CAR_Public/190802.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 2, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 154

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Ramos Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Rivera Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Salina Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
3M COMPANY: Smith Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
5 STAR: Raiche Seeks Minimum Wages for Pizza Delivery Drivers

ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE: Vargas Seeks OT Pay for Sales Agents
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action Suit
ADVENTIST HEALTH: Morgan Seeks to Certify Class & Sub-Classes
ALLERGAN AUSTRALIA: Class Action Looms Over Implants
ALLIANT CREDIT: Dismissal of FAC in Overdraft Fees Suit Recommended

AMAZON.COM INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Nicosia Suit
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Unlawful Payment Alleged in Amended Class Suit
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Aug. 20 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ANTHEM INC: Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation Still Ongoing
APPLIED CARDIAC: Cardiology Clinic Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads

BEAZER HOMES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
BERKS COUNTY, PA: Appeals Ruling in Victory Suit to 3rd Circuit
BIG LOTS: Faces Farr Suit in Central District of California
BIOSCRIP INC: Faces Brennan Class Action Suit
BOEING CO: Pierce Bainbridge Files Consumer Suit Over 737 Max 8

BOEING COMPANY: 737 MAX Pilots Sue Over Undisclosed Plane Defect
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Faces Multiple Hercules-Merger Related Suits
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Ingalls Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Texas
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Bid to Remand Egg Antitrust Suit Pending
CAMBRIDGE SIERRA: Settlement in Lyter Labor Suit Has Final Approval

CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Lawsuit
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Strosberg Sasso Files Securities Class Action
CASHCALL INC: Bejune Hits Usurious Rates, Fees, Penalties on Loans
CENTENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sanchez Suit Still Pending

CENTENE CORP: Class Cert. Discovery Ongoing in Ambetter Class Suit
CHINACACHE INT'L: Schall Law Firm Investing Investors' Claims
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Suit Still Pending
CLOUDERA INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
CONNEXIONS LOYALTY: FLSA Collective Action Certification Sought

CONVERSE INC: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Chavez Suit
DELTA AIR: Bid to Certify 2 Subclasses in Freeman Suit Denied
DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Suit
DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit

DR. PEPPER: California Court Narrows Claims in Yu Suit
EDWARD D. JONES: Prevails in Reverse Churning Class-Action Suit
ENCORE BOSTON: Schuster Asserts Unjust Enrichment, Seeks Damages
ENTEGRA FINANCIAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Suit
ENVIRO-TECH SERVICES: Class Certification Denial in Frank Reversed

EROS INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Defends Patterson Class Action
FRIENDLY'S MANUFACTURING: Charles Hits False Ice Cream Labels
GAMESTOP CORP: Gilewski Suit Moved to C.D. California
GLOBAL CREDIT: Class Certification Proceedings Shelved

GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal from Workweek Suit Judgment Still Pending
GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Naranjo Class Suit Set for September 2019
HEALTH NETWORK: Dismissal of SAC in S. Sykes Suit Affirmed
HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Kinlock Remanded to NJ Superior Court
HEALTHRIGHT, LLC: Court Certifies Class of Terminated Employees

HELIUS MEDICAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
HOUSTON, TX: 5th Cir. Partly Grants Writ of Mandamus Petition
HOUSTON, TX: Appeals Decision in Hernandez Suit to Fifth Circuit
IDEANOMICS INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Suit
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action

INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
IQVIA INC: Court Nixes Bid to Dismiss SAC in TCPA Suit
JL GRAY: Mice Infestation Class Suit About to Get Bigger
KICKSTARTER PBC: Jones Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Shron Sues over Hidden Up-Front Fees

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Moodie Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
MAZDA MOTOR: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MCSS REST: Court Certifies 4 Classes in Mendez FLSA/NYLL Suit
MDL 2672: Denial of Claimants' Branded Title Claims Affirmed
MDL 2741: Strayhorn v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated

MDL 2800: Settlement Reached in Equifax Customer Data Theft Suit
MIDLAND CREDIT: Dangelo et al. Suit Moved to E.D. New York
MIDLAND CREDIT: Doke Seeks to Certify Two Classes
MONSANTO COMPANY: Baisden Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Butler Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Clays' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Clifton Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Culps' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Georges Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Jenningses' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.

MONSANTO COMPANY: Joneses' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MOVING SOLUTIONS: Court Wants Settlement Terms Modified
NALCOR ENERGY: Labrador Class Suit Over Mud Lake Damage OK'd
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Lacroix Maker Loses Out on Bid for Sanctions
NEW YORK: BOD Files 44 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit

NIKE RETAIL: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Rodriguez Suit
NKLG CAFE: Denied Castelan Overtime, Meal/Rest Breaks, Says Suit
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Approves $108MM Settlement in Knurr Suit
NOVA SKIN: Illegally Sent Marketing Texts, Kaufman TCPA Suit Says
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed

PASCO COUNTY: Squitieri, et al. Seek to Certify Class
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Minnesota
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Lopez Seeks to Certify Class
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Consolidated AMCA Breach Suits Pending
RECKITT BENCKISER: Police/Firemen Fund Hits Share Price Drop

RESOURCE ENERGY: GSSI's Bid to Decertify Class in Moresi Suit Nixed
ROYAL CANADIAN: 1,000+ Women to File Claims in $100MM Payout
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bronson et al. Seek to Certify Class
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Hamidi Suit
STAGE STORES: SMs Class in Qazi FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified

STATE COLLECTION: Summary Judgment Bid in FDCPA Suit Granted
T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan Related Suit
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: BARJO Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
TGI FRIDAYS: Man's Legal Crusade Gets Class Status on Appeal
TIER ONE: Hymes Class Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA

TINDER INC: Allison Appeals Decision in Kim Suit to Ninth Circuit
TOTAL SYSTEM: Wolf Balks at Global Payments Merger Deal
U.S. STEEL: Defrauded and Misled Investors, Suit Claims
UA LOCAL 91: Faces King Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
UMR, INC: Berceanu et al. Sue over Defective UBH Guidelines

UNITED PARCEL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Coates Class Suit
UNITED STATES: D.C. App. Affirms Class Certification in UACs Suit
VERB TECHNOLOGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit
VERB TECHNOLOGY: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
VERB TECHNOLOGY: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action

VERB TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
WHEATFIELD, NY: Bids to Dismiss SAC in E. Andres Suit Granted
WOOD-MODE INC: Ex-Employee Launches Class Action Over Pensions
YALE UNIVERSITY: Kwesell Civil Rights Suit Questions $1K HEP Fine

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1 Asbestos Suit Filed in St. Louis on July 12
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 288 Dead From Asbestos Cancer in Shropshire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,335 Bendix Claims vs. Honeywell Still Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Dies of Asbestos-related Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Highest Level of North Yorkshire Asbestos Deaths

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Faces Suits on Bendix Claims Accounting
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.6BB Bendix Liabilities at June30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.5-Bil. Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $902MM NARCO Liabilities at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa Sues Contractor Over Cedar Rapids Asbestos

ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Targets Science Behind Talc Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Told FDA in '70s Asbestos in Talc Was Safe
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recent Rulings Show Blocks to Trust Transparency
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steam Plant Owner Pleads Guilty in Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Talc Left "Fingerprint" in Travel Agent's Lungs



                            *********

3M COMPANY: Ramos Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID HERNANDEZ RAMOS, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02131-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 17,
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: Rivera Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ABIMAEL FELICIANO RIVERA, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02111-MCR-EMT (N.D. Fla., July 17,
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: Salina Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, CARLOS A. SALINA, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02132-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 17,
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: Smith Sues over Defective Combat Arms Earplugs
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, KORDARO SMITH, the Plaintiff, vs. 3M COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-02133-MCR-GRJ (N.D. Fla., July 17,
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


5 STAR: Raiche Seeks Minimum Wages for Pizza Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAYCOB RAICHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. 5 STAR PIZZA, LLC D/B/A "Domino's
Pizza" and SUSAN L. GRAVES, the Defendants, Case No. 0:19-cv-01895
(D. Minn., July 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
owed to the Plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers
employed by Defendants at their Domino's Pizza stores, pursuant to
the the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Minnesota Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants operate approximately
over 100 Domino's Pizza franchise stores throughout Minnesota,
Wisconsin, West Virginia, Iowa, and Kentucky. The Defendants employ
delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizzas
and other food items to their customers.

The Defendants use a formula to determine the amount of
reimbursement due to drivers for the use of drivers' personal
vehicles. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonable costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants
use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates, providing
drivers with an unreasonably low rate of reimbursement, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Adam W. Hansen, Esq.
          APOLLO LAW LLC
          3217 Hennepin Avenue South, Suite 7
          Minneapolis, MN 55408
          Telephone: (612) 927-2969
          Facsimile: (419) 793-1804
          E-mail: adam@apollo-law.com

               - and -

          Jay Forester, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          1701 North Market Street, Suite 210
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909 fax
          E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com

ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE: Vargas Seeks OT Pay for Sales Agents
----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT VARGAS, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE AGENCY OF
TENNESSEE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00611 (M.D. Tenn.,
July 18, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is an hourly-paid, non-exempt Insurance Sales Agent
employed by Defendant.

The Defendant willfully violated the FLSA's overtime requirements
by failing to pay hourly-paid Insurance Sales Agents for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek, including hours that they
reported into Defendants' timekeeping system.

The Defendant provides personal automobile insurance with
approximately 369 retail locations in 17 states.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          Justin G. Day, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865)-522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  justin@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

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

ACER THERAPEUTICS: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Acer Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq:  ACER) on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Acer securities between September
25, 2017 and June 24, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Important Deadline:  Investors who purchased Acer securities during
the Class Period may, no later than August 30, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For
additional information or to learn how to participate in this
litigation please visit
www.ktmc.com/acer-therapeutics-inc-securities-class-action

According to the complaint, Acer is a pharmaceutical company that
focuses on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of
therapies for serious rare and life-threatening diseases. Acer's
pipeline includes, inter alia, EDSIVO (celiprolol) for the
treatment of vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome ("vEDS") in patients
with a confirmed type III collagen mutation. vEDS is a rare disease
known to cause abnormal fragility in blood vessels, causing
aneurysms, arteriovenous fistulas, arterial dissections, and
spontaneous vascular ruptures, all of which are potentially
life-threatening.  In 2004, the French research hospital,
Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, Hopital Europeen Georges
Pompidou ("AP-HP"), published data on vEDS patients. Based on
AP-HP's research, investigators began assessing the preventive
effect of celiprolol for major cardiovascular events in patients
suffering from vEDS "through a multicenter, prospective,
randomized, open trial with blinded evaluation of clinical events"
(the "Ong Trial"). The Ong Trial was composed of fifty-three
participants "randomized at eight centers in France and one center
in Belgium." On December 13, 2016, Acer Therapeutics Inc. ("Private
Acer") -- a private Delaware corporation and Acer's predecessor --
issued a press release announcing that it had signed an agreement
with AP-HP, which granted exclusive rights to access and use data
from the Ong Trial. Private Acer announced it would use this data
to support its New Drug Application ("NDA") for celiprolol in the
treatment of vEDS.

The Class Period commences on September 25, 2017, when Acer issued
a press release announcing "Positive Results From Pivotal Clinical
Trial of EDSIVO" for the treatment of vEDS.

According to the complaint, on June 25, 2019, Acer issued a press
release disclosing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") rejected Acer's NDA for EDSIVO. The press release cited the
need for an "adequate and well-controlled trial" evaluating
EDSIVO's effectiveness in reducing the risk of clinical events in
patients with vEDS.  That same day, Reuters published an article
titled "FDA declines to approve Acer Therapeutics' rare genetic
disorder treatment." In discussing the FDA's rejection of Acer's
NDA, the article noted how "[t]he small group size" of the Ong
Trial had "raised questions among experts about the adequacy of the
trial results."  Following this news, Acer's stock price fell
$15.16 per share, or 78.63%, to close at $4.12 per share on June
25, 2019.

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

If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 887-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667–7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.

Acer investors may, no later than August 30, 2019, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Toll Free: (844) 887-9500
                    (610) 667-7706
         Website: www.ktmc.com
         Email: info@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


ADVENTIST HEALTH: Morgan Seeks to Certify Class & Sub-Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ANGELA MORGAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM SUNBELT, INC. d/b/a FLORIDA HOSPITAL
ORLANDO, MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., NORTH AMERICAN CREDITSERVICES,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-01342-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying these
class and sub-classes:

   Florida Hospital Class:

   "(1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
   telephone number (3) Florida Hospital or anyone acting on its
   behalf placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) using
   substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone
   Plaintiff or a prerecorded or artificial voice (5) from
   August 16, 2014 through the present and (6) where any
   Defendant's records note said telephone number was a wrong
   number and/or not to call";

   MSI Sub-Class:

   "(1) all persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
   telephone number (3) MSI placed a non-emergency telephone
   call relating to a Florida Hospital debt (4) using
   substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone
   Plaintiff or a prerecorded or artificial voice (5) from
   August 16, 2014 through the present and (6) where any
   Defendant's records note said telephone number was a wrong
   number and/or not to call"; and

   NACS Sub-Class

   "(1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
   telephone number (3) NACS placed a non-emergency telephone
   call relating to a Florida Hospital debt (4) using
   substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone
   Plaintiff or a prerecorded or artificial voice (5) from
   August 16, 2014 through the present and (6) where any
   Defendant's records note said telephone number was a wrong
   number and/or not to call."

The lawsuit alleges that Florida Hospital knew its debt collectors
are calling wrong numbers, but not having a single policy or
practice to prevent these calls because it is faster and cheaper to
feed all of the numbers into a robodialer and hit "go" than it is
to pay employees to first place manual calls confirming each number
is that of an actual debtor. The suit alleges violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Putative Class are:

          Theodore H. Kuyper, Esq.
          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
                  tkuyper@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Heather H. Jones, Esq.
          William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
          The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC
          4030 Henderson Blvd.
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Telephone: (813) 500-1500
          Facsimile: (813) 435-2369
          E-mail: Heather@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                  Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

ALLERGAN AUSTRALIA: Class Action Looms Over Implants
----------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Gredley, writing for Yahoo News, reports that the
possibility of a class action lawsuit looms against the
manufacturer of textured breast implants over their apparent links
to a rare form of cancer.

Law firm Slater and Gordon has been approached by dozens of women
with the implants who have been diagnosed with the rare cancer.

Slater and Gordon's Andrew Baker, Esq., said a decision would be
made on whether to proceed with a class action lawsuit in coming
months based on the similarity of the women's cases.

They may instead be advised to pursue individual legal cases.

The class action would be against the manufacturers of the
implants, Allergan Australia.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration is weighing up whether to
cancel, suspend or recall the implants after a review of the
apparent association between anaplastic large cell lymphoma and
some implants.

Federal Health Minister Greg Hunt said the government supported the
TGA's proposed action.

Some textured implants have been banned in France and Canada since
April.

But Australia's peak body for cosmetic surgeons said there was "no
cause for alarm", urging people with textured breast implants to
consider all evidence before taking action.

The Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery said the risks of
developing a cancer that spreads was extremely small.

"If patients do not have any symptoms, there is no need for any
action because of this TGA announcement," the body said.

As of April, the TGA had received 76 reports of anaplastic large
cell lymphoma associated with breast implants in Australian women.

The estimated risk of breast implant-associated lymphoma is between
one in 1000 and one in 10,000.

But Mr Baker said the statistics were "cold comfort" for women who
have been affected by the condition.

"If there is a risk that's known about a product like this, it
needs to be disclosed to patients so they can make an informed
choice about the products that are put into their bodies," Mr Baker
told AAP.

He said the women who approached the law firm were not told about
the possible risks of the product, so were not able to choose
alternative implants.

Allergan Australia said it was reviewing the TGA action in relation
to its Natrelle Biocell textured breast implants and tissue
expanders, but that it stands behind its products.

The company said there was no recommendation from any health
authority, including the TGA, for patients with no symptoms to have
their textured breast implants removed or replaced as a preventive
measure. [GN]


ALLIANT CREDIT: Dismissal of FAC in Overdraft Fees Suit Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALICIA M. PAGE, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANT CREDIT UNION, and
DOES 1-100, Defendants, Civ. No. 2:18-cv-11481 (SDW)(CLW)(D. N.J.),
Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey recommended that the Court grants the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.

The case is a putative class action first filed by Page on July 10,
2018, challenging the practice of Defendant Alliant Credit Union
("ACU") and DOES 1 through 100 ("Defendant") to charge overdraft
fees when member accounts have sufficient funds to cover
transactions.  Page brought claims for breach of contract (Counts I
and II), breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
(Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), money had and received
(Count V), violation of Regulation E of the Electronic Fund
Transfers Act ("EFTA") (Count VI), and violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act (Count VII).

On Nov. 6, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of Article III jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and on
separate grounds under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  On Nov. 19, 2019,
Page amended her original complaint, adding two new named
Plaintiffs as class representatives, Carmel Cooper and Cindy
Muniz.

Page is a resident of New Jersey who alleges that she suffered
improper non-sufficient funds imposed on her by the Defendant.
Cooper is a resident of California and alleges that she suffered
improper overdraft fees imposed on her by the Defendant.  Muniz is
a resident of Arizona and alleges that she suffered improper
overdraft fees imposed on her by the Defendant.  The Defendant is
an Illinois state-charted credit union with branch offices located
across the country, including in New Jersey.

