the California Labor Code and applicable wage
order.

PBM provides masonry construction services and has employed
Plaintiff and similarly situated Class Members, including masons,
hod carriers, and laborers at construction work sites in Santa
Clara county and surrounding counties.

The Plaintiff challenges PBM's policies and practices of failing to
pay Workers proper overtime compensation, failing to provide
off-duty meal and rest periods, failing to indemnify employees for
employment-related expenses and losses, and failing to pay all
wages due upon termination of employment, all in violation of
California law. These unlawful policies and practices have been in
effect for at least four years prior to the filing of this
action.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jennifer Keating, Esq.
          Aaron Kaufmann, Esq.
          David Pogrel, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER, LLP
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
          E-mail: jkeating@leonardcarder.com

PLASTIPAK PACKAGING: Appeals Order in Hernandez Suit to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Plastipak Packaging, Inc., Company filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Hector Hernandez v. Plastipak
Packaging, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-02826-JSM-SPF, in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
James S. Moody entered an order on Jan. 15, 2019, denying
Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify Fair Labor Standards
Act Collective Action and facilitate notice to potential class of:

    "all current and former Maintenance Mechanics employed by
     Plastipak Packaging, Inc., nationwide, within in [sic] three
     year period preceding November 22, 2017 (Putative Class),
     who worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks and who
     were paid a shift differential in one or more such
     workweeks".

The appellate case is captioned as Hector Hernandez v. Plastipak
Packaging, Inc., Case No. 19-12655, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

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

   -- The appellant's brief is due on or before August 26, 2019;

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

   -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or
      before July 29, 2019, as to Appellant Plastipak Packaging,
      Inc.; and

   -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or
      before August 12, 2019, as to Appellee Hector
      Hernandez.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee HECTOR HERNANDEZ, on his own behalf and on
behalf of those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3383
          E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          8151 Peters Rd., Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

Defendant-Appellant PLASTIPAK PACKAGING, INC., a Foreign Profit
Corporation, is represented by:

          Ronald G. Acho, Esq.
          CUMMINGS MCCLOREY DAVIS & ACHO PLC
          17436 College Pkwy.
          Livonia, MI 48152
          Telephone: (734) 261-2400
          E-mail: jacho@cmda-law.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esq.
          GRAYROBINSON, PA
          401 E Jackson St., Suite 2700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 273-5000
          E-mail: thomas.gonzalez@gray-robinson.com


REAL ESTATE: Faces Greenberg Suit Alleging TCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Charles Greenberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Real Estate Sales, LLC, Case No. 19-cv-61175
(S.D. Fla., May 8, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff seeks relief to halt the Defendant's unlawful conduct
of placing calls on his cellular telephone number, using an
automatic telephone dialing system without prior express consent.

The Plaintiff was a resident of Broward County, Florida.

The Defendant is a real estate monitoring company and real estate
lead generator. Its principal office is located at 410 South
Rampart, Suite 390, Las Vegas, Nevada 89145. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 479-2299
      E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
              gberg@shamisgentile.com


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 15
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Realogy Holdings Corp. (RLGY) from
February 24, 2017 through May 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Realogy
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Realogy class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1600.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) Realogy was engaged in anticompetitive behavior by
requiring property sellers to pay the commissions of a buyer's
broker at an inflated rate; (2) Realogy's anticompetitive actions
would prompt the U.S. Department of Justice to open an antitrust
investigation into the real estate industry's practices regarding
brokers' commissions; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements
about the Realogy's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
9, 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-1600.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN]


RECKITT BENCKISER: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 16 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced by an institutional investor on behalf of
purchasers of Reckitt Benckiser Group plc (RBGLY) American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") during the period between July 28, 2014
and April 9, 2019 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in
the District of New Jersey and is captioned City of Sterling
Heights Police & Fire Retirement System v. Reckitt Benckiser Group
plc, et al., No. 19-cv-15382.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Reckitt ADSs during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the litigation. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from July
16, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com. You
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/reckitt/

The complaint charges Reckitt and certain of its current and former
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Reckitt is a consumer and healthcare company based in
the United Kingdom. Prior to December 2014, the Company maintained
a division dedicated to opioid addiction treatments known as
Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Reckitt Pharma"). For many
years, Reckitt Pharma's primary source of revenue was the
manufacture and sale of Suboxone Tablets, a treatment for opioid
addiction.

The complaint alleges that before and during the Class Period,
Reckitt and its most senior executives perpetrated a scheme, which
generated over $3 billion in proceeds, to facilitate opiate abuse
among U.S. consumers and mislead investors and the public regarding
the health and safety risks of Reckitt's new key opiate product,
Suboxone Film. Specifically, the complaint alleges that in order to
maintain and grow profits, senior executives at Reckitt devised a
plan to switch prescribers from Suboxone Tablets to the Company's
new proprietary treatment, Suboxone Film. Suboxone Film had similar
active ingredients to Suboxone Tablets, however it was dispensed in
a thin film placed under the tongue and stored in single-use foil
wrappings. Executives planned to create a marketing campaign that
touted the purported safety benefits of Suboxone Film over Suboxone
Tablets in order to prevent generic competition. Key to this
campaign was fabricating safety concerns with existing treatments
in order to delay the entry and approval of generics for Suboxone
Tablets. Defendants' scheme to fraudulently inflate sales of
Suboxone Film was a success. Between 2010 and 2014, the Company's
revenues from sales of the drug increased ten-fold to over $840
million annually. As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements and/or omissions regarding the scheme to inflate sales
of Suboxone Film during the Class Period, Reckitt ADSs traded at
artificially inflated prices.