The case is similar to dozens of putative class actions filed in
both federal and state courts across the country challenging the
banking practice of using a customer's "available" balance rather
than the customer's actual or "ledger" balance to prompt an
overdraft or non-sufficient funds fee.  The "ledger" balance or
"actual" balance refers to the full amount of all deposits in an
account. Whereas, the "available" balance of an account is
calculated by deducting pending debits and deposit holds.
Consequently, the "available" balance can be lower than the
"ledger" balance in an account.

These class actions challenge the banks' practice of charging fees
based on the "available" balance even when there is enough money in
the account under the "ledger" balance to cover the transaction
presented for payment.  The Plaintiffs argue that this practice,
which they allege the Defendant participates in, is inconsistent
with how Defendant describes the circumstances under which
overdraft fees are assessed in the Account Contract and Opt-In
Contract, the latter of which describes Defendant's overdraft
policies as required by Regulation E of EFTA.

Plaintiff Page, in her Original Complaint, alleged that the Court
had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 based
on the one claim of a violation of Regulation E, a federal law.
fter Page amended her complaint to include Cooper and Muniz, the
Plaintiffs alleged subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1331 and 1332.

On Dec. 20, 2018, the Defendant moved again to dismiss for lack of
Article III jurisdiction pursuant to 12(b)(1) and lack of personal
jurisdiction under 12(b)(2).   The Defendant contends that the
Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction at the time the
Plaintiff Page's original complaint was filed, and therefore, has
no subject matter jurisdiction now even with a new complaint.  The
Defendant also challenges the Court's alleged personal jurisdiction
under Rule 12(b)(2) over the Defendant, whose principal place of
business and place of incorporation is Illinois.

Because the Plaintiffs have produced no evidence that these are the
fees for which Page incurred nor do they dispute the Defendant's
evidence that none of Page's fees resulted from ATM and one-time
debit transactions, Magistrate Judge Waldor finds that the
Plaintiffs failed to articulate sufficient facts to show that the
injury that Page incurred was a result of the Defendant's alleged
Opt-In Rule violation, and thus lacked standing to bring Count VI,
her only federal claim, in her Original Complaint.

Because the Plaintiffs need only plead the requisite amount in
controversy on the face of the complaint to satisfy diversity
jurisdiction and because she sees no reasons such as undue delay or
bad faith to deny an amendment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2), the
Magistrate finds that Section 1653 permits the Plaintiff to file a
second amended complaint.  Therefore, she recommends granting the
Motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but keeping the case
open for thirty days to allow the Plaintiffs to file a second
amended complaint, which, in good faith, will sufficiently plead
the Court's jurisdiction.  Failure to do so will result in
dismissal.

Most relevant to the question at hand are the cases the Plaintiffs
cite that ask whether in a class action a court that has specific
personal jurisdiction over the defendant as to a particular claim
by one plaintiff can exercise personal jurisdiction as to similar
claims brought by different plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs cited Sloan
v. General Motors LLC, and Allen v. ConAgra Foods, Inc.  In both
cases, judges in the Northern District of California decided to
extend the "pendent-party jurisdiction" doctrine of Action
Embroidery to class actions in the wake of Bristol-Myers Squibb v.
Superior Court of California, in which the Supreme Court concluded
that a California state court lacked personal jurisdiction over the
defendant when it came to claims by nonresidents in a mass action
tort suit.  

However, the Third Circuit has not recognized a pendent party
doctrine beyond the limited circumstances of the nationwide service
of process and pendent claim personal jurisdiction context of
Robinson, and the Magistrate declines to do so at this time given
the existence of an alternative forum to which the Plaintiffs have
agreed to transfer and that would resolve the personal jurisdiction
question.

Finally, the Magistrate finds that a transfer of the case to the
Northern District of Illinois pursuant to Section 1404(a) and
Section 1631 will promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive
determination of these proceedings.  First, in personam
jurisdiction is proper in Illinois because that is where the
Defendant is incorporated and has its principal place of business
and thus could have been brought there at the time it was filed.
Second, the Plaintiffs are willing to proceed in Illinois instead
of New Jersey.  Third, the circumstances weigh heavily in favor of
transfer to the Northern District of Illinois.

Because the Defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in
New Jersey with respect to Cooper and Muniz's claims, if the action
were to proceed in the District, Cooper and Muniz's claims would
need to be dismissed and refiled in another state.  This would
require the same issues to be litigated against the same defendant
in more than one place.  Finally, an alternative proper venue
exists, the Northern District of Illinois, where all of the claims
of Plaintiffs can be litigated against Defendant and one where
Defendant would be subject to jurisdiction.  Therefore, the
Magistrate finds that the interests of justice and judicial economy
compel recommending that the transfer of the entire action to the
Northern District of Illinois, where personal jurisdiction may
exist over Defendant.

For the foregoing reasons, Magistrate Judge Waldor recommended that
(1) the Motion to Dismiss be granted, (2) the case be kept open for
30 days following the adoption of the Report and Recommendation to
allow the Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint to address
the CAFA jurisdictional defects with the failure to do so resulting
in a dismissal of the case, and (3) the case be transferred to the
Northern District of Illinois.

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(c)(2), the parties have 14 days from
the date this report is filed with the Clerk of the Court to file
and serve objections to the Report and Recommendation.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/8828Qe from
Leagle.com.

ALICIA M. PAGE, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, CARMEL COOPER & CINDY MUNIZ, Individually, and on behalf
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by KEVIN
PETER RODDY -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER,
PA.

ALLIANT CREDIT UNION, Defendant, represented by JONATHAN ROTENBERG
, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP.


AMAZON.COM INC: Can Compel Arbitration in Nicosia Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DEAN NICOSIA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 14-CV-4513 (ILG) (LB) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge I. Leo Glasser of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted
Amazon's (i) motion to compel arbitration, and (ii) motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's claims.

On Jan. 30, 2013 and April 19, 2013, Nicosia went on Amazon.com and
placed orders of 1 Day Diet, a product marketed as a weight-loss
supplement, which contained the harmful compound sibutramine.  The
account from which these purchases were made was held in his wife's
name and was previously enrolled in a program called "Amazon Mom."
To enroll in Amazon Mom, a user must accept the "Amazon Prime Terms
and Conditions," which incorporate an arbitration provision.

The Plaintiff subsequently brought a putative class action against
Amazon, asserting that Amazon's sales of 1 Day Diet violated the
Consumer Product Safety Act, and state law, on July 28, 2014.  On
Dec. 24, 2014, Amazon moved to dismiss on the grounds that, inter
alia, tge Plaintiff agreed to the Amazon's Conditions of Use with
each purchase at issue in the case.

On Feb. 2, 2015, the Hon. Sandra L. Townes granted Amazon's motion
to dismiss, finding that all of the Plaintiff's claims are subject
to mandatory arbitration.  Judge Townes' decision was based
primarily on the theory that the Plaintiff consented to the
Conditions of Use, including the arbitration provision, when he
made his purchases through the Amazon.com checkout page. Amazon did
not raise in its motion to dismiss, and Judge Townes therefore did
not consider, whether the arbitration clause applied by virtue of
the Account's previous enrollments in Amazon Mom and/or Amazon
Prime.

On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with Amazon and the
District Court that the format of the checkout page was sufficient,
as a matter of law, to bind the Plaintiff to the Conditions of Use.
At the same time, the Court of Appeals rejected the Plaintiff's
invitation to declare as a matter of law that no arbitration
agreement was formed. Instead, the Second Circuit found that
"reasonable minds could disagree" as to whether the checkout page
"provided reasonably conspicuous notice" of the Conditions of Use,
so as to bind Plaintiff to the arbitration provisions set forth
therein.  The Court of Appeals' reasoning makes it clear that the
Court regarded "the reasonableness of notice" on the checkout page
to be a question of fact that must be resolved by a jury.

After discovery, Amazon brought the motion to compel arbitration
and dismiss or, in the alternative, stay these proceedings.  The
matter was referred to the Hon. Lois Bloom pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, who issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that
Amazon's motion be granted.

In support of its motion, Amazon argued that the Plaintiff was
bound by the Prime T&C because Annemarie's Account, from which the
purchases were made, had enrolled in Amazon Mom and Amazon Prime.
Amazon styled this argument as its "derivative rights" theory.  The
R&R did not make a definitive recommendation with respect to
Amazon's "derivative rights" theory.  Instead, the R&R recommended
that the motion be granted on the grounds that the Plaintiff agreed
to the COU directly through the checkout page.

Specifically, the R&R accepted Amazon's argument that the Plaintiff
agreed to the COU by making purchases after the lawsuit was
commenced, and hence after he acquired actual notice of the fact
that the COU incorporated an arbitration provision.  Alternatively,
the R&R accepted Amazon's argument that the Plaintiff was on
constructive notice of the COU by virtue of his status as a
repeated user of Amazon who frequently encountered the checkout
page when shopping online.

The Plaintiff timely objected to the R&R, although he did not
specifically object to the R&R's treatment of Amazon's "derivative
rights theory."  Amazon reasserted its "derivative rights" argument
in its statement in support of the R&R and reply memorandum to
Plaintiff's objections.

Judge Glasser holds that the conclusion that arbitration should
prevail was arrived at within the legal framework set forth by the
Court of Appeals, namely, whether a reasonably prudent internet
user would have notice of Amazon's Conditions of Use.  The
conclusion is reached after substantial research and discussion of
the cases and relevant literature summoned in the struggle created
by the advent of the internet—the struggle to make the common law
of contracts applicable when people interacted with people in the
commercial world, fit comfortably in a time when people interact
with machines in that world and with each other.

However, the rule that the "existence" of additional contract terms
must be made "reasonably conspicuous" is, the Court submits,
largely a superfluity.  The cases specify that such terms must be
reasonably conspicuous from the point of view of a "reasonably
prudent" user.  But the question now is whether there is any
question that reasonably prudent internet users know that there are
terms and conditions attached when they log onto Facebook, order
merchandise on Amazon, or hail a ride on Uber.  They know this, not
because a loud, brightly-colored notice on the screen tells them
so, but because it would be difficult to exist in the technological
society without some generalized awareness of the fact.

It could be argued that the purpose of providing "reasonably
conspicuous" notice of the hyperlinked terms is not merely to
notify the user that these terms exist, but to encourage him or her
to read them. But most consumers will not read the terms and
conditions, no matter how prominently the notice is displayed, and
those that do will usually not understand them.  Among those that
both read and understand the terms of use, most will proceed with
the transaction anyway, because the terms are presented on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis.  The "reasonably conspicuous" notice
rule is therefore one which is unlikely to have much effect, if
any, on overall consumer welfare.

The puzzle, then, is this.  On the one hand, the law cannot
countenance an environment where unscrupulous merchants are able to
insert any contractual term they wish into the hybridwrap agreement
and expect automatic enforcement.  On the other hand, a legal rule
which merely exalts the form and visual layout of the hybridwrap
agreement, incentivizing merchants to adopt some judicially-favored
website designs while foregoing others, is unlikely to have more
than a negligible impact on the way buyers and sellers contract
over the internet.

The Judge suggests that Llewellyn had the answer: rather than
scrutinizing hybridwrap agreements for contract formation issues,
courts should recognize that such agreements, like other adhesive
contracts, represent in substance a "blanket assent" to any terms
that are not objectively unreasonable.  Accepting this framework,
such terms should be rigorously scrutinized for substantive
unreasonableness, perhaps to a greater degree than they have been
subjected thus far.  True, where an arbitration agreement is
concerned, a court's latitude to declare certain provisions
unconscionable, such as class arbitration waivers, is heavily
circumscribed by the FAA, as interpreted by the nation's highest
Court.  But as a general principle, a judicial approach which
shifts the inquiry away from the formal trappings of the contract,
e.g., notice and acceptance, to the substance of its terms, will
much more readily honor the merchant's legitimate commercial
expectations while safeguarding the consumer from abuse.

Experience, not logic, has taught that a purchase on the internet
is determined by rules different from a purchase of milk at the
corner grocery, a thought expressed more simply and vividly by
Judge Cardozo in MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

For the reasons set forth in the previous sections and the R&R as
adopted, Judge Glasser granted Amazon's (i) motion to compel
arbitration, and (ii) motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/bi5rqp from Leagle.com.

Dean Nicosia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory S. Duncan --
greg@lawyerduncan.com -- Office of Gregory S. Duncan, pro hac vice,
Joseph S. Tusa , Tusa, P.C., Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr. --
pstphillip@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Scott Vincent Papp
-- spapp@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenbery P.C., Paula M. Roach --
pbrown@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, pro hac vice &
Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon
LLP, pro hac vice.

Amazon.com, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Abraham Snider,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Ezra D. Church --
ezra.church@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Gregory
T. Parks -- gregory.parks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Jacqueline Gorbey --
jacqueline.gorbey@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
pro hac vice, Kevin T. Rover, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Regina
Schaffer-Goldman -- regina.schaffer-goldman@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.


AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Unlawful Payment Alleged in Amended Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that an
amended complaint was filed in a class-action complaint against
AmerisourceBergen for alleged unlawful payments to a Morgantown
doctor.

The amended complaint also lists U.S. BioServices Corp., I.g.G. of
America Inc., and IHS Acquisition XXX Inc.

Frances G. Post claims the defendants began making payments to Dr.
Felix Brizuela in 2012 that were unlawful, wrongful, violated
written policies, violated ethical standards, and placed the
health, safety and well-being of Post and other putative class
members at risk.

The payments continued until 2015, according to the suit, with
Brizuela performing no services for the defendants to earn the
payments other than increasing the number of new book immunoglobin
(IVIG) transactions for the defendants.

The defendants "greatly incentivized the aggressive sales of IVIG"
because they were aware that once someone was prescribed IVIG, they
usually would stay on the infusions the remainder of their life;
IVIG was very expensive; and because the defendants "devised an
internal practice which enabled defendants to secretly under-report
and under-pay bonus commissions on IVIG sales for the purpose of
bolstering corporate profits" according to the suit.

IVIG prices quickly rose and the complaint states executives would
receive bonus commissions in excess of $900,000.

"Defendants knew (Brizuela) was making CIDP diagnoses to trigger
the sale of IVIG at an incident rate exponentially higher than any
rate published in peer review studies, higher than any other
prescribers, and that (Brizuela)'s documentation in the possession
of defendants did not support new book IVIG transactions," the
complaint states.

Post claims the defendants were negligent, caused personal injuries
and constituted civil conspiracy, fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment and breach of confidentiality.

Post is seeking compensatory and punitive damages in excess of $5
million. She is represented by William Tiano, ESq., Tony O'Dell,
Esq. and Cheryl Fisher, Esq. of Tiano O'Dell.

The amended complaint added the breach of confidentiality counts.
The original complaint, which was filed in April, only listed
negligence, personal injury, civil conspiracy,  fraudulent
concealment and unjust enrichment.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia case
number 1:19-cv-00073 [GN]


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Aug. 20 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV (NYSE:
BUD) from March 1, 2018 through October 24, 2018, inclusive (the
"Class Period") of the important August 20, 2019 deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Anheuser-Busch investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Anheuser-Busch class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1607.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) defendants' cost cutting measures had largely run their
course; (2) the devaluation of key emerging market currencies and
input cost inflation was having a material adverse effect on
Anheuser-Busch's margins, EBITDA and profitability; (3)
Anheuser-Busch had been experiencing less than expected growth and
profits in certain key markets; (4) Anheuser-Busch was not going to
be able to maintain its then current dividend and still meet its
deleveraging targets; (5) Anheuser-Busch was at risk of having its
credit ratings downgraded; (6) as a result, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company's
dividend growth, its cost synergies, its liquidity, and defendants'
then current efforts to deleverage Anheuser-Busch's balance sheet;
(7) the liquidity and working capital disclosures in filings
Anheuser-Busch made with the SEC were materially false and
misleading; (8) the risk factor disclosures in filings
Anheuser-Busch made with the SEC were materially false and
misleading; (9) the representations about Anheuser-Busch's
disclosure controls in filings the Company made with the SEC were
materially false and misleading; (10) the certifications issued by
Defendants Carlos Brito and Felipe Dutra regarding Anheuser-Busch's
disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting
were materially false and misleading; and (11) based on the
foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about Anheuser-Busch's then-current business operations
and future financial prospects. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 20,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1607.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.

Contact:

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


ANTHEM INC: Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation Still Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend itself
against a consolidated class action suit entitled, In Re Express
Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation.

The company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was
initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express
Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district
lawsuit captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express
Scripts and the company on behalf of all persons who are
participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA
healthcare plan from December 1, 2009 to the present in which we
provided prescription drug benefits through the ESI PBM Agreement
and paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of
using that prescription drug benefit.

The plaintiffs allege that the company breached its duties, either
under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by failing to
adequately monitor Express Scripts' pricing under the ESI PBM
Agreement and (ii) by placing our own pecuniary interest above the
best interests of the company's insureds by allegedly agreeing to
higher pricing in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for the
purchase price for our NextRx PBM business, and (iii) with respect
to the non-ERISA members, by negotiating and entering into the ESI
PBM Agreement that was allegedly detrimental to the interests of
such non-ERISA members.

Plaintiffs seek to hold us and Express Scripts jointly and
severally liable and to recover all losses suffered by the proposed
class, equitable relief, disgorgement of alleged ill-gotten gains,
injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs and interest.

In April 2017, the company filed a motion to dismiss the claims
brought against it, and it was granted, without prejudice, in
January 2018. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was heard in
October 2018.