The truth began to leak out on July 24, 2017, when the Company
announced, in connection with its second quarter 2017 financial
results, that it had recorded a £318 million charge related to
ongoing U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Federal Trade
Commission investigations into its former Reckitt Pharma
operations. On this news, the price of Reckitt ADSs dropped 5%.
Then, on February 19, 2018, Reckitt announced, in connection with
its full year 2017 financial results, that it had recorded an
exceptional charge of £296 million due to the investigations, and
that the investigations now also involved the California Department
of Insurance. On this news, the price of Reckitt ADSs declined more
than 10%. Finally, on April 9, 2019, the DOJ filed a criminal
indictment against Reckitt Pharma (now known as Indivior), which
detailed a multi-billion-dollar scheme to defraud the public and
the Company's investors through the marketing and sale of Suboxone
Film. On this news, the price of Reckitt ADSs again declined over
6%. Ultimately, Reckitt agreed to settle the federal investigations
into its marketing and sale of Suboxone Film for $1.4 billion. At
the time, the settlement was called the "largest opioid settlement
in US history."

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

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is
one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in
securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins
Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history. For six consecutive years, ISS Securities
Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50
Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount
recovered for shareholders and total number of class action
settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the
securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on
behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries
for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in
implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the
financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys
are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations
and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. [GN]


RESIDENCE INN: Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling in Arias Suit to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Residence Inn by Marriott, et al., filed an appeal from
a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Blanca Argelia Arias v.
Residence Inn by Marriott, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-08818-RGK-JPR,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Blanca Argelia Arias v.
Residence Inn by Marriott, et al., Case No. 19-55803, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The nature of suit is stated as other labor litigation.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Defendants
filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate
case is styled as Blanca Argelia Arias v. Residence Inn by
Marriott, et al., Case No. 18-80171.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee BLANCA ARGELIA ARIAS, individually and on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ramin R. Younessi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RAMIN R. YOUNESSI A.P.L.C.
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 480-6200
          Facsimile: (213) 480-6201
          E-mail: ryounessi@younessilaw.com

Defendants-Appellants RESIDENCE INN BY MARRIOTT, a Delaware limited
liability company, and MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware
corporation, are represented by:

          William J. Dritsas, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          E-mail: wdritsas@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Brian Patrick Long, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          E-mail: bplong@seyfarth.com


RITUALIST INC: Conner Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Ritualist, Inc.
The case is styled as Mary Conner, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. The Ritualist, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04224 (E.D.
N.Y., July 22, 2019).

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

The Ritualist Inc. is in the Beauty Shops business. It is the
premier spa service provider in New York for on demand, on location
facial, massage and body treatments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Renewed Summary Judgment Bid in Espejo Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, HENRY ESPEJO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA,
INC., an Illinois corporation, Defendant. FAYE LEVINS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an Illinois corporation, Defendant,
Case Nos. 11 C 8987, 12 C 9431 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Charles P.
Kocoras of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Santander's (i) renewed motion
for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56.1, and (ii) motion for reconsideration.

Espejo and Faye Levins each brought class action suits against
Defendant Santander for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), actions which have since been
consolidated.  These claims arose when Santander utilized its
Aspect Telephone System to make calls to the Plaintiffs regarding
outstanding auto loans.  Santander utilizes Aspect in combination
with a customer account management system called "My Supervisor."
The company uses "My Supervisor" to generate a customer list and
then uploads the list into Aspect.

Aspect has a dialer feature that dials phone numbers from a
customer list using an algorithm to efficiently match available
customer service agents to answered calls. The dialer only makes
calls once a customer service agent logs-in and presses a button to
indicate that they are available.

On April 21, 2016, Santander filed a motion for summary judgment,
partially on the grounds that Aspect's dialer feature did not
constitute an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"), which is
an essential element of the Plaintiffs' TCPA claim.  That same day,
Santander moved the Court to stay the proceedings until the D.C.
Circuit issued its ruling in ACA International v. Federal
Communications Commission, 885 F.3d 687 (D.C. Cir. 2018), a
consolidated action that considered the validity of the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC") rulemaking regarding the TCPA.
On Oct. 14, 2016, the Court denied Santander's motions, but stated
that it would revisit any issues affected by [the ACA
International] decision as needed, at any time before the trial in
the case.

On March 16, 2018, the D.C. Circuit issued its ruling in ACA
International.

In the wake of ACA International, Santander renewed its motion for
summary judgment, arguing that the legal principles the Court
relied on in its initial denial "have been entirely upended."
While the parties have no material factual disputes, they diverge
on the legal implications of the ACA International decision.  

Specifically, the parties take conflicting stances regarding: (1)
whether ACA International confined its decision to the FCC's 2015
Order, or whether the decision also overruled the FCC's 2003 and
2008 Orders; and (2) If ACA International did overrule the prior
FCC Orders, whether the Court should interpret the definition of an
ATDS to include predictive dialers.

Judge Kocoras joins the Ninth and D.C. Circuits in finding the ATDS
definition to be facially ambiguous.  He finds that the phrase
'using a random or sequential number generator' necessarily conveys
that an ATDS must have the capacity to generate telephone numbers,
either randomly or sequentially, and then to dial those numbers.

The Judge also finds that TPCA includes a treble damages clause in
the event that a defendant committed a willful and knowing
violation of the statute.  It is difficult to square how a
defendant could commit a willful and knowing violation of the TCPA
if the employed ATDS is dialing numbers randomly or sequentially.
Instead, it logically follows that a willful or knowing violation
would involve placing calls to pre-determined phone numbers which
the defendant knew were restricted under the TCPA.  These
structural and contextual features of the TCPA lead him to believe
that the "language in the statute indicates that equipment that
made automatic calls from lists of recipients was also covered by
the TCPA."

Because the Judge adopts the interpretation of the ATDS definition
that permits dialing pre-existing customer lists, Santander's
Aspect system is not exempt from the TCPA as a matter of law.
Indeed, because Aspect automatically dials numbers from a set
customer list, it falls within the definition of an ATDS.

Finally, the Judge finds that Santander's Aspect system requires
human intervention to the extent of uploading a pre-existing
customer list and clicking a button to indicate a customer service
agent's availability.  From there, Aspect's dialer responds to the
customer service agent's availability and begins dialing numbers
from the list based on a programmed algorithm.  Thus, according to
Santander's own description, its Aspect dialer -- not the agents --
makes the calls by dialing numbers from the uploaded list.  This
falls within the acceptable and inevitable amount of human
intervention for an ATDS.

For the aforementioned reasons, Judge Kocoras denied the
Defendant's motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/dOeeWL from Leagle.com.

Henry Espejo, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lillard Dore,
Edelson PC, Frank Davis -- fdavis@davisnorris.com -- Davis &
Norris, LLP, Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Edelson PC &
Sydney M. Janzen -- sjanzen@edelson.com -- Edelson Pc.

Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Abraham J.
Colman , Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Amy L. Starinieri Gilbert --
agilbert@mcguirewoods.com -- Mcguirewoods Llp, Ashley L. Shively --
ashley.shively@hklaw.com  -- Reed Smith LLP, David S. Reidy,
McGuireWoods LLP, Felicia Yu, Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Marc A.
Lackner, McGuireWoods LLP, Michael David Richman, Reed Smith LLP &
Sarah Ann Zielinski -- szielinski@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP.


SELECT EMPLOYMENT: Romero Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ELSIE ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SELECT EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION
INSTITUTE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; SELECT
MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC700200 was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
July 23, 2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06369.

The complaint and first amended complaint allege ten causes of
action: (1) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, (2) Failure to
Authorize and Permit rest Periods, (3) Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages, (4) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages, (5) Failure to Pay All
Wages Due to Discharged and Quitting Employees, (6) Failure to
Maintain Required Records, (7) Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized
Wage Statements, (8) Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary
Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties, (9) Unfair and
Unlawful Business Practices, and (10) Representative Action for
Penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorney's General Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Ndubisi A. Ezeolu, Esq.
     Edward W. Racek, Esq.
     TUCKER ELLIS LLP
     515 South Flower Street
     Forty-Second Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: 213.430.3400
     Facsimile: 213.430.3409
     Email: ndubisi.ezeolu@tuckerellis.com
            edward.racek@tuckerellis.corn


SHERMAN OAKS: Reina Seeks Unpaid Wages, Meal Breaks
---------------------------------------------------
MONICA REINA, the Plaintiff, vs. SHERMAN OAKS INTEGRATED MEDICAL
GROUP, INC. dba HEALTH ATLAST SHERMAN OAKS and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Case No. 19STCV23256 (Cal. Super., July 2, 2019),
alleges that Sherman Oaks committed numerous labor code violations
against Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees.
The Defendant violated the Labor Code because it failed to provide
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees the
requisite 30-minute, uninterrupted meal periods for every five
hours of work throughout their employment, and Plaintiff did not
validly waive said meal periods.

The Plaintiff started working for Defendant on or around September
1, 2017. Her employment ended on or around February 8, 2019. The
Defendant did not pay to Plaintiff one additional hour of pay at
Plaintiffs regular rate of compensation for each workday that one
or more statutory meal periods was not provided.

During her employment tenure, the Plaintiff would eat meals on the
job and while sitting at the front, because there was no one to
relieve her and the office needed someone to be sitting at the
front, the lawsuit says.

Sherman Oaks is a healthcare provider in Sherman Oaks,
California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983

SHUTTERFLY INC: Miracle-Pond Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Vernita Miracle-Pond and Samantha Paraf,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Shutterfly, Inc., Case No. 2019CH07050 (Ill. Cir.,
June 11, 2019), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on July 12, 2019, under Case No.
19-cv-04722.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all
unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage and
use of biometrics, statutory damages together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act.

Shutterfly provides its online services to Illinois residents.
Plaintiffs allege that it is actively collecting, storing, and
using obtained facial templates of its users without their informed
written consent or publishing data retention policies.