Anthem said, "We intend to vigorously defend this suit; however,
its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Commercial & Specialty Business, Government Business, and
Other. The company was formerly known as WellPoint, Inc. and
changed its name to Anthem, Inc. in December 2014. Anthem, Inc. was
founded in 1944 and is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


APPLIED CARDIAC: Cardiology Clinic Sues Over Unsolicited Faxed Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cardiology Associates Medical Group, Inc., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff,
v. Applied Cardiac Systems, Inc., a California corporation and ACS
Diagnostics, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-01372 (C.D. Cal.,
July 15, 2019), seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

Defendants are medical equipment companies who sent unsolicited
faxed ads to the Plaintiff offering their products and services
without consent.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     John R. Habashy, Esq.
     LEXICON LAW, PC
     633 W. Fifth St., 28th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: 213-233-5900
     Fax: 888-373-2107
     Email: john@lexiconlaw.com

            - and -

     Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
     ANDERSON + WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Telephone: (847) 368-1500
     Fax: (847) 368-1501
     Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


BEAZER HOMES: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Beazer Homes USA, Inc. (NYSE: BZH)
from August 1, 2014 through May 2, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period") of the important August 5, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in
the securities class action lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Beazer investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Beazer class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1592.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) Beazer's California assets classified as land held for
future development were deteriorating in value or improperly
valuated; (2) the foregoing created a foreseeable risk of an
eventual substantial impairment that would negatively impact
Beazer's profitability; and (3) as a result, Beazer's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 5,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1592.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 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.

Contact:

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


BERKS COUNTY, PA: Appeals Ruling in Victory Suit to 3rd Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Kevin S. Barnhardt, County of Berks, Christian Y.
Leinbach, Janine Quigley, Mark C. Scott and Stephanie Smith filed
an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Theresa
Victory, et al. v. County of Berks, et al., Case No. 5-18-cv-05170,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is styled Theresa Victory, et al. v. County of
Berks, et al., Case No. 19-2648, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 24, 2019, the
County of Berks filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is captioned as Theresa Victory, et al. v.
County of Berks, Case No. 19-2193.

The Hon. Mark A. Kearney previously denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification in the lawsuit.

The Renewed Motion is denied without prejudice to be renewed under
a scheduling Order after the issues necessary to be resolved on
either an individual or class basis is defined, but nothing in the
Order affects the Plaintiffs' abilities or standing to seek
injunctive or declaratory relief as to their status, according to
the Order.

The Plaintiffs sought certification of this class:

     All current and future female inmates committed to the Berks
     County Jail System who have the Trusty custody-level
     classification and/or Work Release status but have been
     denied assignment to the Community Reentry Center ("CRC")
     and denied access to the privileges, services, and programs
     available to men assigned to the CRC.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees THERESA VICTORY, ALICE VELAZQUEZ DIAZ and
ANABELL DEALBA, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, are represented
by:

          James P. Davy, Esq.
          2362 East Harold Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19125
          Telephone: (609) 273-5008

               - and -

          Matthew A. Feldman, Esq.
          Angus R. Love, Esq.
          Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
          PENNSYLVANIA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
          718 Arch Street
          Suite 304 South
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-2966
          E-mail: mfeldman@pailp.org
                  alove@pailp.org
                  smyeh@pailp.org

Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF BERKS, KEVIN S. BARNHARDT,
CHRISTIAN Y. LEINBACH, MARK C. SCOTT, WARDEN JANINE QUIGLEY, DEPUTY
WARDEN STEPHANIE SMITH, SERGEANT SPOTTS, C.O. REICHART, C.O. ZERR
and C.O. BROWN are represented by:

          Matthew J. Connell, Esq.
          Samantha Ryan, Esq.
          MACMAIN LAW GROUP
          433 West Market Street, Suite 200
          West Chester, PA 19382
          Telephone: (484) 318-7106
          E-mail: mconnell@macmainlaw.com
                  SRyan@macmainlaw.com


BIG LOTS: Faces Farr Suit in Central District of California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Lots Stores, Inc.
The case is captioned as James Farr, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Big Lots Stores,
Inc., an Ohio corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-05980-VAP-PLA (C.D. Cal., July 11, 2019). The suit
alleges violation of Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia A. Phillips.

Big Lots is an American retail company headquartered in Columbus,
Ohio with over 1,400 stores in 47 states.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
          Babak Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com

BIOSCRIP INC: Faces Brennan Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------
BioScrip, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on July 24, 2019, that the company is
facing a putative class action suit entitled, Lila Brennan v.
BioScrip, Inc. et al.

On June 27, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Lila
Brennan v. BioScrip, Inc. et al., was filed in connection with the
merger (HC Group Holdings II, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Option
Care") with and into a wholly-owned subsidiary of BioScrip, with
Option Care surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
BioScrip) in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado.

The complaint names BioScrip and the members of the BioScrip Board
as defendants.

The complaint alleges generally that the defendants caused BioScrip
to file a definitive proxy statement relating to the merger that
omits material information required to have been disclosed in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint seeks, among other things, a preliminary injunction
prohibiting defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the transaction, damages, and costs incurred in bringing
the action (including plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees).

BioScrip, Inc., incorporated on March 22, 1996, is engaged in
providing infusion solutions. The Company partners with physicians,
hospital systems, skilled nursing facilities, healthcare payors and
pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide patients access to
post-acute care services. The Company operates through Infusion
Services segment. The Company operates through approximately 70
service locations in over 30 states. The Company offers home
infusion services to provide clinical management services and the
delivery of prescription medications. The company is based in
Denver, Colorado.


BOEING CO: Pierce Bainbridge Files Consumer Suit Over 737 Max 8
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP has filed a civil RICO and
consumer fraud class action lawsuit against Southwest Airlines, Co.
and The Boeing Company ("Boeing") on behalf of individuals who
purchased tickets for air travel in the wake of the tragic Boeing
737 Max 8 crashes.

The lawsuit alleges that Boeing and Southwest worked together to
conceal that the MAX 8 was defective and that this defect was
likely to (and did) result in computer-induced crashes.  Southwest
sold tickets on its airline knowing about this defect, and both
companies remained silent about problems with the aircraft while
publicly touting its safety.

"People purchase tickets on airlines that fly safe planes," said
Yavar Bathaee, the lead trial lawyer in the lawsuit.  "A ticket to
fly with an airline that lies to you is not a full fare ticket—in
fact, it's probably worth zero."

As the complaint launching the lawsuit further alleges, the MAX 8
was defective from its inception.  Its flight control system was
designed without obviously necessary redundancies, and Boeing's
flawed design relied on onerous, incompletely documented procedures
that required pilots to rapidly disable entire systems on the
aircraft to override a rogue flight computer.  

The lawsuit alleges that the purpose of Boeing and Southwest's
coverup of the problems was to preserve their decades-long
collusive relationship, which, since a handshake deal between the
CEOs in the late 90s, has meant that Southwest receives the lowest
prices on new aircraft in exchange for flying only Boeing 737s and
backstopping Boeing's business.  

"The evidence here is really quite troubling.  Southwest and Boeing
worked together to deceive customers, regulators, and their own
employees," said Brian Dunne, another attorney on the case.  "It's
clear that both companies knew about the defects -- doubly so after
the first crash.  There was simply no excuse to keep those planes
in the air."  

If you purchased a ticket for air travel between August 29, 2017
and March 13, 2019 and you wish to discuss your rights with our
attorneys please:

Visit: Website: http://www.max8classaction.com[GN]


BOEING COMPANY: 737 MAX Pilots Sue Over Undisclosed Plane Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilot "A," individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Boeing Company, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH08278, (Ill. Cir., July 15, 2019) seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, interest, litigation costs and attorneys' fees
and such other and further relief resulting from negligence.

Pilots seek compensation on behalf of approximately two hundred
pilots qualified to fly Boeing's 737 MAX series of aircraft whose
personal and professional life were disrupted when Boeing and the
Federal Aviation Administration grounded the 737 MAX after the
crashes of two of its 737 MAX aircrafts. Its "Maneuvering
Characteristics Augmentation System" allegedly was allegedly
defective but failed to sufficiently inform the pilots. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick M. Jones, Esq.
      Sarah M. Beaujour, Esq.
      PMJPLLC
      100 South State Street
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 255-7976
      Email: pmj@patjonespllc.com
             smb@patjonespllc.com

             - and -

      Joseph C. Wheeler, Esq.
      IALPG PTY LTD ID, 7/139 Junction Road
      Clayfield, Queensland, Australia 4011
      Tel: +61 7 3040 1099
      Email: jwheeler@ialpg.com


BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Faces Multiple Hercules-Merger Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Buckeye Partners, L.P. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 22, 2019, that the
company has been named as a defendant in multiple class action
suits related to its merger with Hercules Intermediate Holdings
LLC.

On May 10, 2019, Buckeye Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership" or
"Buckeye"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"merger agreement") with Hercules Intermediate Holdings LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), Hercules Merger Sub
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), Buckeye Pipe Line Services
Company, a Pennsylvania corporation ("ServiceCo"), and Buckeye GP
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and the general partner
of the Partnership (the "General Partner").

Subject to the terms and conditions of the merger agreement, Merger
Sub will be merged with and into the Partnership (the "merger"),
with the Partnership surviving the merger as a subsidiary of
Parent.

Since the May 10, 2019 announcement of the merger agreement, six
putative class action complaints and two individual complaints have
been filed against Buckeye and the members of the board of
directors of the General Partner (the "Board").

The eight complaints are captioned as follows: Harry Curtis,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-2147 (filed on
June 13, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, the "Curtis Action"), Michael
Kent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01128 (filed on
June 18, 2019 in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware, the "Kent Action"), John Greer v. Buckeye Partners,
L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05741 (filed on June 19, 2019 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
the "Greer Action"), Anthony Luers v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-05767 (filed on June 20, 2019 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the
"Luers Action"), Michael Weston, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case
No. 1:19-cv-01208 (filed on June 26, 2019 in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware, the "Weston Action"),
Heather McManus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06000
(filed on June 26, 2019 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, the "McManus Action"), John Ingalls,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Buckeye Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06098 (filed on
June 28, 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, the "Ingalls Action") and Michael Riss, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Buckeye
Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01241 (filed on June 28,
2019 in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware, the "Riss Action", collectively with the Curtis Action,
the Kent Action, the Greer Action, the Luers Action, the Weston
Action, the MaManus Action and the Ingalls Action, the :Federal
Merger Litigation").

The Curtis Action alleges, among other things, that in pursuing the
merger, the Board breached its express and implied contractual
duties pursuant to the Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership of the Partnership dated as of November 19, 2010, as
amended, and its fiduciary duties to the unitholders of the
Partnership in agreeing to enter into the merger agreement by means
of an allegedly unfair process and for an allegedly unfair price.

Each of the Federal Merger Litigation further alleges that (i) the
Partnership's definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2019 (the "proxy statement"),
omits material information with respect to the merger, rendering it
false and misleading and, as a result, that the Partnership and the
members of the Board violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and (ii) the members of the
Board, as alleged control persons of the Partnership, violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the filing of
the allegedly materially deficient proxy statement.

The Federal Merger Litigation seeks various remedies, including,
among other things, injunctive relief to prevent the consummation
of the merger unless certain allegedly material information is
disclosed, an order directing that the Board disseminates a proxy
statement that does not contain any untrue statements of material
fact and that states all material facts required or necessary to
make the statements contained therein not misleading, an order
rescinding the consummation of the merger or an award of rescissory
damages (in the event the merger is consummated), a declaration
that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, as well as Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, an
order directing defendants to account for all damages sustained,
and an award of damages and an award of attorneys' and experts'
fees and expenses.

The Partnership believes that the claims asserted in the Federal
Merger Litigation are without merit and no supplemental disclosure
is required under applicable law.

However, in order to avoid the risk of the Federal Merger
Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the merger and to
minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation,
and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Partnership
has determined to voluntarily supplement the proxy statement.

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

Buckeye Partners, L.P. (Buckeye), incorporated on July 11, 1986,
owns and operates a network of integrated assets providing
midstream logistic solutions, primarily consisting of the
transportation, storage, processing and marketing of liquid
petroleum products. The Company's segments include Domestic
Pipelines & Terminals, Global Marine Terminals and Merchant
Services. Buckeye GP LLC (Buckeye GP) is the Company's general
partner. The Company is an independent terminaling and storage
operator in the United States in terms of capacity available for
service. The company is based in Houston, Texas.


BUCKEYE PARTNERS: Ingalls Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as JOHN INGALLS, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
BUCKEYE PARTNERS, L.P., CLARK C. SMITH, PIETER BAKKER, BARBARA M.
BAUMANN, BARBARA J. DUGANIER, JOSEPH A. LASALA, JR., MARK C.
MCKINLEY, LARRY C. PAYNE, OLIVER G. RICHARD, III, FRANK S.
SOWINSKI, and MARTIN A. WHITE, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-06098, was transferred form the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Houston) on July 19, 2019. The Southern
District of Texas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:19-cv-02645. The
case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Nancy F. Atlas.

The case is a unitholder class action alleging Defendants'
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The case
also seeks to enjoin the vote on the proposed transaction, pursuant
to which Buckeye will be acquired by IFM Investors Pty Ltd.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Richard Adam Acocelli, Jr., Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, Suite 1601
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010

Attorneys for the Defendants:

          Gary A. Bornstein, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: 474-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 474-3700

               - and -

          Rory Ann Leraris, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 474-1257
          Facsimile: (212) 474-3700

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Bid to Remand Egg Antitrust Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that the court has not yet ruled
on the Egg Products Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to
federal court in Chicago.

On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several
defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States
shell egg industry.

The cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products
Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the
"District Court"), in three groups of cases - the "Direct Purchaser
Putative Class Action", the "Indirect Purchaser Putative Class
Action" and the "Non-Class Cases."

The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action

The named plaintiffs in these cases alleged that they purchased
eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and sued on behalf
of themselves and a putative class of others who claimed to be
similarly situated.  

As previously reported, in November 2014, the District Court
approved the Company's settlement with the direct purchaser
plaintiff class and entered final judgment dismissing with
prejudice the class members' claims against the Company.

The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action  

The named plaintiffs in these cases are individuals or companies
who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or
more of the defendants - that is, they purchased from retailers
that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties -
and sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who
claim to be similarly situated.

The District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

On June 28, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, for an immaterial amount,
and on July 17, 2018, the Court entered an order dismissing all
indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims against the Company and other
defendants.

The Non-Class Cases

In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they
purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of
the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not
on behalf of a putative class.  

On April 4, 2018, the Court entered a final judgement dismissing
all claims against the Company brought by the following non-class
plaintiffs: The Kroger Co.; Publix Super Markets, Inc.; SUPERVALU,
Inc.; Safeway, Inc.; Albertsons LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Co.; The
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.; Walgreen Co.; Hy-Vee,
Inc.; and Giant Eagle, Inc., with prejudice, pursuant to the
Company's previously announced $80.8 million settlement with the
named plaintiffs.

The Company settled all Non-Class cases except for the claims of
certain plaintiffs who sought substantial damages allegedly arising
from the purchase of egg products (as opposed to shell eggs).

As previously reported, the Company settled all claims brought by
one of these plaintiffs, Conopco, Inc. on a confidential basis and
for an amount that did not have a material impact on the Company's
financial condition or results, and on November 21, 2018, the Court
entered a final judgment dismissing Conopco's claims against the
Company. The remaining plaintiffs are Kraft Food Global, Inc.,
General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company
("Egg Products Plaintiffs").

The Egg Products Plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive
relief under the Sherman Act and are attacking certain features of
the UEP animal-welfare guidelines and program used by the Company
and many other egg producers.

On September 6, 2016, the District Court granted defendants' motion
for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice all claims based
on the purchase of egg products.

That ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, and on January 22, 2018, the Third Circuit
reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and
remanded the case to the District Court.

Even though the appealing egg-products plaintiffs had asked the
Third Circuit to remand the case for trial, the Third Circuit
declined, instead remanding the case for further proceedings,
including the suggestion that the District Court determine whether
the egg-products plaintiffs had sufficient evidence of causation
and damages to submit the case to a jury.

On March 5, 2018, defendants filed a motion in the District Court
seeking leave to file a motion for summary judgment in light of the
remand statements in the Third Circuit's opinion.

The Egg Products Plaintiffs opposed that motion, and on March 26,
2018, the defendants filed a reply in support of the motion. On
July 16, 2018, the court granted the defendants' motion for leave
and on August 17, 2018, defendants filed their motions for summary
judgment and requested oral argument.

The plaintiffs filed their responses on September 21, 2018, and
sur-replies on October 19, 2018, and the defendants filed their
replies on October 12, 2018.

On December 19, 2018, the District Court heard oral argument on the
renewed motions for summary judgment, and on June 11, 2019, denied
the defendants' motions for summary judgement.

On July 2, 2019, the Egg Products Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
to have the case remanded to federal court in Chicago, where it was
initially filed, for trial. The District Court has not ruled on
that motion.

Allegations in Each Case

In all of the cases described above, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to
reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise
the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case,
plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic
supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b)
manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal
welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs.

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining case as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes
are meritorious and provable.  

Cal-Maine Foods said, "While management believes that the
likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg
antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of
the settlements and rulings described above, there is still a
reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the
remaining egg antitrust litigation.

At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the
amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of this
remaining case. Adjustments, if any, which might result from the
resolution of these remaining legal matters, have not been
reflected in the financial statements."

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., incorporated on September 10, 1969, is a
producer and marketer of shell eggs in the United States. The
Company operates through the segment of production, grading,
packaging, marketing and distribution of shell eggs. The Company
offers shell eggs, including specialty and non-specialty eggs. The
company was founded in 1957 and is based in Jackson, Mississippi.