Miracle-Pond has a Shutterfly account and her face appears in
photographs uploaded to Shutterfly within Illinois while Paraf does
not and has not ever had a Shutterfly account, yet her face appears
in photographs uploaded to Shutterfly within Illinois. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Alex R. Straus, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      10728 Lindbrook Drive
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Tel: (310) 474-9111
      Fax: (310) 474-8585
      Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
             astraus@ahdootwolfson.com

             - and -

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH LLP
      111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 750-1265
      Email: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
             kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com

Shutterfly is represented by:

      Matthew David Provance, Esq.
      MAYER BROWN LLP
      71 South Wacker Drive
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 701-8598
      Email: mprovance@mayerbrown.com

             - and -

      Lauren R. Goldman, Esq.
      MAYER BROWN LLP
      1221 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10020-1001
      Tel: (212) 506-2647
      Email: lrgoldman@mayerbrown.com


STATE UNIV. OF NY: Court Certifies Class in Westchester ADA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WESTCHESTER INDEPENDENT LIVING CENTER, INC., a
nonprofit organization; KAYLE HILL, an individual; TERESA WHEELER,
an individual; and MICHAEL HELLMAN, an individual; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE
UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, PURCHASE COLLEGE; THOMAS J. SCHWARZ, in his
official capacity as President of Purchase College; and H. CARL
McCALL, in his official capacity as Chairman of the State
University of New York Board of Trustees, Defendants, Case No.
16-CV-5949 (CS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Cathy Seibel of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.

Defendants SUNY Purchase, TSchwarz, and McCall, operate a 500-acre
college campus in Westchester County that hosts more than 4,200
students and 450 faculty members.  Additionally, SUNY Purchase
welcomes numerous guests on the Campus each year, including senior
citizens who can audit classes free of tuition, visiting students
and eligible high school students participating in academic summer
sessions and youth and precollege programs, and visitors to SUNY
Purchase's Neuberger Museum of Art, Performing Arts Center ("PAC"),
and library.  The Campus contains 25 buildings, including, among
other things, academic buildings, residence halls, and dining
facilities.  Approximately two-thirds of SUNY Purchase's students
live on Campus in its residence halls, and approximately one-third
of students commute to Campus. The Campus also includes numerous
parking lots for students, faculty, and other visitors.

The Plaintiffs allege that as a result of the Defendants' systemic
failure to provide accessible rights-of-way, students and visitors
with mobility disabilities, including but not limited to those who
use wheelchairs or other mobility devices, encounter pervasive
barriers that prevent them from having meaningful access to the
programs, services, and activities at SUNY Purchase, in violation
of federal and state disability discrimination laws.  They
specifically allege that students and visitors must navigate a
network of pedestrian rights-of-way plagued with barriers such as a
lack of curb ramps; noncompliant curb ramps and cross-walks; paths
of travel that are unnecessarily long, have excessive slope, or
include crumbling concrete or asphalt; inadequate accessible
parking; inadequate vertical access to the Campus and public
buildings; a lack of signage indicating accessibility; lack of
alternative routes, some of which were blocked by ongoing
construction; noncompliant safety features such as call-boxes; and
frequently broken accessibility features such as automatic door
openers.

On July 26, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed their original class action
Complaint, and the Defendants answered on Oct. 27, 2016.  On May
22, 2017, after limited discovery was exchanged, Magistrate Judge
Judith C. McCarthy stayed any further discovery so that the parties
could discuss settlement.  Nearly a year later, on April 17, 2018,
the parties still had not reached a settlement, and Judge McCarthy
lifted the discovery stay.

On July 18, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their
Complaint, which Judge McCarthy granted, and on July 26, the
Plaintiffs filed their FAC.  In their FAC, the Plaintiffs seek
injunctive and declaratory relief on their own behalf and on behalf
of a class of all people with mobility disabilities who use or will
use pedestrian rights-of-way at SUNY Purchase.  They do not seek
damages.

On Dec. 19, 2018, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification.
After three extensions, the Defendants filed their opposition to
the Plaintiffs' motion on March 14, 2019, and the Plaintiffs filed
their reply shortly thereafter.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting of students
and visitors with mobility disabilities who have been and are being
denied meaningful access to the educational, cultural, and social
programs, services, and activities offered at SUNY Purchase because
of Defendants' continuing failure to provide accessible
rights-of-way.

Judge Seibel finds that the class complies with each of the Rule 23
requirements.  Accordingly, she granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

The Judeg certified a Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive and declaratory
relief class comprising students and visitors with mobility
disabilities -- that is, individuals who use wheelchairs,
individuals who use other mobility aids, and individuals with
disabilities that affect their ability to walk distances or climb
stairs but who do not use any mobility aids -- who have been and
are being denied meaningful access to the educational, cultural,
and social programs, services, and activities offered at SUNY
Purchase because of Defendants' continuing failure to provide
accessible rights-of-way.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the
pending motion.  Pursuant to the Judge's Dec. 5, 2018 ruling, the
parties are ordered to meet and confer on a schedule for
crossmotions for summary judgment.  They should send the Court a
joint letter with their proposals, or laying out their competing
positions, no later than June 18, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 12, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/v9h314 from Leagle.com.

Westchester Independent Living Center, Inc., a nonprofit
organization, Kayle Hill, an individual; on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Michael Hellmann, an individual;
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated & Teresa
Wheeler, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrea Moody Kozak-Oxnard --
AKOZAKOXNARD@DRALEGAL.ORG -- Disability Rights Advocates, Michelle
Anne Caiola -- mcaiola@dralegal.org -- Disabilities Right
Advocates, Rebecca Juliet Rodgers -- rrodgers@dralegal.org --
Disability Rights Advocates & Rebecca Catherine Serbin --
rserbin@dralegal.org -- Disabilities Right Advocates.