CAMBRIDGE SIERRA: Settlement in Lyter Labor Suit Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANE LYTER, an individual, and all other similarly
situated employees; Plaintiff, v. CAMBRIDGE SIERRA HOLDINGS, LLC.
dba RECHE CANYON REGIONAL REHAB CENTER, a foreign Limited Liability
Company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive; Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-03435-MWF-AGR (S.D. Cal.), Judge Michael E. Fitzgerald of
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
and the Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Award.

The matter came before the Court on June 3, 2019, for a hearing on
the Motions.  

Judge Fitzgerald approved the Joint Stipulation of Class Settlement
and Release as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.  He made
final the Court's earlier preliminary certification of the Class
Members, as set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order.  

The following Class has been certified and that final approval will
be with respect to: March 22, 2013 through March 7, 2017, as
non-exempt employees at Defendant Cambridge Sierra Holding, LLC,
doing business as Reche Canyon Regional Rehab Center's Colton,
California rehab medical facility.

The Judge confirmed that Plaintiff Jane Lyter is a suitable
representative and is appointed the representative of the
Settlement Class.  He awarded an Enhancement Award of $5,000 to
Plaintiff Lyter for her service on behalf of the Settlement Class.

The Judge confirmed Omid Nosrati, Esq. of The Law Office of Omid
Nosrati, the as Class Counsel.

The settlement of civil penalties under PAGA in the amount of
$5,000 is approved.  Seventy-Five Percent, or $3,750.00, will be
paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency.  The
remaining 25%, or $1,250.00, will become part of the Settlement
Amount.

The Judge awarded $125,00 in attorneys' fees and $40,119.80 in
costs to the Plaintiff's counsel.  He approved the Claims
Administrator's expenses in the amount of $9,750 to Phoenix
Settlement Administrators.  The Defendant will pay the Settlement
Class Members pursuant to the procedures described in the
Settlement Agreement.

Any unclaimed funds will be distributed to the California Rural
Assistance League, the designated cy pres recipient.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Judgment is available
at https://is.gd/bfpMpw from Leagle.com.

Jane Lyter, an individual, and all other similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, represented by Omid Nosrati --
omid@nosratilaw.com -- Law Offices of Omid Nosrati & Tatiana Gassia
Avakian -- tatiana@nosratilaw.com -- The Law Office of Omid
Nosrati.

Cambridge Sierra Holdings, LLC, a foreign Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, represented by Jeff T. Olsen --
Jeff.Olsen@varnerbrandt.com  -- Varner and Brandt LLP & Richard D.
Marca -- Richard.Marca@varnerbrandt.com -- Varner and Brandt LLP.


CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has filed a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against CannTrust Holdings Inc. ("CannTrust"
or the "Company") (NYSE: CTST; OTC: CNTTF), Peter Aceto, the
Company's CEO, Greg Guyatt, the Company's CFO, and Ian Abramowitz,
the Company's former CFO (collectively, the "Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, and is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded common stock
of CannTrust on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") or any
U.S.-based trading platform between November 14, 2018 and July 5,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint further alleges that CannTrust is a Canada-based
producer of medical and recreational cannabis and that, during the
Class Period, the Company represented that it was a licensed
producer of medical and recreational cannabis in Canada and that it
maintained all necessary licensing.

The complaint further alleges that "[w]hile the Company represented
that its facilities were licensed, unknown to investors, from
October 2018 through and March 2019, the Company was growing
cannabis in five unlicensed rooms causing the Company's Niagara
Perpetual Harvest Facility to be non-compliant with certain
Canadian regulations, and the Company had shipped unlicensed
cannabis from the Company's Niagara Perpetual Harvest Facility to
at least StenoCare in Denmark in violation of the Canadian Cannabis
Act."

The Complaint further alleges that on July 8, 2019, before the
market opened, CannTrust shocked investors when it disclosed that
it received a compliance report from Health Canada notifying the
Company that the Niagara Perpetual Harvest Facility greenhouse
facility in Pelham, Ontario is non-compliant with certain
regulations. The Company's press release stated, in part, that the
Company "has received a compliance report from Health Canada
notifying the Company that its greenhouse facility in Pelham,
Ontario is non-compliant with certain regulations. CannTrust has
accepted Health Canada's non-compliance finding and has taken
actions to ensure current and future compliance."

"The non-compliant rating is based on observations by the regulator
regarding the growing of cannabis in five unlicensed rooms and
inaccurate information provided to the regulator by CannTrust
employees. Growing in unlicensed rooms took place from October 2018
to March 2019 during which time CannTrust had pending applications
for these rooms with Health Canada . . . Health Canada has placed a
hold on inventory which includes approximately 5,200kg of dried
cannabis that was harvested in the previously unlicensed rooms in
Pelham, until it deems that the Company is compliant with
regulations. In addition, CannTrust has instituted a voluntary hold
of approximately 7,500kg of dried cannabis equivalent at its
Vaughan manufacturing facility that was produced in the previously
unlicensed rooms."

On July 8, 2019, following this disclosure, the price of
CannTrust's common stock declined on the NYSE by $1.11 per share or
over 22%, from a closing price of $4.94 per share on July 5, 2019,
to close at $3.83 per share on July 8, 2019 on heavy trading
volume.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than September 9, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for
the proposed Class.  You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff
in order to share in any possible recovery.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of the proposed Class
and are represented by Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
(www.kaplanfox.com).  Our firm, with offices in New York, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New Jersey, has decades of
experience in prosecuting investor class actions and actions
involving violations of the U.S. federal securities laws.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, or would like a copy of the complaint,
please contact:

         Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
         Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
         850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
         New York, NY 10022
         Toll-Free: (800) 290-1952
         Phone: (212) 687-1980
         Fax: (212) 687-7714
         Email: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com [GN]


CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit
has been filed against CannTrust Holdings Inc. (NYSE: CTST) on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between November
14, 2018 and July 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

CannTrust investors who suffered an investment loss in excess of
$100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus
Kaskela, Esq.) at (888) 715-1740, or by email at
skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss this action and their legal
rights and options.  Additional information about this action may
also be found at
http://kaskelalaw.com/case/canntrust-holdings-inc/

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that CannTrust
issued a series of false and misleading statements to investors
during the Class Period, and failed to disclose: (i) that the
Company was growing cannabis in its Pelham greenhouse while
applications for regulatory approval were still pending; (ii) that
the Company's Pelham greenhouse did not comply with certain
regulations; (iii) that, as a result, the Company was reasonably
likely to face an inventory hold by Health Canada until the Pelham
facility becomes compliant with applicable regulations; and (iv)
that, as a result, the Company's customers would face shortages and
would likely seek product from CannTrust's competitors.

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

IMPORTANT DEADLINE:  Investors who purchased CannTrust's securities
during the Class Period may, no later than September 9, 2019, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative in the action.

CannTrust investors who suffered any investment loss in excess of
$100,000 investing in the Company's securities are encouraged to
contact Kaskela Law LLC to discuss this action and their legal
rights and options.  Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents
investors in securities fraud, corporate governance, and merger &
acquisition litigation.  For additional information about Kaskela
Law LLC please contact:

         David Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         KASKELA LAW LLC
         18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
         Newtown Square, PA 19073
         Phone: (484) 258 – 1585
                    (888) 715 – 1740
         Website: www.kaskelalaw.com
         Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN]


CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Strosberg Sasso Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP announced mid-July 2019 that a proposed
class action has been commenced against CannTrust Holdings Inc.
(TSX: TRST) and some of the company's officers and directors.

The proposed class action has been filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice on behalf of all persons, excluding certain
persons associated with the defendants, who, during the period from
October 1, 2018 to July 5, 2019:

(1) purchased or otherwise acquired securities of CannTrust on the
TSX or alternative Canadian exchanges; and/or

(2) except residents of the United States of America, acquired
securities of CannTrust pursuant to the prospectuses;

and held some or all of such securities at the close of trading on
the TSX on July 5, 2019.

On July 8, 2019, CannTrust informed the public that Health Canada
found its greenhouse facility in Pelham, Ontario to be
non-compliant with certain regulations.  Health Canada's audit
revealed the company had been growing cannabis in unlicensed
facilities from October 2018 to March 2019, and that the company
had provided inaccurate information to Health Canada.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations
by issuing documents, public statements, and prospectuses, which
represented that CannTrust was in material compliance with all
laws, regulations, licenses and permits and failing to make timely
disclosure of the unlicensed cultivation.

Once this information was revealed to the public, the price of
CannTrust securities dropped significantly, causing substantial
damages to holders of CannTrust securities.

The plaintiff seeks $250 million in damages for negligent
misrepresentation and liability for primary market
misrepresentation and secondary market disclosure pursuant to
Ontario's Securities Act.

If you would like to speak to someone about this lawsuit please
contact:

         Jay Strosberg, Esq.
         Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP
         Phone: 1-519-561-6231
         Website: www.strosbergco.com
         Email: jsmith@strosbergco.com [GN]


CASHCALL INC: Bejune Hits Usurious Rates, Fees, Penalties on Loans
------------------------------------------------------------------
Anastasia Bejune, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Cashcall, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-01373 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2019), seeks an award of
statutory damages, costs of litigation and reasonable attorney's
fees, prejudgment interest and any and all other relief under the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, The Electronic Fund
Transfer Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Defendant provides loans to consumers, including to California
consumers, a lender that offers unsecured personal loans ranging
from $2,600 to $10,600 to qualified borrowers. [BN]

Cashcall was allegedly owed a monetary debt by Bejune who was
presented a Promissory Note and Disclosure which provided that it
would loan $3,025.00 to Bejune at an Annual Percentage Rate of
138.34%, resulting in a Finance Charge of $13,499.48 over the
duration of the Note. Defendant falsely represented the character,
amount or legal status of a debt by independently initiating
electronic fund transfers from accounts on dates different or later
than the due date stated and unfairly charged late fees which were
not in fact late, asserts the Plaintiff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
      HYDE AND SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26
      Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com
             bob@westcoastlitigation.com

             - and -

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com


CENTENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Sanchez Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court in Sanchez v.
Centene Corp., et al., has still not ruled on the company's motion
to dismiss.

On November 14, 2016, a putative federal securities class action,
Israel Sanchez v. Centene Corp., et al., was filed against the
Company and certain of its executives in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

In March 2017, the court entered an order transferring the matter
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the Company's accounting
and related disclosures for certain liabilities acquired in the
acquisition of Health Net violated federal securities laws.

In July 2017, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in
September 2017.

In February 2018, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss
but has not yet issued a ruling.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Centene Corporation, incorporated on September 26, 2001, is a
healthcare company. The Company provides a portfolio of services to
government sponsored healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured
and uninsured individuals. The Company operates through two
segments: Managed Care and Specialty Services. It provides
member-focused services through locally based staff by assisting in
accessing care, coordinating referrals to related health and social
services and addressing member concerns and questions. It also
provides education and outreach programs to inform and assist
members in accessing appropriate healthcare services. The company
is based in St. Louis, Missouri.


CENTENE CORP: Class Cert. Discovery Ongoing in Ambetter Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Centene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that class certification
discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit related to
Ambetter policies.

On January 11, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Cynthia Harvey and Steven A. Milman against the Company and certain
subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington.

The complaint alleges that the Company failed to meet federal and
state requirements for provider networks and directories with
regard to its Ambetter policies, denied coverage and/or refused to
pay for covered benefits, and failed to address grievances
adequately, causing some members to incur unexpected costs.

In March 2018, the Company filed separate motions to dismiss each
defendant. In July 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a First
Amended Complaint that removed Steven Milman as a plaintiff,
dropped Centene Corporation and Superior Health Plan as defendants,
abandoned certain claims, narrowed the putative class to Washington
State only, and added Centene Management Company as a defendant.

In August 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint. In response, the plaintiff voluntarily filed a Second
Amended Complaint.

In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint. On November 21, 2018, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff Cynthia Harvey filed a Third Amended Complaint, on
November 28, 2018, against Centene Management Company and
Coordinated Care Corporation ("Defendants"), both subsidiaries of
the Company. Defendants filed an answer on December 12, 2018. Class
certification discovery is occurring.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against these
claims.

Centene said, "Nevertheless, this matter is subject to many
uncertainties and the Company cannot predict how long this
litigation will last or what the ultimate outcome will be, and an
adverse outcome in this matter could potentially have a materially
adverse impact on our financial position and results of
operations."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Centene Corporation, incorporated on September 26, 2001, is a
healthcare company. The Company provides a portfolio of services to
government sponsored healthcare programs, focusing on under-insured
and uninsured individuals. The Company operates through two
segments: Managed Care and Specialty Services. It provides
member-focused services through locally based staff by assisting in
accessing care, coordinating referrals to related health and social
services and addressing member concerns and questions. It also
provides education and outreach programs to inform and assist
members in accessing appropriate healthcare services. The company
is based in St. Louis, Missouri.


CHINACACHE INT'L: Schall Law Firm Investing Investors' Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
ChinaCache International Holdings Ltd. ("ChinaCache" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: CCIH) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. ChinaCache filed a Form NT 20-F with the
SEC on April 29, 2019, disclosing that it would not be able to file
its annual report for the fiscal year 2018 in a timely manner.
ChinaCache then disclosed on May 17, 2019, that the Company and its
CEO and Chairman Song Wang were under criminal investigation for
bribery by the Chinese government. Wang resigned from the CEO and
Chairman positions, NASDAQ halted trading in ChinaCache on the same
day.

The Company revealed on May 23, 2019, that it had received a letter
from NASDAQ indicating that the Company was not in compliance with
listing requirements, and asking questions about the resignation of
its auditor, its selection of a new auditor, and the bribery
allegations in China. Trading in ChinaCache remains halted, leaving
the Company's shares illiquid and seemingly worthless.

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

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

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

Contact:

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



CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal in Ong Class Action Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the appeal in the
class action suit initiated by Susie Ong, is still pending.

On January 8, 2016, Susie Ong filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of shares of our common stock between
February 4, 2015 and January 5, 2016.

The complaint purports to state claims against the company, each of
the co-Chief Executive Officers serving during the claimed class
period and the Chief Financial Officer under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
related rules, based on the company's alleged failure during the
claimed class period to disclose material information about the
company's quality controls and safeguards in relation to consumer
and employee health.

The complaint asserts that those failures and related public
statements were false and misleading and that, as a result, the
market price of our stock was artificially inflated during the
claimed class period.

The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an
unspecified amount, interest, and an award of reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs.

On March 8, 2017, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint, with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on April 7, 2017. On March 22, 2018, the court granted
the company's motion to dismiss, with prejudice.

On April 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from
the judgment and seeking leave to file a third amended complaint,
and on November 20, 2018, the court denied the motion. On December
20, 2018, the plaintiff initiated an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Chipotle said, "We intend to continue vigorously defending the Ong
case through any further appeals made by the plaintiff, but it is
not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of or
any potential liability from either of this case."

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,
operates Chipotle Mexican Grill restaurants. As of December 31,
2018, it operated 2,491 restaurants, including 2,452 Chipotle
restaurants in the United States, 37 Chipotle restaurants
internationally, and two non-Chipotle restaurants. The company was
founded in 1993 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.


CLOUDERA INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Cloudera, Inc. (NYSE: CLDR) and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Northern District of California, and indexed under 19-cv-04007, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants who purchased, or otherwise acquired Cloudera
securities between April 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The claims asserted herein are alleged against
Cloudera, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"),
Thomas J. Reilly, Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), Jim Frankola,
and Michael A. Olson, the Company's founder, and former Chairman,
and arise under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder.  

If you are a shareholder who purchased Cloudera securities during
the class period, you have until August 6, 2019, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Cloudera is a software company specializing in the provision of
data management, machine learning, and advanced analytical tools to
businesses.  Its chief product platform is a hybrid open source
software, or "HOSS," model which combines the Company's proprietary
software with open source technology, most notably the Apache
Software Foundation's ("ASF") open-source Hadoop software.  The
Company offers a suite of applications through its HOSS platform
that allows its customers, generally including large enterprises,
to collect, store, organize and analyze large amounts of data to
improve their businesses.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants
failed to disclose adverse facts pertaining to Cloudera's business,
operations, and financial condition, which were known to or
recklessly disregarded by Defendants. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose: (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; (iii) Cloudera had materially diminished
sales opportunities and prospects and could not generate annual
positive cash flows for the foreseeable future; (iv) the primary
motivation for the Company's merger with Hortonworks was to
generate growth through the acquisition of Hortonworks' existing
customers (as opposed to obtaining them organically); and (v) that
the purported synergies and other benefits of the merger with
Hortonworks were materially overstated.

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.

On this news, the price of Cloudera common stock fell over 40% to
$13.29 per share on abnormally high volume of nearly 28 million
shares on April 4, 2018.

Contact:

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


CONNEXIONS LOYALTY: FLSA Collective Action Certification Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID SWEET, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
CONNEXIONS LOYALTY, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01997-GCS-CMV (S.D. Ohio.), the Plaintiff moves the Court
to enter an order pursuant to section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a FLSA collective
      action under section 216(b) against Defendant Connexions
      Loyalty, Inc. on behalf of Plaintiff and others similarly
      situated;

   2. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
      email to all former and current call center employees
      employed by Defendant within three years preceding the
      date of filing of the Complaint to the present;

   3. directing the parties to jointly submit within 14 days a
      proposed Notice informing such present and former
      employees of the pendency of this collective action and
      permitting them to opt into the case by signing and
      submitting a Consent to Join Form;

   4. directing Defendant to provide within 14 days a Roster of
      such present and former employees that includes their full
      names, their dates of employment, and their last known
      home addresses and personal email addresses;

   5. directing that the Notice, in the form approved by the
      Court, be sent to such present and former employees within
      30 days using the home and email addresses listed in the
      Roster; and

   6. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
      in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses
      or email addresses are found for one or more of such
      present or former employees.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Jeffrey Moyle, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          614 West Superior Ave., Suite 1148
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: jmoyle@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          7266 Portage Street N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

CONVERSE INC: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Chavez Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC CHAVEZ, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONVERSE, INC., a
Delaware corporation Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-17070 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
District Court's grant of summary judgment for Converse.

Converse requires its retail employees to undergo "off the clock"
exit inspections every time they leave the store. S eeking
compensation for these exit inspections, Chavez brought the instant
class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated Converse
employees.

The District Court granted summary judgment for Converse, holding
the Chavez's claims were barred by the federal de minimis doctrine,
which precludes recovery for otherwise compensable amounts of time
that are small, irregular, or administratively difficult to record.
The California Supreme Court subsequently held in Troester v.
Starbucks Corp., that the federal de minimis doctrine does not
apply to wage and hour claims brought under California law.

For substantially the reasons given in the related case, Rodriguez
v. Nike Retail Services, Inc., the Appellate Court holds that the
District Court erred in granting summary judgment based on the
federal de minimis doctrine.  It likewise holds that on the current
record there are no alternative grounds for affirmance.
Accordingly, it reversed and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with Troester.

Each party will bear its own costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/6m4v3e from Leagle.com.


DELTA AIR: Bid to Certify 2 Subclasses in Freeman Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRANDON FREEMAN et al. Plaintiffs, v. DELTA AIRLINES,
INC et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-160 (WOB-CJS)
(E.D. Ky.), Judge William O. Bertelsman of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Northern Division, Covington,
denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class
action.

The proposed class action was brought by six Plaintiffs, all of
whom are African-American and are or at one time were part-time
employees of Delta Airlines in the "underwing" baggage handling
department at the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International
Airport ("CVG").  They allege that the manager and several
supervisors over this particular department engaged in systemic
racial discrimination in (a) disciplinary matters and (b) work
assignments, resulting in a disproportionately lower number of
African-Americans occupying higher paying positions.  The
Plaintiffs seek to vindicate the rights of roughly 36 part-time
African-American baggage handlers at CVG.

Under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, Title VII, the Plaintiffs assert the
following five counts: (i) Count I - Hostile work environment and
racial harassment; (ii) Count II - Discrimination based on
disparate impact and disparate treatment; (iii) Count III -
Retaliation; (iv) Count IV - Race discrimination; and (v) Count V -
Punitive damages.

The Plaintiffs demand front and back pay in connection with
punitive damages, a declaratory judgment, and a permanent
injunction against the Defendants' alleged practices.

Each of the named Plaintiffs filed Equal Opportunity Employment
Commission ("EEOC") charges in July 2014.  On approximately June
22, 2015, the Plaintiffs received Right to Sue letters from the
EEOC.  They filed the action on Sept. 3, 2015, and then filed an
Amended Complaint on Sept. 10, 2015.

After over a year and five months of discovery, which included
requests to extend the initial one-year period of discovery, on
Jan. 2, 2018, Plaintiffs moved for class certification.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following two subclasses:

     (1) The first sub-class, relating to disciplinary matters,
consists of all African-American Ready Reserve employees of
Department 120 (the baggage handling or underwing operations) who
were employed by Defendant Delta at CVG from Sept. 3, 2010, to Dec.
31, 2016, and who had any discipline imposed on them ("Disciplinary
Subclass").

     (2) The second sub-class, relating to work assignments,
consists of all African-American Ready Reserve employees of
Department 120 who were employed by Delta at CVG, from Sept. 3,
2010, to Sept. 3, 2015 ("Work Assignment Subclass").

The Court previously heard oral argument on the parties' motions
and took the matter under submission.

Judge Bertelsman concludes that the class action is an exception to
the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the
individual named parties only.  That class certification is
inappropriate in the case does not vitiate the individual claims of
the class representatives.  They may choose to proceed on their
claims.  But a class action is not the appropriate vehicle because
there is nothing central to the Plaintiffs' claims that is capable
of being resolved on a classwide basis.

Consistent with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Judge
denied the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class
action.  The parties will confer and submit a proposed notice to
the putative class members, specifying its means of publication or
distribution, within 10 days of entry of the Opinion and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/NVy7gx from Leagle.com.

Brandon Freeman, Freddie Vincent, Anika Nicole Lackey, Aminata
Tall, Kenny Gaines & David Perdue, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher David Wiest, Christopher Wiest, Atty at Law, PLLC, Paul
J. Darpel, Christopher Wiest, Atty at Law, PLLC & Robert A. Winter,
Jr -- robertawinterjr@gmail.com.

Delta Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Thomson
Croall -- dcroall@porterwright.com -- Porter, Wright, Morris &
Arthur.

Chuck Jones, Dale Unkraut, II, Marvin Douglas Howe, David Gosney &
Jimmy Davis, Defendants, represented by Matthew O. Wagner --
mwagner@fbtlaw.com -- Frost Brown Todd LLC, pro hac vice, Richard
L. Moore -- rlmoore@fbtlaw.com -- Frost Brown Todd LLC, pro hac
vice & Bill J. Paliobeis -- bpaliobeis@fbtlaw.com -- Frost Brown
Todd LLC.

Greg Kuhn, Defendant, represented by David Thomson Croall, Porter,
Wright, Morris & Arthur & Marc D. Mezibov, Mezibov Butler, pro hac
vice.


DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on July 2, 2019, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated
(NYSE: DBD). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class
Period, which is May 4, 2017 through July 4, 2017.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-diebold-nixdorf-incorporated/

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Diebold
Nixdorf, Incorporated shareholders who purchased common stock
during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above. You may move the Court no later than Tuesday,
September 3, 2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire
Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights please contact:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming September 3, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of Diebold Nixdorf,
Incorporated (NYSE: DBD) investors who purchased securities between
February 14, 2017 and July 4, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

On July 5, 2017, the Company disclosed that it expected a wider net
loss than prior guidance for fiscal 2017, from a range of $50 to
$75 million to a range of $110 to $125 million net loss. The
Company attributed the lowered expectations to a "delay in systems
rollouts" as well as "a longer customer decision-making process and
order-to-revenue conversion cycle."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $6.28, or nearly 23%,
to close at $21.20 per share on July 5, 2017, thereby injuring
investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that, as a result of the Wincor acquisition and
related integration, the Company was less focused on its core
business; (2) that the Company expected certain customers would not
renew their service contracts (i.e. contract runoff); (3) that the
Company was not adequately prepared to staff service technicians;
(4) that, as a result of the expected contract runoff, the Company
would suffer a shortage of adequately trained service technicians;
(5) that, as a result, the Company would suffer margin pressure in
its services segment; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company would lose market share; and (7) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Diebold Nixdorf securities
during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than
September 3, 2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this
putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to the pending class action
lawsuit, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
[GN]


DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Pomerantz Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Diebold Nixdorf,  Incorporated ("Diebold" or the "Company")
(NYSE:  DBD) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed
in United States District Court, for the Southern District of New
York, and indexed under 19-cv-06180, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Diebold securities
between May 4, 2017 and July 4, 2017, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Diebold securities during
the class period, you have until September 3, 2019, to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Diebold provides connected commerce services, software and
technology to enable millions of transactions each day.  The
Company's approximately 25,000 employees purportedly design and
deliver convenient, "always on" and highly secure solutions that
bridge the physical and the digital worlds of transactions.
Customers of the Company include nearly all of the world's top 100
financial institutions and a majority of the top twenty-five global
retailers.

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

On July 5, 2017, Diebold issued a press release titled "Diebold
Nixdorf Adjusts 2017 Financial Outlook" (the "July 2017 Press
Release").  The July 2017 Press Release disclosed that the Company
expected a wider net loss than indicated in its prior guidance for
fiscal 2017, from a range of $50 to $75 million to a range of $110
to $125 million net loss.

Diebold attributed the lowered expectations to a delay in systems
rollouts as well as a longer customer decision-making process and
order-to-revenue conversion cycle.

Following this news, Diebold's stock price fell $6.40 per share, or
nearly 23%, to close at $21.60 per share on July 5, 2017.

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


DR. PEPPER: California Court Narrows Claims in Yu Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HAWYUAN YU, Plaintiff, v. DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06664-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted in part
with leave to amend and denied in part the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and to stay the action if
outright dismissal is not warranted.

On behalf of a putative class, Plaintiff Yu alleges that Dr. Pepper
and Mott's, LLP mislead consumers by selling apple juice and
applesauce products with the representation "Natural" and/or "All
Natural Ingredients" that nonetheless contain trace amounts of a
pesticide.  Arising from this allegation, the Plaintiff asserts
five state law causes of action and that the Court has subject
matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

The Plaintiff is an individual consumer and citizen of the County
of Santa Clara, California.  Defendant Dr. Pepper is incorporated
in Delaware with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas.
Defendant Mott's is a subsidiary of Dr. Pepper and is incorporated
in Delaware with its principal place of business in Rye Brook, New
York.  The Defendants sell several applesauce and apple juice
products, including Mott's Natural Unsweetened Applesauce, Mott's
Healthy Harvest Applesauce, Mott's Natural 100% Juice Apple Juice,
and other varieties of "Mott's" brand applesauce and apple juice
products that include the representation "Natural" and/or "All
Natural Ingredients" on the product package or label.  They sell
these products nationwide.

On multiple occasions, the Plaintiff purchased Mott's Natural
Applesauce and Natural Apple Juice at stores in San Jose,
California.  The Plaintiff alleges that in deciding to make these
purchases, he saw, relied upon, and reasonably believed the
Defendants' representations that the products were "Natural" and
made of "All Natural Ingredients."  The Plaintiff further alleges
that he was willing to pay more for the Defendants' Products
because he expected the Products to be free of insecticides and
other unnatural chemicals.

However, according to the complaint, the Defendants' applesauce and
apple juice products contain acetamiprid, a "synthetic and
unnatural chemical."  The Plaintiff's primary theory of liability
is not that the acetamiprid present in the Defendants' products
exceeds the legal limit, but instead that reasonable consumers who
see the Defendants' representations that the Products contain 'All
Natural Ingredients' or are 'natural,' would not expect the
Products to contain traces of a synthetic insecticide.

The Plaintiff proposes a nationwide class of consumers who
purchased the Defendants' products-in-question, as well as a
California subclass.  He filed the action on Nov, 1, 2018,
asserting five causes of action: (1) Unfair and Deceptive Acts and
Practices under the California Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (on
behalf of the California subclass); (2) Violation of California's
False Advertising Law ("FAL"), (on behalf of the California
subclass); (3) Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), (on behalf of the California subclass); (4) Breach of
Express Warranty (on behalf of the nationwide class); and (5)
Unjust enrichment (on behalf of the nationwide class).

The Defendants request judicial notice of the following: (1) copies
of the Applesauce and Apple Juice Product labels depicted in the
Plaintiff's complaint; (2) a Compliance Policy Guide from the FDA
regarding Labeling of Food Bearing Residues of Pesticide Chemicals;
and (3) a letter from Dr. Scott Gottlieb, FDA Commissioner, to U.S.
Representative David Valadao.  The Court is unaware of any
opposition to the Defendants' request for judicial notice.

Judge Freeman granted the Defendants' request for judicial notice
of (1) the copies of the applesauce and apple juice product labels
because the Plaintiff's complaint references and relies on these
labels.  In addition, the Defendants' request for judicial notice
of (2) the FDA policy guide and (3) the FDA Commissioner's letter
to Representative Valadao is granted because these documents are
public documents.

The Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint pursuant
to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  They
also request to stay the action if it is not dismissed with
prejudice.

Specifically, the Defendants set forth the following six issues to
be decided: (1) whether the Plaintiff's consumer protection claims
should be dismissed because the terms Natural and All Natural
Ingredients on the products-in-question do not cause a reasonable
consumer to believe that the products are free of any trace
pesticides; (2) whether the Plaintiff's breach of warranty and
unjust enrichment claims should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim; (3) whether the Plaintiff's claims are expressly preempted
under federal law because there is no requirement under federal law
to disclose trace pesticides on product labels; (4) whether the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 21 U.S.C. Section
346a(h)(5), which commits review of the Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA")'s established tolerances for residual pesticides to
the EPA and the U.S. Courts of Appeals; (5) whether the Plaintiff's
request for injunctive relief should be dismissed due to lack of
Article III standing; and (6) whether the case should be stayed on
primary jurisdiction grounds, in deference to the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA")'s ongoing administrative proceedings to
define the term natural.

Judge Freeman finds that the Plaintiff does not sufficiently allege
facts showing how or why a reasonable consumer would understand
"Natural" or "All Natural Ingredients" to mean the utter absence of
residual pesticides, which the Plaintiff admits are on the order of
0.02 and 0.06 parts per million acetamiprid, respectively, for the
applesauce and apple juice products in question.  The Plaintiff may
amend as to the "reasonable consumer" theory.  Accordingly, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to plausibly allege that
a reasonable consumer would believe that the products-in-question
are free of any trace pesticides is granted with leave to amend.

For the reasons discussed with respect to the Plaintiff's
"reasonable consumer" theory, the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims is
granted with leave to amend.  Turning to the Defendants' second
argument for dismissal of these two claims, the Judge finds that at
this stage, the Plaintiff need not identify which states' laws
would apply to out-of-state Plaintiffs.  Accordingly, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment claims on this latter ground is denied.

The Plaintiff's theory of liability turns on what a reasonable
consumer would understand "Natural" to mean in the context of
residual pesticides present in the products.  Thus, the federal
food labeling requirements raised by the Defendants do not preempt
the Plaintiff's claims.  Accordingly, the Defendants' motion to
dismiss te Plaintiff's claims as preempted by federal law is
denied.  However, the Plaintiff is required to amend the complaint
to specify that he is not pleading that the Defendants must label
the products-in-question as containing trace amounts of pesticide,
but instead that the Defendants should remove the "Natural"
representation on products that do contain such trace amounts or
inform consumers what "Natural" actually means.

For the reasons discussed with respect to preemption, the Judge
agrees with te Plaintiff.  She does not read the Plaintiff's
complaint to be "a challenge to the EPA's established tolerances
for acetamiprid residue," as te Defendants contend.  Accordingly,
the Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction is denied.

Next, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
allege intent to purchase the products-in-question in the future.
In other words, the Plaintiff has not alleged that he would
purchase the products-in-question if the representation "Natural"
or "All Natural Ingredients" was removed.  Accordingly, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief for lack of standing is granted with leave to
amend.

Finally, the Judge finds that a stay is warranted here under the
relevant factors.  FDA proceedings remain open and active regarding
the term "natural."  The Dec. 19, 2018 letter from the FDA
Commissioner states that the "FDA recognizes this is an important
matter for consumers and the food industry" and that the FDA is
"actively working" on the issue and that in 2019, the FDA plans to
publicly communicate next steps regarding Agency policies related
to 'natural.'  Accordingly, the FDA's regulatory process may shape
the contours of the word "natural" as applied to food labeling, an
issue that permeates the Plaintiff's complaint.  However, the Judge
recognizes the Plaintiff's argument that guidance from the FDA may
not be imminent, and therefore declines to impose an indefinite
stay.  Rather, she stays the action for a limited amount of time,
through the end of February 2020.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Freeman granted with leave to
amend the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint
for failure to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would
believe that the products-in-question are free of any trace
pesticides.  The Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims is granted with
leave to amend.

The Judge denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claims as preempted by federal law.  She also denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under 21 U.S.C. Section 346a(h)(5).

The Judge granted with leave to amend the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief for lack of
standing.  She granted the Defendants' request to stay the action,
and the action will be stayed through the end of February 2020
without prejudice to a request to continue the stay.

The Plaintiff's amended complaint is due no later than 30 days
after the stay expires.  Leave to amend is granted only as to the
Plaintiff's existing claims; the Plaintiff may not add claims or
parties without leave of the Court.

All discovery disputes are referred to the assigned magistrate
judge.  The case management conference scheduled for Aug. 8, 2019,
is reset to April 30, 2020.  The joint case management statement
will be due April 23, 2020.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/NgAkNT from Leagle.com.

Hawyuan Yu, Plaintiff, represented by Jaimie Mak --
jmak@meridianfirm.com -- Richman Law Group & Clark Andrew Binkley
-- cbinkley@richmanlawgroup.com -- Richman Law Group, pro hac
vice.

Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., 5301 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas
75024, Defendant, represented by David T. Biderman --
DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Charles Christian
Sipos -- CSipos@perkinscoie.com -- pro hac vice & Lauren Elizabeth
Watts Staniar -- LStaniar@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP.

Mott's LLP, 900 King Street, Rye Brook, NY 10573, Defendant,
represented by David T. Biderman, Perkins Coie LLP, Charles
Christian Sipos & Lauren Elizabeth Watts Staniar, Perkins Coie
LLP.


EDWARD D. JONES: Prevails in Reverse Churning Class-Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jed Horowitz, writing for AdvisorHub, reports that a federal judge
in California has dismissed a lawsuit filed against Edward D. Jones
& Co. that alleged the broker-dealer moved customers to fee-based
advisory accounts from less expensive commission accounts in a
"reverse churning scheme" that generated hundreds of millions of
dollars annually for the firm.