Thomas J. Schwarz, In his Official Capacity as President of
Purchase College & H. Carl McCall, In his Official Capacity as
Chairman of the State University of New York Board of Trustees,
Defendants, represented by Mark Eliott Klein, Office of The
Attorney General, Alyssa Eve Anzalone-Newman, New York State
Attorney General, D. Stan O'Loughlin, NYS Office of the Attorney
General & Monica Anne Connell, New York State Office of the
Attorney General.

State University of New York, Defendant, represented by Mark Eliott
Klein, Office of The Attorney General, D. Stan O'Loughlin, NYS
Office of the Attorney General & Monica Anne Connell, New York
State Office of the Attorney General.


SWIFTWICK INTERNATIONAL: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Swiftwick
International, LLC. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Swiftwick
International, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06974 (S.D. N.Y.,
July 25, 2019).

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

Swiftwick International, LLC is a performance sock
manufacturer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal



TOTALMED STAFFING: Abrishamian Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned NATALIE ABRISHAMIAN, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOTALMED STAFFING, INC.,
an Illinois Corporation; and DOES 1-20 inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19STCV21926 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on July 25, 2019, and assigned Case
No. 2:19-cv-06457.

The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on June 28, 2019
asserting, on behalf of herself and various putative classes
consisting of non-exempt employees of TotalMed who have worked in
California since June 24, 2015, eight causes of action for (1)
failure to pay for all hours worked; (2) failure to pay minimum
wage; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to authorize or
permit meal breaks; (5) failure to authorize or permit rest breaks;
(6) failure to furnish accurate wage statements; (7) waiting time
penalties; and (8) unfair business practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     SARAH KROLL-ROSENBAUM, ESQ.
     SAYAKA KARITANI, ESQ.
     NANCY SOTOMAYOR, ESQ.
     CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 909-7775
     Facsimile: (424) 465-6630
     Email: skroll-rosenbaum@constangy.com
            skaritani@constangy.com             
            nsotomayor@constangy.com


TRINITY SERVICES: Castillo Suit Removed to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned ANDRE CASTILLO, individually, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRINITY SERVICES GROUP,
INC.; and DOES 1 thru 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BCV-19-101473 was removed from the Superior Court of California,
for the County of Kern to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California on July 25, 2019, and assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-01013-DAD-JLT.

The Complaint alleges six causes of action which Plaintiff pursues
on a class action basis: (1) failure to pay overtime wages; (2)
failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to provide rest
breaks; (4) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
(5) failure to pay all wages due upon separation of employment; and
(6) Violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

     Daniel B. Chammas, Esq.
     David L. Cheng, Esq.
     FORD & HARRISON, LLP
     350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 237-2400
     Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
     Email: dchammas@fordharrison.com
            dchengQfordharrison.com


TYSON FOODS: Graham Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Steve Graham, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Cargill, Inc., National Beef
Packaging, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00368 (W.D. Mo., May 8, 2019),
is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act and Commodities Exchange Act.

This case arises from the Defendants' unlawful conspiracy to lower
the prices they paid for fed cattle in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act and the Commodities Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff owns and operates a farming operation with his son in
Cherokee County, Iowa. The Plaintiff is a cattle farmer who sold
fed cattle to one or more Defendants.

The Defendants are beef packers who purchase fed cattle from
Plaintiff and the Producer Class for slaughter. Defendants then
process the resulting carcasses into beef for sale to other
processers, wholesalers, and retail outlets.

Beginning no later than January 2015 and continuing today, the
Defendants conspired to suppress the price of fed cattle they
purchased in the United States, asserts the complaint. The
Defendants' coordinated conduct, including slashing their
respective slaughter volumes and curtailing their purchases of fed
cattle in the cash cattle market, caused an unprecedented collapse
in fed cattle prices in 2015. The Defendants continued to suppress
the price of fed cattle through coordinated procurement practices
and periodic slaughter restraint.  The Defendants' conspiracy
impacted both the physical fed cattle market and the market for
live cattle futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      Sean Cooper, Esq.
      PAUL LLP
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Tel: (816) 984-8100
      E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com
              Sean@PaulLLP.com


UMB BANK: Garrett Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve L. Garrett and M. Gwen Goins, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UMB Bank, N.A., Case No.
4:19-cv-00369 (W.D. Mo., May 8, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's policy and practice is
to deny earned wages to its mortgage loan originators.
Specifically, the Defendant requires its mortgage loan originators
to perform work in excess of forty hours per week, but fails to pay
them overtime by misclassifying all such employees as exempt from
the FLSA overtime requirements.

Plaintiff Garrett currently resides in Grandview, Missouri. From
approximately February 2016 to September 2018, he was employed by
Defendant as a mortgage loan originator.

Plaintiff Goins currently resides in Lee's Summit, Missouri. From
approximately April 2017 to August 2018, he was employed by
Defendant as a mortgage loan originator.

The Defendant is a national banking association that provides
comprehensive banking solutions, including mortgage services,
through its banking centers across the country. Its principal place
of business is in the State of Missouri. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Ryan L. McClelland, Esq.
      Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq.
      MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM
      The Flagship Building
      200 Westwoods Drive
      Liberty, MO 64068-1170
      Tel: (816) 781-0002
      Fax: (816) 781-1984
      E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com
              mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com


UNITED DOMESTIC: California Homecare Providers File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Right to Work Foundation on July 15 disclosed that
California homecare providers who receive Medicaid payments for
serving disabled individuals have filed a class-action lawsuit with
free legal aid from attorneys provided by the National Right to
Work Legal Defense Foundation staff and Washington-based Freedom
Foundation. They charge union officials with violating their legal
rights by unlawfully restricting them from stopping payment of
union dues and fees, as is their right under the U.S. Supreme
Court's Harris and Janus decisions and the Medicaid statute.

The providers' complaint says United Domestic Workers (UDW) AFSCME
Local 3930 union officials coerced them into surrendering their
legal rights by signing union membership cards that prohibit them
from halting union dues and fees deductions except for a narrow
"escape period" a few days every year.

When the providers attempted to exercise their legal rights under
Harris and Janus to refrain from financially subsidizing a union
and cut off any further dues or fee deductions, union officials
refused to honor their requests. Despite the lack of valid consent
by providers, the California State Controller, at the behest of
AFSCME union officials, continues to deduct union dues from the
Medicaid funds intended for providers.

In the class-action suit filed in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, the providers named as defendants
UDW AFSCME Local 3930 and California State Controller Betty Yee.
Yee deducts union dues and fees from providers' Medicaid payments
pursuant to state law.

The providers rely on the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Harris and
Janus decisions in 2014 and 2018, respectively, both of which were
argued and won by Foundation staff attorneys. Harris held that
homecare providers cannot constitutionally be compelled to pay
union dues or fees as a condition of receiving public funding.
Janus established that the First Amendment protects public-sector
workers from being forced to pay union dues or fees without their
knowing and explicit consent.

While still permitting voluntary unionism, the Janus decision
requires union officials to inform public workers of their First
Amendment rights and obtain knowing waivers from them before
collecting any dues or fees. This requirement invalidates the
restrictions on revocation of deduction authorizations union
officials enforce through membership cards signed by individuals
subjected to public sector unionism.

Because union officials never obtained their consent with knowledge
of their rights under Harris and Janus, the providers argue that
the restrictions in their dues deduction authorizations are invalid
and union officials, thus, are not legally authorized to deduct
dues or fees from their hard-earned Medicaid payments. Their
complaint asks that the court declare unconstitutional the
California statute which authorizes such restrictions.

In addition, the providers' suit alleges that the deduction of
union dues from their Medicaid payments violates a provision of the
federal Medicaid statute that prohibits the diversion of Medicaid
monies to persons or institutions that are not providing services
to disabled individuals.

"Once again union bosses have ignored the clear wishes of the
workers they claim to ‘represent' simply to line their pockets
with compulsory dues," said National Right to Work Foundation
President Mark Mix. "Instead of informing workers of their First
Amendment rights and allowing them to choose whether to pay dues to
a union voluntarily, union officials nationwide are applying
‘escape periods' and other coercive tactics to trap workers into
paying forced dues against their wishes."

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit,
charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose
human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism
abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at
1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in more than 250
cases nationwide per year. [GN]


VERB TECHNOLOGY: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 15
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Verb Technology Company, Inc.
(NASDAQ: VERB) from January 3, 2018 through May 2, 2018, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Verb
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Verb class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1617.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) the Company did not have a contract with Oracle to
jointly develop and market the Company's product, notifiCRM; and
(2) as a result, defendants' statements about Verb's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
9, 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-1617.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm
was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number
of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013.   Rosen Law Firm has
secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN]


WAL-MART: Price et al. Seek Equal Pay for Female Staff
------------------------------------------------------
About 35 lawsuits were filed mid-July against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
alleging that the retailer has engaged in, and continues to engage
in, unlawful gender discrimination by denying female employees
equal pay for hourly retail store positions and denying female
employees equal pay for certain salaried management positions. The
cases are filed pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, and seek to correct unlawful employment practices that
discriminate on the basis of gender and to provide appropriate
relief to female employees who were adversely affected by such
practices.  The plaintiffs are proceeding on an individual basis.

The actions spring from Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the national class
action filed more than ten years ago. In Dukes, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California certified a
national class of female Wal-Mart and Sam's Club employees
challenging Wal-Mart's retail store pay policies as discriminatory
against women. On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court
reversed that class certification order, imposing new guidelines
for class actions in Title VII employment discrimination cases.

All damages which the Plaintiffs have sustained as a result of
Wal-Mart's conduct, including back pay, front pay, compensatory
damages, and damages for lost compensation and job benefits that
they would have received but for the discriminatory practices of
Wal-Mart, the lawsuit says.

Wal-Mart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores, headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas.