The lawsuit in the generally investor-friendly federal U.S. Eastern
District Court of California has been closely watched because
brokerage firms have been promoting advisory over traditional
transaction accounts that yield annual fees regardless of clients'
trading patterns. Fee-based accounts also deter brokers from
churning trades in order to generate commissions, firm executives
said.

The lawsuit, which was filed in March 2018, alleged that Jones
pressured its brokers to switch their largely middle-income
customers into advisory accounts that charge as much as 2% of
assets annually, even though the clients "generally engaged in very
little trading."  It referred to the strategy as a "reverse
churning" scheme and said clients were switched without regard to
suitability and without receiving "full information."

In dismissing the putative class-action suit, District Judge John
A. Mendez on July 9 upheld the St. Louis-based brokerage firm's
arguments that it gave customers "extensive disclosures" about the
costs and benefits of fee-based accounts in a brochure they
received titled "Making Good Choices."

The brochure "explicitly charts and discusses the material
differences between the account types" and includes information
that an advisory program "can be more expensive than other
investment choices over the long term," the judge wrote.

"We're pleased the federal court in California dismissed the
‘reverse churning' case," a Jones spokesman said. "Significant is
that the court's decision recognizes ‘Edward Jones provided
substantial disclosures' to clients.'"

Jones, the largest U.S. brokerage firm as measured by its more than
18,000 advisors, generally advocated buy-and-hold investing
strategies appropriate to commission-based accounts, the lawsuit
said. But it updated its computer systems in the summer of 2016 to
make fee-based accounts a default recommendation, according to the
lawsuit.

"[T]he conduct Plaintiffs allege as violations—including sales
training for financial advisors, changed incentive structures and a
new computer system—is not an actionable deceptive scheme," the
judge wrote.

The brokerage firm, which books more than 75% of its revenue from
mutual fund sales, began marketing fee-based accounts in 2008 but
accelerated its push "aggressively" in 2016, according to the
complaint.

Jones also advanced its strategy out of fear that the now-defunct
Department of Labor fiduciary rule would have made it more
difficult to collect hundreds of millions of dollars annually from
fund companies and insurers for sales into retirement accounts, the
lawsuit said.

Jones generated $17.2 billion from asset-based fees in the
approximately three-year period cited by the defendants, and
executives named as defendants in the case received over $277
million in compensation, the lawsuit alleged.

"The mere fact that Edward Jones financially benefited from certain
clients choosing to move into fee-based accounts does not foreclose
that the clients may also benefit in the long-run from this new
offering and that the company fully believes in the value of its
product," Judge Mendez wrote.

He denied the plaintiffs' claims for breaches of fiduciary duty
under state law (California as well as Missouri), saying that the
federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act creates a high
bar against bringing class-action suits in state court.

The judge granted plaintiffs the right to refile a complaint
conforming to his legal reasoning, but opined that "a further
attempt to amend the complaint might prove futile."

John Garner, Esq. -- jrg@erglaw.net -- a Willows, California-based
lawyer who is co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said his team just
received the ruling and is "considering our options." [GN]


ENCORE BOSTON: Schuster Asserts Unjust Enrichment, Seeks Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A. Richard Schuster, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated. Plaintiff. v. Encore Boston Harbor, Wynn MA
LLC, and Wynn Resorts, Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 19-2010 (Mass.,
July 15, 2019), seeks treble, actual and statutory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief
resulting from breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
conversion.

Defendants operate a luxury resort casino located at 1 Broadway,
Everett, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

Schuster claims that Encore has intentionally paid its customers
odds of 6 to 5 when a player is dealt a "blackjack," when
Massachusetts law' clearly and unambiguously states that a player
who is dealt a blackjack shall be paid at odds of 3 to 2. Aside
from blackjack, when a slot player cashes out his or her winnings
at a ticket redemption machine positioned throughout the casino,
these machines only pay out in whole dollar amounts, without paying
change, and without instruction on how to obtain the balance. The
unredeemed change, therefore, is never returned to the player.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA N. GARICK
     34 Salem Street, Suite 202
     Reading, Massachusetts 01867
     Phone: (617)600-7520
     Email: Joshua@GarickLaw.com


ENTEGRA FINANCIAL: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that it has filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of holders of Entegra Financial Corp. (NASDAQ
GM: ENFC) common stock in connection with the proposed acquisition
of Entegra by First Citizens BancShares, Inc. ("BancShares"),
First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company ("FC Bank"), and FC Merger
Subsidiary VII, Inc. ("Merger Sub") announced on April 24, 2019
(the "Complaint"). The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Entegra, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), BancShares, FC Bank, and Merger Sub, is
captioned Parshall v. Entegra Financial Corp., Case No.
1:19-cv-01152 (D. Del.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220, Wilmington, DE 19801, by
telephone at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail at info@rl-legal.com or at
http://rigrodskylong.com/contact-us/

On April 23, 2019, Entegra entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") with BancShares, FC Bank, and
Merger Sub. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
shareholders of Entegra will receive $30.18 per share in cash (the
"Proposed Transaction").

Among other things, the Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to
secure shareholder support for the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in a proxy statement (the
"Proxy Statement") filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement
omits material information with respect to, among other things,
Entegra's financial projections and the analyses performed by
Entegra's financial advisor. The Complaint seeks injunctive and
equitable relief and damages on behalf of holders of Entegra common
stock.

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. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Contact:

       Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
       Gina M. Serra, Esq.
       Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
       Phone: (888) 969-4242
                  (302) 295-5310
       Fax: (302) 654-7530
       Website: www.rigrodskylong.com
       Email: info@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              sdr@rl-legal.com [GN]


ENVIRO-TECH SERVICES: Class Certification Denial in Frank Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRAD FRANK, ET AL., Appellants, v. ENVIRO-TECH
SERVICES, Respondent, Case No. ED107426 (Mo. App.), Judge Colleen
Dolan of the U.S. Court of Appeals of Missouri for the Eastern
District, Division Four, reversed the trial court's order denying
the Class Representatives' amended motion for class certification.

On May 29, 2015, Class Representatives Frank, Patrick Rigney,
Matthew Ross, and Daniel Bishop filed their petition asserting a
class action claim against Enviro-Tech, alleging that Enviro-Tech
violated Section 290.505 by failing to pay its employees (the
putative class) overtime compensation.  They also individually
filed affidavits supporting the facts alleged in their petition.

The trial court thereafter ordered Enviro-Tech to produce
documentation of the job locations and recorded work hours for its
employees.  After Enviro-Tech produced these documents, the Class
Representatives filed their amended motion for class certification,
arguing that their proposed class (which consisted of 82 former and
current Enviro-Tech employees) should be certified because it met
the requirements for a class as set forth by Rule 52.08(a).

In their amended motion for class certification and memorandum in
support of their amended motion, the Class Representatives argued
that certification of their proposed class was appropriate because
(1) the class was so numerous that joinder of all its members was
impracticable; (2) there were questions of law and fact common to
the class (specifically, whether Enviro-Tech violated Section
290.505 by failing to pay its employees overtime compensation); (3)
the claims of Class Representatives were typical of the claims of
the class; and (4) the Class Representatives would fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.  Specifically, in
regards to the numerosity requirement of Rule 52.08(a), the Class
Representatives argued that Enviro-Tech has employed approximately
82 individuals who could be class members, and that based upon
these facts, there is no doubt that numerosity is present in the
suit.

On Dec. 7, 2018, the trial court entered its order denying the
Class Representatives' amended motion for class certification on
the grounds that the Class Representatives did not meet the
numerosity requirement of Rule 52.08(a).  It reasoned that of the
80 employees, the Class Representatives have provided two
additional affidavits of former employees.  This makes the
potential pool of employees to join the lawsuit five.  The court
finds that five does not meet the numerosity requirement.

On Dec. 17, 2018, the Class Representatives filed their petition
for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of their class action
certification motion with the Court, pursuant to Rule 84.035.  The
Court entered its order granting the Class Representatives'
petition for leave to appeal the trial court's denial of their
amended motion for class certification on Jan. 17, 2019.

The Class Representatives appeal the trial court's denial of their
amended motion for class certification in their action against
Enviro-Tech involving claims that Enviro-Tech failed to properly
pay its employees (such as the Class Representatives) overtime
compensation as required by Section 290.505.  They raise two points
on appeal.

In their first point, the Class Representatives argue that the
trial court erred in denying their amended motion to certify their
proposed class for their class action claims against Enviro-Tech
because the trial court incorrectly determined that the Class
Representatives did not meet the numerosity requirement of Rule
52.08(a).  Specifically, they argue that the trial court
erroneously evaluated the numerosity element based upon the number
of affidavits produced by the Class Representatives instead of the
number of potential class members.

And in their second point, the Class Representatives argue that the
trial court erred in denying their amended motion for class
certification because they presented evidence demonstrating that
the proposed class satisfied all of the elements required for a
class to be certified under Rule 52.08(a).

Judge Dolan finds that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying the Class Representatives' amended motion for class
certification based upon its rationale that the Class
Representatives did not meet the numerosity requirement because
they only produced five affidavits from members of their proposed
class.  She therefore grants the Class Representatives' Point I.
Because the trial court concluded that tge Class Representatives
did not fulfill the numerosity requirement of Rule 52.08(a), and
therefore did not proceed to make findings and conclusions on the
remaining three requirements of Rule 52.08(a), remand is necessary
for the trial court to evaluate the remaining three requirements.
For that reason, the Judge does not address the Class
Representatives' Point II.

Judge Dolan concludes that the trial court erred in denying the
Class Representatives' amended motion for class certification based
upon its incorrect finding that the Class Representatives did not
meet the numerosity requirement of Rule 52.08(a).  She therefore
reversed the judgment of the trial court in regards to its finding
that the Class Representatives did not fulfill the numerosity
requirement, and remanded with instructions for the trial court to
find that the Class Representatives satisfied the numerosity
requirement, to make findings and conclusions on the remaining
three requirements of Rule 52.08(a), and for further proceedings
not inconsistent with the Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/C8VLal from Leagle.com.

Michelle K. Faron and Daniel J. McMichael --
dan@mcmichael-logan.com -- Attorneys for Appellants.

Charles A. Pirrello, Attorney for Respondent.


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Eros International PLC (NYSE: EROS) from July 28,
2017 through June 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Eros investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Eros class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1597.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) Eros and its executives engaged in a scheme to use
related-party transactions to fabricate receivables that they
reported in Eros's public financial disclosures; (2) because of
this scheme, Eros's financial position was weaker than what the
Company disclosed; (3) consequently, the Company's Indian
subsidiary, Eros International Media Ltd, missed loan payments and
had its credit downgraded; and (4) due to the foregoing,
defendants' statements about Eros's receivables, business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 20,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1597.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.

Contact:

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


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Still Defends Patterson Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Patterson, et al.
v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, et al.

In a class action captioned Patterson, et al. v. Fidelity National
Title Insurance Company, et al., Case No. GD 03-021176, originally
filed on October 27, 2003 and pending in the Court of Common Pleas
of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the named
Company underwriters violated Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") by failing to provide
premium discounts in accordance with filed rates in refinancing
transactions.

Contrary to rulings in similar federal court cases that considered
the rate rule and agreed with the Company's position, the court
held that the rate rule should be interpreted such that an
institutional mortgage in the public record is a "proxy" for prior
title insurance entitling a consumer to a discount rate when
refinancing when there is a mortgage of record within the number of
years required by the rate rule.

The rate rule requires sufficient evidence of a prior policy, and
because not all institutional mortgages were insured, the Company's
position is that a recorded first mortgage alone does not
constitute sufficient evidence of an earlier policy entitling
consumers to a discounted rate. The court certified the class
refusing to follow prior Pennsylvania Supreme Court and appellate
court decisions holding that the UTPCPL requires proof of reliance,
an individual issue that precludes certification.

After notice to the class, plaintiffs moved for partial summary
judgment on liability, and defendants moved for summary judgment.

On June 27, 2018, the court entered an order granting plaintiffs’
motion for partial summary judgment on liability, and denying the
Company's motion. The court also determined that a multiplier of
1.5, not treble, should be applied to the amount of damages, if
any, proven by class members at trial and that the plaintiffs
should bear the responsibility of identifying class members and
calculating damages.

The Company sought permission from the Pennsylvania Superior Court
to appeal both the liability and damage multiplier issues; however,
the petition was denied.

The Company has filed a petition with the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court requesting permission to appeal on the merits, or in the
alternative, an order directing the Pennsylvania Superior Court to
grant interlocutory review. There has been no determination as to
the size of the class.

It is unknown whether plaintiffs will seek statutory or actual
damages, or whether the judge will exercise discretion to award
prejudgment interest or reasonable attorneys' fees. Accordingly,
damages are not reasonably estimable at this time.

Fidelity National said, "We will continue to vigorously defend this
matter, and we do not believe the result will have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF), incorporated on May 24,
2005, is a holding company. The Company is a provider of title
insurance, and transaction services to the real estate and mortgage
industries. The Company's segments include Title, FNF Core
Corporate and Other, Restaurant Group, and FNFV Corporate and
Other. Its business is organized into groups, including FNF Group
and FNF Ventures (FNFV). The company is based in Jacksonville,
Florida.


FRIENDLY'S MANUFACTURING: Charles Hits False Ice Cream Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Charles and Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Friendly's Manufacturing and
Retail, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-06571 (S.D. N.Y., July 15,
2019), seeks restitution and disgorgement of inequitably obtained
profits, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary and
punitive damages and interest, costs and expenses, including
reasonable fees for attorneys and experts and such other and
further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, negligent
misrepresentation and violation of New York general business laws
and various state consumer protection statutes.

Friendly's Manufacturing and Retail, LLC manufactures, distributes,
markets, labels and sells ice cream products labeled as types of,
or containing vanilla under the "Friendly's" brand. Plaintiffs
allege that their vanilla ice cream contains vanilla flavor or
vanilla extract despite its labelling indicating "natural flavor."
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      891 Northern Blvd., Suite 201
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (516) 303-0552
      Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com


GAMESTOP CORP: Gilewski Suit Moved to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as A. Gilewski, an individual on
behalf of himself and of all other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. GameStop Corp., doing business as: GameStop Corp., a
Delaware corporation; Gamestop Inca Minnesota corporation; and Does
1-50 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV17057, was removed
form the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on July 19, 2019. The Central
District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06258
to the proceeding. The suit demands $24 million in damages. The
suit alleges breach of contract.

GameStop Corp. is an American video game, consumer electronics, and
wireless services retailer. The company is headquartered in
Grapevine, Texas, United States, a suburb of Dallas, and operates
7,267 retail stores throughout the United States, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, and Europe.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendants:

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

GLOBAL CREDIT: Class Certification Proceedings Shelved
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JENNIFER WOJCIESKI, ET AL.,
the Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL CREDIT COLLECTION CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 19-CV-1023 (E.D. Wisc.), the Hon. Judge William
E. Duffin entered an order on July 18, 2019, granting Plaintiff's
motion to stay further proceedings on the motion for class
certification.

On July 17, 2019, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint. At
the same time, the plaintiff filed what the court commonly refers
to as a "protective" motion for class certification. In this motion
the plaintiff moved to certify the class described in the complaint
but also moved the court to stay further proceedings on that
motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class action plaintiffs "move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint." "The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs." However, because parties are
generally unprepared to proceed with a motion for class
certification at the beginning of case, the Damasco court suggested
that the parties "ask the district court to delay its ruling to
provide time for additional discovery or investigation."

The parties are relieved from the automatic briefing schedule set
forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and (c). Moreover, for
administrative purposes, it is necessary that the Clerk terminate
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. However, this
motion will be regarded as pending to serve its protective purpose
under Damasco.[BN]

GNC HOLDINGS: Appeal from Workweek Suit Judgment Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company is awaiting
a court ruling on its appeal from an "adverse judgment" in a
Pennsylvania Fluctuating Workweek related class suit.

On September 18, 2013, Tawny Chevalier and Andrew Hiller commenced
a class action in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff asserted a claim against the Company for a purported
violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"),
challenging the Company's utilization of the "fluctuating workweek"
method to calculate overtime compensation, on behalf of all
employees who worked for the Company in Pennsylvania and who were
paid according to the fluctuating workweek method.

In October 2014, the Court entered an order holding that the use of
the fluctuating workweek method violated the PMWA.

In September 2016, the Court entered judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs and the class in an immaterial amount, which has been
recorded as a charge in the accompanying Consolidated Financial
Statements.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a petition for an award of attorney's
fees, costs and incentive payment. The court awarded an immaterial
amount in legal fees. The Company appealed the adverse judgment and
the award of attorney's fees.

On December 22, 2017, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the
Company correctly determined the "regular rate" by dividing weekly
compensation by all hours worked (rather than 40), but held that
the regular rate must be multiplied by 1.5 (rather than 0.5) to
determine the amount of overtime owed.

Taking accumulated interest into account, the net result of the
Superior Court's decision was to reduce the Company's liability by
an immaterial amount, which has been reflected in the accompanying
Consolidated Financial Statements. The Company filed a petition for
appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on January 22, 2018.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the Company's petition for
appeal and the Company filed its appellant's brief on August 27,
2018.

Oral argument occurred in April 2019 and the Company awaits the
Court's ruling.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
The company operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada,
International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded
in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


GNC HOLDINGS: Trial in Naranjo Class Suit Set for September 2019
----------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the trial in the class
action suit initiated by Elizabeth Naranjo is currently scheduled
for September 2019.