The cases are all captioned as, JEWEL PRICE, CARLA ALSTON, KIMBERLY
AUSTIN-JOHNSON, NANCY BAISDEN, CYNTHIA BOSS, BILLIE BRENDLINGER,
LATONYA BRISCO-THOMPSON, MYRA BROWN, TONI BURTON, RENEE CHILES,
MARY-KAY DOBBS, MARYELLEN DUNNE, LIOUDMILA DYER, FAWN EHRENREICH,
RHONDA GALLIPOLI, CONNIE GAMARRA, ZOMORA GRANT, MARGARET HAMMELL,
DEBORAH HOLLOWAY, CAROLYN HOLMES, CATHERINE JACOBSON, SUSAN
JEFFERS, LUCILLE KLINE, FRANCES LIVINGSTON, CINDY LYMAN, GLORIA
MAIMONE, IRIS CASSETT MARCHAND, TANISHA MATTHEWS-WRIGHT, TAMIKO
MCNURLAN, LYNN MILLER, MARGO OWENS-WOOTEN, PAMELA PECK, LUCY
GIACOBBI SOTOMAYOR RAY, RACHEL RAY, CATHY REUSS, SHERRY RICHARDSON,
BARBARA SOLOMON, ANGEL STUMP-WOLFE, BARBARA SYMANSKI, RONDA
THOMSON-SPEARS, MONICA URBAN-KLOHN, TIFFANY WELCH, DONNA WILLIAMS,
and COLLEEN WOOL, the Plaintiffs, vs. WAL-MART STORES, INC., the
Defendant, Case Nos. 19-cv-80922; 19-cv-80926 to 19-cv-80928;
19-cv-80930 to 19-cv-80932; 19-cv-80934 to 19-cv-80943;
19-cv-80945; 19-cv-80948 to 19-cv-80958; and 19-cv-80960 to
19-cv-80964 (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2019).[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Cathleen Scott, Esq.
          Lindsey Wagner, Esq.
          SCOTT WAGNER AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          Jupiter Gardens
          250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104
          Jupiter, FL 33458
          Telephone: (561) 653-0008
          Facsimile: (561) 653-0020
          E-mail: Cscott@scottwagnerlaw.com
                  lwagner@scottwagnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq.
          Diana L. Martin, Esq.
          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          Christine E. Webber, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
          E-mail: lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmartin@cohenmilstein.com
                  JSellers@cohenmilstein.com
                  Cwebber@cohenmilstein.com

WEBSTAURANT STORE: Conrath Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
David Conrath, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Webstaurant Store, Inc., Case 4:19-cv-00047 (W.D.
Ky., May 7, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant has willfully engaged in the practice of not
recording employees' time for all work performed, permitting or
requiring employees to perform work in addition to scheduled
shifts, and not compensating employees with appropriate payment for
such work, in violation of the FLSA, notes the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff worked
for Defendant as a Customer Solutions Specialist at the Defendant's
customer support facility in Lititz, Pennsylvania from
approximately July 2014 until July 2017. The Plaintiff again became
employed by Defendant in 2018, and is currently employed by the
Defendant at the time of filing this action.

The Defendant is a Pennsylvania for-profit corporation engaged in
the business of selling commercial restaurant supplies and
equipment. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark N. Foster, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
      P.O. Box 869
      Madisonville, KY 42431
      Tel: (270) 213-1303
      E-mail: MFoster@MarkNFoster.com


WHEELS LABS: Feldman Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Wheels Labs, Inc.
for negligently contacting consumers' cellular telephones, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The case
is captioned DAVID FELDMAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WHEELS LABS, INC., and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-05784
(C.D. Cal., July 3, 2019).

On or about April of 2019, Plaintiff received a text message from
Defendant on his cellular telephone, number ending in -0127. During
this time, Defendant began to use Plaintiff's cellular telephone
for the purpose of sending Plaintiff spam advertisements and/or
promotional offers, via text messages, including a text message
sent to and received by Plaintiff on or about April of 2017.
Plaintiff was never a customer of Defendant and never provided his
cellular telephone number Defendant for any reason whatsoever.
Defendant and their agents never received Plaintiff's prior express
consent to receive unsolicited text messages. Accordingly, this
suit seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of
economic injury on behalf of the Class.

Wheels Labs, Inc. provides electric bike rentals and employs people
to transport their bikes. Plaintiff alleges that at all times
relevant herein Wheels Labs conducted business in the state of
California and in the County of Los Angeles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Meghan E. George, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Telephone: (323) 306-4234
     Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


WILLIAMS SONOMA: Faces Overton Suit in California Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Williams Sonoma
Stores Inc. The case is captioned as Olivia Overton individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated and as a private
attorney general, the Plaintiff, vs. Williams Sonoma Stores Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 56-2019-00530410-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super.,
July 9, 2019). The suit alleges employment-related violation.

Williams-Sonoma is an American publicly traded consumer retail
company that sells kitchenwares and home furnishings. It is
headquartered in San Francisco, California, United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Amir Nayebdadash, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
          136 Main St Ste A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290-3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264-7880
          E-mail: amir@protectionlawgroup.com

WINN LAW GROUP: Caldera Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Winn Law Group. The
case is styled as Raymond Caldera On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Winn Law Group, Does 1-10,
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01363-JM-LL (S.D. Cal.,
July 22, 2019).

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

Winn Law Group is a debt collection law firm that provides legal
advisory services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Paul Rundquist, Esq.
     Law Office of Andrew P Rundquist
     501 W Broadway Suite A144
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 992-9148
     Email: andrew@rundquistlaw.com


XALER: Derval Moves for Certification of TCPA Class Under Rule 23
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Alex Derval, Morgan Simmons
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Xaler, A
Cooperative Corporation and DOES 1-25, Case No.
2:19-cv-01881-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), seek certification of this class
under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     All persons within the United States who had or have a
     number assigned to a cellular telephone service, who
     received at least one text message using an ATDS from
     Defendant between the date of filing this action and the
     four years preceding, where such text messages were sent and
     placed for the purpose of marketing where the recipient did
     not give their express consent to be contacted by Defendant.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and to appoint their counsel as Class Counsel.