On February 29, 2012, former Senior Store Manager, Elizabeth
Naranjo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, sued General Nutrition Corporation in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Alameda.

The complaint contains eight causes of action, alleging, among
other matters, meal, rest break and overtime violations for which
indeterminate money damages for wages, penalties, interest, and
legal fees are sought.

In June 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's Motion for Decertification. In August 2018, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the class action claims alleging overtime
violations.

As of June 30, 2019, an immaterial liability has been accrued in
the accompanying financial statements.

GNC Holdings said, "The Company intends to vigorously defend
against the remaining class action claims asserted in this action.
Trial is currently scheduled for September 2019."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

GNC Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a
specialty retailer of health, wellness, and performance products.
The company operates through three segments: U.S. and Canada,
International, and Manufacturing/Wholesale. The company was founded
in 1935 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


HEALTH NETWORK: Dismissal of SAC in S. Sykes Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSAN SYKES d/b/a ADVANCED CHIROPRACTIC AND HEALTH
CENTER, DAWN PATRICK, TROY LYNN, LIFEWORKS ON LAKE NORMAN, PLLC,
BRENT BOST, and BOST CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.A., v. HEALTH NETWORK
SOLUTIONS, INC. f/k/a CHIROPRACTIC NETWORK OF THE CAROLINAS, INC.,
MICHAEL BINDER, STEVEN BINDER, ROBERT STROUD, JR., LARRY GROSMAN,
MATTHEW SCHMID, RALPH RANSONE, JEFFREY K. BALDWIN, IRA RUBIN,
RICHARD ARMSTRONG, BRAD BATCHELOR, JOHN SMITH, RICK JACKSON, and
MARK HOOPER, Case No. 251PA18 (N.C.), Judge Robin E. Hudson of the
Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the North Carolina
Business Court's (i) Aug. 18, 2017 order and opinion granting in
part and denying in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss and for
partial summary judgment, and (ii) April 5, 2018 order and opinion
dismissing the Plaintiffs' remaining claims under Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiffs are licensed chiropractic providers in North
Carolina who allege that Defendants Health Network Solutions, Inc.
("HNS") and HNS' individual owners have engaged in unlawful price
fixing ultimately resulting in a reduction of output of
chiropractic services in North Carolina.  Specifically, the
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant HNS has committed antitrust and
other violations in its role as intermediary between individual
chiropractors and several insurance companies and third-party
administrators, who are the defendants in a separate action also
before this Court.

In their Second Amended Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiffs
raise the following claims for relief: (1) declaratory judgment,
(2) price fixing, monopsony, and monopoly (the antitrust claims),
(3) unfair and deceptive trade practices and acts, (4) civil
conspiracy, and (5) breach of fiduciary duty. In addition,
plaintiffs seek punitive damages, a remedy styled in the complaint
as a separate claim for relief.

The Plaintiffs brought the action as a putative class action
lawsuit, defining the class as all licensed chiropractors
practicing in North Carolina from 2005 to the present who provided
services in the North Carolina Market; and identifying as three
subsets of that class all licensed chiropractors participating in
the HNS Market, the Comprehensive Health Market, and the Insurance
Market.

The Plaintiffs contend that HNS, despite representing that it is an
integrated independent practice association ("IPA"), in fact
operates an involuntary cartel to control competition, supply, and
pricing of chiropractic services in North Carolina made possible by
the exclusive contracts with the Insurers and the market power
provided by those contracts.  They contend that HNS is operating as
a medical service corporation, as described in N.C.G.S. Section
58-65-1, that has not become licensed as required by N.C.G.S.
Section 58-65-50.

In addition, they contend that HNS is conducting utilization review
based only on providers' average per-patient cost, which does not
take into account medical necessity or appropriateness of
treatment, in violation of N.C.G.S. Section 58-50-61 (2017).  Thus,
they contend, in addition to its failure to obtain proper
licensure, HNS is violating North Carolina's antitrust statutes by
fixing the prices charged by more than one-half of the licensed
chiropractors in the state and by monopsony, a buyer-side form of
monopoly, in which, rather than using its market power as a sole
seller to increase the price of services, HNS is using its market
power as a buyer of those services to restrict output of services.


The Plaintiffs allege four relevant markets that have been
adversely affected by the conduct of Defendant HNS: the North
Carolina market, defined as the market for chiropractic services
provided in North Carolina, and three submarkets within the North
Carolina Market.  Those submarkets are (1) the HNS Market, the
market in which in-network managed care chiropractic services are
provided to the Insurers and their North Carolina patients through
HNS; (2) the Comprehensive Health Market, the market for in-network
chiropractic services provided to individual and group
comprehensive healthcare insurers and their patients in North
Carolina; and (3) the Insurance Health Market, the market for
insurance reimbursed chiropractic services in North Carolina.

The original complaint in the action was filed on 30 April 2013,
and the case was designated a mandatory complex business case on
May 31, 2013, before passage of the Business Court Modernization
Act ("BCMA").  The BCMA established that, for all cases designated
as mandatory complex business cases after 1 October 2014, appeals
from the North Carolina Business Court would come directly to this
Court, rather than to the Court of Appeals.  A second action
involving essentially the same factual allegations and similar
legal claims, Sykes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of North Carolina
("Sykes II"), was filed after the effective date of the BCMA, and
therefore the appeal in that case lay in the Court.  The Plaintiffs
filed a motion to consolidate the two actions in the Business
Court, which the Business Court never addressed before dismissing
both lawsuits entirely.

The Business Court dismissed the claims in the instant case ("Sykes
I") in two different stages.  Several months after the Plaintiffs
filed their first amended complaint, the court on Dec. 5, 2013
ordered limited discovery on the issue of market definition for the
purposes of the Plaintiffs' antitrust claims. This limited
discovery took place between February 2014 and August 2015.

Following fact and expert discovery on market definition, the
Plaintiffs filed their Sykes II complaint on May 26, 2015 and their
second amended complaint in the action on July 16, 2015.  The
Defendants in the matter filed a motion to dismiss and for partial
summary judgment, which the court granted in part and denied in
part in its Aug. 18, 2017 order and opinion.

In that document, the court granted summary judgment for the
Defendants on any claims stemming from their participation in the
Plaintiffs' three proffered relevant submarkets but denied summary
judgment on antitrust claims related to the North Carolina Market
and on other claims connected to those remaining antitrust claims.
It also dismissed the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim as
well as to their claim for declaratory relief to the extent that
claim was based on violations of Chapter 58.  Finally, the court
ordered supplemental briefing on whether the Plaintiffs had
adequately alleged market power within the one relevant market, the
North Carolina Market.  Following receipt of that supplemental
briefing, the court filed a second decision on April 5, 2018
dismissing all of the Plaintiffs' remaining claims.

The Plaintiffs appeal from both orders and opinions of the Business
Court.

Judge Hudson affirmed the Business Court's dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' antitrust claims, including the derivative claim of
civil conspiracy, by an equally divided vote, meaning that the
Business Court's opinion as to those claims will stand without
precedential value.  She also held that the Business Court did not
err in dismissing each of the Plaintiffs' other claims.

As for the Plaintiffs' unfair trade practices claim, the Judge held
that this claim is barred by the learned profession exemption set
out in N.C.G.S. Section 75-1.1(b).  Regarding the Plaintiffs'
declaratory judgment claim, she held that the relevant statutes do
not provide the Plaintiffs a private right of action to obtain the
declaratory relief that they seek.

As for the Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim, she held
that no fiduciary relationship existed between the parties, meaning
no fiduciary duty was ever created.  The Business Court correctly
noted that no freestanding claim exists for punitive damages, and
the Olaintiffs have no remaining legal claim to which punitive
damages might attach.  As so described, the Judge affirmed the
decision of the Business Court dismissing the Plaintiffs' entire
action.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Z5qreQ from Leagle.com.

Oak City Law LLP, by Samuel Pinero II and Robert E. Fields III --
rob.fields@oakcitylaw.com; and Doughton Blancato PLLC, by William
A. Blancato, for plaintiff-appellants.

Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Jennifer
K. Van Zant -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- Benjamin R. Norman --
bnorman@brookspierce.com -- and W. Michael Dowling --
mdowling@brookspierce.com -- for defendant-appellees.


HEALTHPLUS SURGERY: Kinlock Remanded to NJ Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey remanded the case, DAVID KINLOCK and JOSE
SALCEDO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HEALTHPLUS SURGERY CENTER, LLC, Defendant, Civ. No.
2:19-00962 (WJM) (MF) (D. N.J.), to the New Jersey Superior Court.

HealthPlus is a surgical center located in Saddle Brook, New
Jersey.  The Plaintiffs are New Jersey citizens and former patients
at HealthPlus who underwent surgical procedures between Jan. 1,
2018 and Sept. 7, 2018.

On Sept. 7, 2018, the New Jersey Department of Health ordered
HealthPlus to close due to its failure to properly maintain sterile
medical hardware and instruments.  In December 2018, HealthPlus
mailed form notices to approximately 3,700 former patients --
including the Plaintiffs -- notifying the recipients of their
potential exposure to HIV, Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C.  The
Notices explained that due to HealthPlus' lapses in infection
control in sterilization/cleaning instruments they would offer
recipients a "single 'free' blood test."  The Notices stated that
it is important to know your infection status regarding these
diseases, because there are medical treatments available.  Theydid
not elaborate on any specific treatment options for those who
contract infections.

Based on these facts, Kinlock filed the putative class action on
behalf of approximately 3,700 HealthPlus patients on Jan. 3, 2019,
alleging that the "single free blood test" is wholly inadequate in
addressing the needs and safety of the putative class.  They seek
injunctive relief in the form of a court-administered medical
monitoring program for the class members.  They seek to represent
all New Jersey citizens who received a form notice from Defendant
which was identical or substantially similar to the Notices.

On Jan. 23, 2019, HealthPlus removed the case to the Court invoking
federal diversity jurisdiction under CAFA.  The Plaintiffs moved to
remand on Jan. 28, 2019 on the grounds that the requirements for
jurisdiction under CAFA are not satisfied because all the parties
involved are New Jersey citizens.

On April 23, 2019, Magistrate Judge Mark Falk issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending remand.  HealthPlus objected, and the
Plaintiffs filed a response to HealthPlus' objections.

Judge Martini finds that as Judge Falk's Report and Recommendation
notes, the Plaintiff places two contingencies on class membership:
(1) New Jersey citizenship, and (2) receiving a Notice from
HealthPlus.  The plain language of the Plaintiffs' putative class
definition leaves no room for uncertainty about the requirements
for class membership, and the Judge need not look beyond the
putative class definition.

However, even if he were to look to the other allegations in the
Amended Complaint, the Defendant's argument that the Plaintiffs'
reference to the Notice recipients creates diversity belies the
plain language of the Plaintiffs' pleading: It is a class action
brought on behalf of the over 3,700 New Jersey citizens who
received a form notice form the Defendant.

The Judge declines the Defendant's invitation to contort stray
allegations from other parts of the pleading to define the class
when the class definition expressly limits class membership to only
New Jersey citizens and unequivocally excludes citizens of all
other states.  He accordingly rejects the Defendant's objections
and adopts Judge Falk's Report and Recommendation as to the motion
to remand in full.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Martini adopted the Report and
Recommendation in full, and the case is remanded to the New Jersey
Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Orsd5C from Leagle.com.

DAVID KINLOCK, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated & JOSE SALCEDO, On behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by STEPHEN PATRICK
DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC.

HEALTHPLUS SURGERY CENTER, LLC, Defendant, represented by RICHARD
J. WILLIAMS, Jr. -- rwilliams@mdmc-law.com -- MCELROY, DEUTSCH,
MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP & MICHAEL DAVID CELENTANO --
MCELENTANO@MDMC-LAW.COM -- MCELROY DEUTSCH MULVANEY & CARPENTER
LLP.


HEALTHRIGHT, LLC: Court Certifies Class of Terminated Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
CANDIE NELSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HEALTHRIGHT, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 8:18-cv-02678-JSM-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S.
Moody entered an order on July 18, 2019:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "any former employee of Defendant HEALTHRIGHT, LLC, who
      was terminated and/or laid off without cause from their
      employment at HEALTHRIGHT, LLC, on or about September 20,
      2018, or within a reasonable period of time prior to or
      after September 20, 2018, as part of a mass layoff (or
      plant closing) as defined in 20 C.F.R. section 639.3 and
      29 U.S.C. section 2101 under the Worker Adjustment and
      Retraining Notification [WARN] Act of 1988, and who was
      not given a minimum of sixty days' advance written notice
      of termination." The class does not include part-time
      employees as defined under 29 U.S.C. section 2101(a)(8);

   2. approving Candie Nelson as Class Representative;

   3. approving Wolfgang M. Florin and Miguel Bouzas of the firm
      Florin Gray Bouzas Owens, LLC as Class Counsel; and

   4. providing parties 30 days from the date of this Order to
      confer regarding issues that may arise associated with the
      administration of the class, including the form and
      content of the notice, and the establishment of an opt-out
      period and procedure, and shall advise the Court on these
      efforts and whether there are issues that require the
      Court's resolution.[CC]

HELIUS MEDICAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Helius Medical Technologies,
Inc. ("Helius" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HSDT) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Helius securities from November 9, 2017 and April 10,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged
to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/hsdt.

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

On January 25, 2019, Helius said that it had received a request for
additional data and information from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (the "FDA") related to the its request for de novo
classification and 510(k) clearance of its Portable Neuromodulation
Stimulator (PoNS™) device. Following this news, Helius stock
dropped $0.48 per share, or roughly 6%, to close at $7.13 on
January 25, 2019.

On April 10, 2019, Helius disclosed that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had declined the Company's request for De
Novo classification and clearance of its Portable Neuromodulation
Stimulator device.  The FDA stated that it lacked sufficient data
to determine the relative contributions of the device and physical
therapy in clinical studies.  Following this news, Helius stock
dropped $4.11 per share, or more than 66%, to close at $2.10 on
April 10, 2019.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (1) that the clinical study on the use of PoNS did not
produce statistically significant results regarding the
effectiveness of the treatment; (2) that, as a result, the clinical
study did not support the Company's application for regulatory
clearance; (3) that, as a result, the Company was unlikely to
receive regulatory approval of PoNS; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

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

If you suffered a loss in Helius you have until September 9, 2019
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Contact:

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


HOUSTON, TX: 5th Cir. Partly Grants Writ of Mandamus Petition
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: CITY OF HOUSTON, Petitioner, Case No. 19-20377
(5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted
in part and denied in part the City's petition for writ of
mandamus.

Before the Court is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the
City following the district court's denial of the City's claim of
privilege in a lawsuit pending against the City in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas with respect to
certain documents in the City's possession.  The City has also
submitted a corresponding unopposed motion to seal the documents at
issue and attached such documents to its motion.

Preliminarily, the Court addresses the City's motion to seal
documents.  It granted such motion and that the documents submitted
by the City as Exhibit A to its motion will be filed under seal and
viewable only by the Court.

Having ruled on the City's motion, the Court proceeds to its
petition. A response in opposition to the petition was submitted by
Respondents Eric Aguirre, Juan Hernandez, Dequan Kirkwood, Manuel
Trevino, and Kent Wheatfall, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated.  

The lawsuit that forms the basis of the dispute is a purported
class action that was filed in December 2016 against the City by
individuals alleging that the City had violated their Fourth
Amendment rights and Texas law by holding them in custody for
longer than 48 hours after their warrantless arrests without
conducting a probable cause hearing.  In the course of litigation,
a discovery dispute arose as to the production of certain documents
containing electronic communications that the City designated as
protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work
product doctrine.

At the Respondents' request, the district court reviewed the
documents at issue in camera.  On April 24, 2019, after its review,
the district court issued an order noting its finding that the
documents are not privileged because there is no showing that the
documents are privileged either as confidential communication or
under the doctrine of attorney work product and overruling the
City's claim of privilege.  On May 24, 2019, the court denied the
City's motion for reconsideration of its April 24 order and ordered
the City to produce all of the documents that it deemed are not
subject to a claim of privilege by the following day.  It
subsequently granted the City's request to stay its May 24 order
pending this court's resolution of the instant petition.

In its petition, the City asks the Court to vacate the district
court's April 24 and May 24 orders as to certain specified
electronic communications and to remand this matter to the district
court for further proceedings.

Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the documents in
dispute, which are contained in Exhibit A to the City's motion to
seal documents, and pertinent jurisprudence, the Court concludes
that the electronic communications identified by the City in Tabs
3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 of Exhibit A fall within the attorney-client
privilege and that mandamus relief is warranted with respect to
such items.  The communications identified by the City in Tabs 6
and 7 of Exhibit A, on the other hand, do not fall within the
attorney-client privilege and are not documents prepared in
anticipation of litigation.  Thus, the City is not entitled to
mandamus relief with respect to such items.

Accordingly, the Court granted the City's petition and vacated the
district court's April 24, 2019 and May 24, 2019 orders as they
pertain to the documents contained in Tab 3 of Exhibit A (Bates
labeled COH0002145 and COH0002148); Tab 4 of Exhibit A (Bates
labeled COH0002151-53, COH0002155-57, and COH0002159-62); Tab 5 of
Exhibit A (Bates labeled COH0002164-65, COH0002168-69,
COH0002171-72, COH0002174-75, COH0002177-78, COH0002180-82,
COH0002184-86, COH0002188-91, COH0002193-96, and
COH0002198-COH0002292); Tab 8 of Exhibit A (Bates labeled
COH0002217-20); and Tab 9 of Exhibit A (Bates labeled
COH0002384-92).  The City's Petition is denied in all other
respects.  The Court further remanded the matter to the district
court for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/aqGLda from Leagle.com.