Xaler, A Cooperative Corporation ("Xaler"), is in the business of
dealing marijuana via mobile deliveries.  Plaintiffs Alex Derval
and Morgan Simmons bring this Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") action against Xaler for its uniform policy of causing
text messages to be sent to consumers' cellular telephones on
Xaler's behalf without prior express consent.  The text messages at
issue are generic marketing messages advertising discounts on
marijuana deliveries.

The Court will commence a hearing on August 19, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          F. Jay Rahimi, Esq.
          LOS ANGELES LEGAL SOLUTIONS, APLC
          7136 Haskell Ave., Suite 333
          Van Nuys, CA 91406
          Telephone: (818) 510-0555
          Facsimile: (818) 510-0590
          E-mail: jay@LALSLaw.com

               - and -

          Sara F. Khosroabadi, Esq.
          SKB LAW OFFICE
          5190 Governor Dr., Suite 108
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 526-3053
          Facsimile: (858) 526-3052
          E-mail: sara@skblawoffice.com

               - and -

          Babak Semnar, Esq.
          Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
          Laurel N. Holmes, Esq.
          SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP
          41707 Winchester Road, Suite 201
          Temecula, CA 92590
          Telephone: (951) 293-4187
          Facsimile: (888) 819-8230
          E-mail: bob@semnarlawfirm.com
                  jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com
                  laurel@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com


ZALE DELAWARE: Leos Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Leos, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Zale Delaware, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-00829 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., May 9, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for
violations of the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay employees
wages for all hours worked, failed to provide accurate and complete
wage statements, incorrectly calculated overtime, meal and rest
premium wages and failed to provide unpaid wages timely after the
employee's termination or resignation, in violation of the
provisions of the Labor Code and Wage Orders.

The Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of California. The
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in a non-exempt position.

The Defendant is a foreign entity incorporated in Delaware, and is
authorized to do business within the State of California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
      Vincent Cranberry, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Tel: (310) 432-0000
      Fax: (310) 432-0001
      E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
              jbello@lelawfirm.com


ZAYO GROUP: Faces Shareholder Class Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm
focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on July 16
disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another law
firm on behalf of shareholders of Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. (ZAYO)
("Zayo Group" or the "Company") for possible corporate misconduct
and breach of fiduciary duty.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Andrews
& Springer LLC. If you currently own shares of Zayo Group and want
to receive additional information and protect your investments free
of charge, please visit us at
http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/zayo-group-class-action-investigation/
or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013.


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

On May 8, 2019, Zayo Group and private investment firms Digital
Colony Partners ("Digital Colony") and EQT Infrastructure IV Fund
("EQT") announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement
pursuant to which Digital Colony and EQT will acquire Zayo Group in
a merger worth $14.3 billion (the "Merger). As a result of the
Merger, Zayo Group shareholders are only anticipated to receive
$35.00 per share in cash in exchange for each share of Zayo.

A Zayo Group shareholder represented by another law firm has filed
a class action complaint against Zayo Group for federal securities
violations.  The complaint was filed in the United States District
Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 19-cv-01068-RGA.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed on June 7, 2019,
defendants filed a proxy statement (the "Proxy") with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection
with the Merger.

The Proxy omits material information with respect to the Merger,
which renders the Proxy false and misleading. Accordingly,
plaintiff seeks that the Merger should be enjoined until defendants
disclose more information to stockholders.

If you own shares of Zayo Group and want to receive additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at
http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/zayo-group-class-action-investigation/
or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013.


Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a
boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders
nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended
some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our
founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and
superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results
for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of our innovative
approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute. [GN]


ZEP LLC: Solis Suit Seeks Proper Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Abel Mateo Solis, Eliseo Chavez San Juan and Jose Ortiz Garcia,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Zep LLC
dba Zucchero E Pomodori, Eric Alam, Sayem Islam, Sam Sahir, Tarek
Doe and Nashu Doe, Case No. 1:19-cv-04230 (S.D. N.Y., May 9, 2019),
is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants required them to work in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation. Additionally, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked.

The Plaintiff Mateo worked for the Defendants from approximately
2008 until on or about April 2019. The Plaintiff Chavez was
employed by Defendants from approximately September 2018 until on
or about May 6, 2019.
The Plaintiff Ortiz was employed by Defendants from approximately
November 2016 until on or about April 28, 2019.

The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers by the Defendants
but were required to spend a considerable part of their work day
performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to
cleaning, stocking, arranging, and buying merchandise.

The Defendant Zep is an Italian restaurant, located at 1435 Second
Avenue, New York, New York 10021 under the name "Zucchero e
Pomodori".

The Defendants Alam, Islam, Sahir, Tarek Doe, and Nashu Doe, serve
or served as owners, managers, principals, or agents of the
Defendant Zep and, through this corporate entity, operate or
operated the restaurant as a joint or unified enterprise. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Fiorarancio Appeals Ruling to 3rd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sergio D. Fiorarancio filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Sergio Fiorarancio v. Zwicker & Associates,
P.C., et al., Case No. 2-18-cv-12793, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey.

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Sergio Fiorarancio v. Zwicker &
Associates, P.C., et al., Case No. 19-2569, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant SERGIO D. FIORARANCIO, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

               - and -

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com

Defendant-Appellee ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Williamson, Esq.
          BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C.
          458 Elizabeth Avenue, Suite 5371
          Somerset, NJ 08873
          Telephone: (732) 328-9480
          E-mail: mwilliamson@bn-lawyers.com



                            *********

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 ***