Warren W. Harris -- warren.harris@bracewell.com -- for Petitioner.

Sean Gorman -- sean.gorman@bracewell.com -- for Petitioner.

Rebecca Bernhardt -- bernhard.rebecca@dorsey.com -- for
Petitioner.

Anna Rotman -- anna.rotman@kirkland.com -- for Petitioner.

Ryan C. Downer, for Petitioner.

Patrick King, for Petitioner.

Susanne Ashley Pringle -- shpringle@pringleavocats.com -- for
Petitioner.

Walter Allums Simons -- walter.simons@bracewell.com -- for
Petitioner.

Kasdin M. Mitchell -- kasdin.mitchell@kirkland.com -- for
Petitioner.

Leonora Cohen -- lara.cohen@kirkland.com -- for Petitioner.

Charles Gerstein, for Petitioner.

Alex Stone Zuckerman -- alex.zuckerman@kirkland.com -- for
Petitioner.


HOUSTON, TX: Appeals Decision in Hernandez Suit to Fifth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant City of Houston filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Juan Hernandez, et al. v. City of Houston, Case
No. 4:16-CV-3577, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston.

The appellate case is captioned as Juan Hernandez, et al. v. City
of Houston, Case No. 19-90019, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.

The Class Action Reporter reported on June 26, 2019, that the
Defendant appealed a District Court ruling issued in the lawsuit.
That appellate case is styled In re: City of Houston v. Juan
Hernandez, et al., Case No. 19-20377.

The lawsuit alleges that Houston unconstitutionally detains people
it arrests longer than 48 hours without giving them a probable
cause hearing.

Lead plaintiff Juan Hernandez says Houston police arrested him
without a warrant in January after he pushed his family member.  He
was charged with misdemeanor assault and booked into a city jail.

Mr. Hernandez claims that the City doesn't provide probable cause
hearings for its arrestees right away, instead only offering them
the option of immediately getting out of jail by paying bail based
on a set fee schedule.

"The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Texas
state law require that anyone arrested without a warrant be
released promptly -- after 48 hours at the longest -- unless a
neutral magistrate has concluded that there was probable cause  or
her arrest and continued detention," the complaint states.
"Houston has a policy and practice of disregarding this simple
obligation."[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents JUAN HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated, DEQUAN KIRKWOOD, MANUEL TREVINO, KENT
WHEATFALL and ERIC AGUIRRE are represented by:

          Leonora Cohen, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P.
          333 S. Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-0000
          Telephone: (213) 680-8157
          E-mail: lara.cohen@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Ryan C. Downer, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (617) 216-2423
          E-mail: ryan@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Anna Rotman, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P.
          609 Main Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 836-3750
          E-mail: anna.rotman@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Alex Stone Zuckerman, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, L.L.P.
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909-3394
          E-mail: alex.zuckerman@kirkland.com

Defendant-Petitioner CITY OF HOUSTON is represented by:

          Donald Jay Fleming, Esq.
          Ronald Charles Lewis, Esq.
          CITY OF HOUSTON
          900 Bagby Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (832) 393-6303
          E-mail: don.fleming@houstontx.gov
                  Ronald.lewis@houstontx.gov

               - and -

          Sean Gorman, Esq.
          Warren W. Harris, Esq.
          BRACEWELL, L.L.P.
          711 Louisiana Street
          S. Pennzoil Plaza
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 221-1221
          E-mail: sean.gorman@bracewell.com
                  warren.harris@bracewell.com

IDEANOMICS INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all investors that purchased
Ideanomics, Inc. (NASDAQ: IDEX) securities between May 15, 2017 and
November 13, 2018 (the "Class Period").  Investors have until
September 17, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The complaint filed on July 19, 2019 alleges that throughout the
Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i)
costs associated with building out Ideanomics' U.S. infrastructure
and hiring its new executive team were negatively impacting the
Company's bottom line performance; (ii) as a result, Ideanomics was
highly unlikely to meet its 2018 EBITDA guidance; (iii) Ideanomics'
margins in its oil trading and consumer electronics businesses were
too low for those businesses to remain viable; and (iv) as a
result, Ideanomics' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a New York-based law firm
concentrating in commercial and securities litigation.  For
additional information concerning the Ideanomics class action
please go to https://bespc.com/idex.  For additional information
about Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. please go to www.bespc.com

Contacts

         Brandon Walker, Esq.
         Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
         Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
         Tel.No.: (212) 355-4648
         Website: www.bespc.com
         E-mail: fortunato@bespc.com
                 walker@bespc.com
                 investigations@bespc.com [GN]


INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders that acquired shares of
Intelligent Systems Corporation (INS) between January 23, 2019, and
May 29, 2019, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and
seeks to recover damages for INS investors under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

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

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors:(1) Defendant Petit, the "financial expert" on
Intelligent Systems' Audit Committee engaged in accounting fraud as
the CEO of MiMedx Group, Inc.; (2) Intelligent Systems' CEO,
Defendant Strange, engaged in undisclosed related-party
transactions with Defendant Petit and others and had an undisclosed
personal relations hip with the Company's auditor; (3) Intelligent
Systems had its employees set up or take control of shell companies
in Asia so they could partake in undisclosed related-party
transactions for the purpose of either fabricating revenue for the
Company and/or siphoning money out of the Company; and (4) as a
result, defendants' statements about Intelligent Systems' business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On May 24, 2019, before market hours, Aurelius Value published a
report "INS: A Wolf in Pete's Clothing." The report discussed
MiMedx Group's disclosures concerning Defendant Petit and also
accused the Company's CEO, Defendant Strange, inter alia, of
engaging in undisclosed related-party transactions with Defendant
Petit and others and of  an undisclosed personal relationship with
INS's auditor, Nicolas Cauley.

On this news, shares of INS fell $4.18 per share, or more than 10%
to close at $34.93 per share on May 24, 2019, damaging investors.

On May 30, 2019, before the market opened, Grizzly Research LLC
issued a report entitled "Intelligent Systems Corp: Material
Undisclosed Related Party Transactions Cast Doubt on the Integrity
of Financial Statements." The report presented evidence that
"Intelligent Systems Corp. (INS) has its employees set up or take
control of undisclosed shell companies in Asia, who then partake in
undisclosed related party transactions with INS intended to either
round-trip revenue back to INS or siphon money out of the company."
It further stated that "there is a possibility that all revenue
growth since January 2018 has been a result of undisclosed
round-trip transactions with Indian related parties."

On this news, shares of INS fell $6.82 from the prior day's closing
price of $33.81 or over 20%, to close at $26.99 per share on May
30, 2019.

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. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may
remain an absent class member.

If you purchased INS securities during the Class Period, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please
contact:

         Matthew Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street, New York,
         New York 1001
         Phone: (877) 779-1414
         Website: https://www.bernlieb.com
         Email: seidman@bernlieb.com
                MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed the first class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Intelligent Systems Corporation (NYSE American: INS)
from January 23, 2019 through May 29, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Intelligent
Systems investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Intelligent Systems class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1599.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) Defendant Petit, the "financial expert" on Intelligent
Systems' Audit Committee engaged in accounting fraud as the CEO of
MiMedx Group, Inc.; (2) Intelligent Systems' CEO, Defendant
Strange, engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions with
Defendant Petit and others and had an undisclosed personal
relationship with the Company's auditor; (3) Intelligent Systems
had its employees set up or take control of shell companies in Asia
so they could partake in undisclosed related-party transactions for
the purpose of either fabricating revenue for the Company and/or
siphoning money out of the Company; and (4) as a result,
defendants' statements about Intelligent Systems' business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and/or 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-1599.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

Contact:

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


IQVIA INC: Court Nixes Bid to Dismiss SAC in TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADVANCED OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, P.C., a Mississippi
Corporation, on behalf of itself, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. IQVIA, INC.,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:18-cv-00197-NBB-JMV (N.D. Miss.),
Judge Neal B. Biggers, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division, denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

On Sept. 13, 2018, Plaintiff Advanced Obstetrics & Gynecology filed
its class action complaint alleging Defendant IQVIA violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA", as amended by
the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, by sending an unsolicited
advertisement via facsimile without certain "opt-out" language1
required by the Act, to the Plaintiff and the other putative class
members.  On April 2, 2019, the Plaintiff filed its Second Amended
Complaint with the Court's permission to include additional factual
allegations.

IQVIA now moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for dismissal
of the Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

The fax at issue was sent on June 30, 2017, addressed to Dr.
William Frohn, inviting him to participate in an online research
study.  The fax is one-page and is divided into three sections.
The first section of the fax identifies Dr. Frohn by his name and
reference number and invites him to join a select group of
healthcare professionals reporting for our online study.  The
second section lists an honorarium available upon participation in
the study.  The third section includes a fill-in-the-blank form
with blank lines for Dr. Frohn's business and medical practice
information, including his "primary specialty."  Additionally, the
fax directs where to send the completed application (via fax) and
how to request more information (via email or phone).  

The Plaintiff's complaint alleges that the fax was sent as part of
a scheme to collect the Plaintiff's data to later be repackaged and
sold to IQVIA's clients.  The Plaintiff alleges the surveys IQVIA
sent were pretextual with financial profit as their purpose, and
the data collected was to be sold via IQVIA's healthcare consulting
services.

In addition, the complaint alleges the fax advertised incentives
(brand name items and gift cards that can be exchanged for "award
points") to participate in pharmaceutical marketing programs,
therefore attempting to induce Plaintiff into a commercial
relationship.  Finally, the Plaintiff alleges the fax was
explicitly commercial, as its purpose was to solicit recipient's
participation in a commercialized data collection plan


In moving to dismiss, IQVIA argues that the fax inviting Dr. Frohn
to participate in an online research study is not an advertisement'
within the meaning of the TCPA because it does not advertise the
commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or
services.  Further, it contends that this fact is evident from the
face of the fax, and the additional allegations pled in the Second
Amended Complaint purporting to describe IQVIA's business
activities cannot change the content of the fax or cure the
substantive defect necessitating dismissal.  In addition, the
Defendant argues the additional allegations pled in the Second
Amended Complaint are "unsupported legal conclusions and legally
irrelevant allegations that future economic benefits might someday
flow from the informational fax.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to follow Mussat v. IQVIA Inc., a
factually similar case which survived a 12(b)(6) motion in the
Northern District of Illinois.  In the Mussat opinion denying the
Defendant's 12(b)(6) motion, the court stated that Mussat's
complaint plausibly alleged facts suggesting that the fax --
although not an overt sales pitch -- furthered the Defendant's
commercial efforts or advanced its marketing operations.

Judge Biggers opines that the allegations in the Plaintiff's
complaint plausibly state a claim for a TCPA violation for
allegedly sending an unsolicited advertisement via fax.  As in
Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc.,
questions of pretext and financial benefit to the Defendant must be
addressed before the Court may conclude the fax was sent for a
purely informational purpose.  Such an examination is not
appropriate at the 12(b)(6) stage of litigation.

For the foregoing reasons, the Judge concludes that the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is not well-taken
and should be denied.  A separate order in accord with the Opinion
will issue.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/uM3Wfp from Leagle.com.

Advanced Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., a Mississippi corporation,
on behalf of itself, and on behalf of a class of similary situated
individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra S. Debrosse
Zimmermann, ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE TRIAL LAWYERS, pro hac vice
& Laurance Nicholas Chandler Rogers, ROGERS LAW GROUP, P.A.

IQVIA, Inc., a North Carolina corporation, Defendant, represented
by Dorsey Reese Carson, Jr., CARSON LAW GROUP, Edward C.
Eberspacher, IV --- teberspacher@meyerlex.com -- MEYER LAW GROUP,
LLC, pro hac vice, Eric Foster Hatten, CARSON LAW GROUP, PLLC &
Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, pro
hac vice.


JL GRAY: Mice Infestation Class Suit About to Get Bigger
--------------------------------------------------------
Portia Baudisch, writing for KFOX14, reports that a class-action
lawsuit against an allegedly rodent- and bug-ridden apartment
complex in Las Cruces is about to get bigger.

A judge ruled July 19, 2019, that Desert Palms Apartments must
release the names of all tenants from September 2012 to September
2018.

Current and former tenants told KFOX14 their apartments were
infested with mice and bugs.

One woman said she complained to management and was told it was all
in her head.

KFOX14 reporter Portia Baudisch was asked to leave the property
when she went to Desert Palms Apartments. She said the landlord
closed all of the blinds as she left.

As Baudisch was driving away, she said the landlord started
recording her on her phone. Baudisch said she rolled down the
window and told her she wanted to ask about the lawsuit. Baudisch
says the woman replied, "I know" and kept recording.

One tenant said the conditions at her apartment caused her to get
sick.

"Really bad stomachaches, a lot of vomiting. The doctor kept
saying, 'Let's try different things,' and different things, well,
nothing ever evidently was working, because I didn't even fathom
that mice could live in your stove," said Erica Olivas.

Olivas said her mystery illness was caused by cooking on a stove
full of mice feces.

"I talked to a lady last week who has bedbugs and the manager said
why doesn't she scoop a bedbug up and show it to her," Olivas
said.

Below are images of a seventh grade boy who allegedly has bedbug
bites all over his body from Desert Palms Apartments:

"We are overrun with rodents, roaches. We had smoke detector
systems, we thought batteries were low, but when they took the
smoke detector down, it was so full of roaches and roach feces that
they cleaned it out and put it back up, and it was fine," said
Donald Boyce.

Boyce, a veteran, said he believes some people don't complain
because they are afraid of getting evicted and being homeless.

"They use such intimidating tactics. 'Well, you know you're
disabled, but you're only paying so much rent.' They would, more or
less, make you feel low," Boyce said.

"A lot of people living there, it's the first place they're living
from either living in a car or (being) through hard times," Olivas
said.

Victor Ortiz said he sleeps on an air mattress because of the
bedbugs.

"I threw away an old desk, my bed I had for a couple years and a
lot of my clothing," Ortiz said.

Olivas, Boyce and Ortiz are just three of 59 members of the
class-action lawsuit.

With the judge's ruling, the class-action lawsuit could be getting
larger as former tenants add their claims.

Many tenants at the apartment complex have low incomes or are
seniors, disabled or veterans who may qualify for Section 8 housing
funds.

The Las Cruces Housing Authority, the Mesilla Valley Public Housing
Authority and the company hired by the city to carry out
inspections will not comment because of the ongoing litigation.

JL Gray Company, which owns Desert Palms Apartments, has not yet
responded to a request for comment.

The lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit are asking anyone
who has had problems at Desert Palms Apartments to contact them if
they would like to get involved. [GN]


KICKSTARTER PBC: Jones Sues Over Deaf-Inaccessible Web Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
KAHLIMAH JONES, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. KICKSTARTER, PBC, Case No.
1:19-cv-04119 (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2019), arises from the
Defendant's alleged failure to design, construct, or operate a Web
site--http://www.kickstarter.com/--thatis fully accessible to, and
independently usable by, deaf and hard-of-hearing people like the
Plaintiff.

Kickstarter, PBC, is a Delaware Foreign Public Benefit Corporation
doing business in New York and is registered in the state of New
York to do business.  The Company has a principal place of business
in Brooklyn, New York.

The Defendant operates the Web site, which is a crowdfunding
platform, which enables the visitors to the Web site to view
start-up project and make pledges of money in exchange for tangible
rewards or experiences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Shaked, Esq.
          SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
          Scarsdale, NY 10583
          Telephone: (917) 373-9128
          E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Shron Sues over Hidden Up-Front Fees
------------------------------------------------------
The case, Marina Shron on behalf of herself and similarly-situated
others, the Plaintiff, vs. LendingClub Corporation, 595 Market
Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94105, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-06718 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2019), addresses breaches of
contract and misrepresentations and omissions committed by
LendingClub in connection with Defendant's business operation in
violation of the New York General Business Law, and the Truth in
Lending Act.

According to ther complaint, LendingClub knows beyond a shadow of a
doubt that consumers are not aware of hidden up-front fees that the
Defendant charges in connection with its loan agreements.

LendingClub falsely misled the Plaintiff and similarly situated
others into believing that they were borrowing a specific amount of
funds with "no additional fees."

However, the amount of loan funds received by the Plaintiff and
similarly situated others was significantly lower than the amount
promised by the Defendant due to hidden up-front fees that
LendingClub deducts from consumers' loan proceeds.

The Defendant also charges consumers like the Plaintiff interest on
the full amount of the loan despite the fact that the consumers
receive less than such amount. This resulted of paying a higher
rate of interest on the loan than the rate agreed to at the time
the loan agreement was formed.

LendingClub is a US peer-to-peer lending company, headquartered in
San Francisco, California. It was the first peer-to-peer lender to
register its offerings as securities with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, and to offer loan trading on a secondary
market.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Gregory Allen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY ALLEN
          60 Joyce Court
          Milford, CT 06461
          Telephone: 203-535-4636
          E-mail: greg@gjallenlaw.com

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Moodie Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as SHONNTEY MOODIE, individually
and on behalf of all others similrly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
MAXIM HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., a Maryland Corporation; and
VERIFILE.COM, INC., a Georgia Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
2:14-cv-03471-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. scheduling a Final Approval (Fairness) Hearing on this
      Motion for August 22, 2019 at 10:00 a.m.;

   2. approving the proposed Settlement Agreement and any
      addenda thereto as fair, adequate and reasonable to
      Plaintiff and the Class as a whole and as compliant with
      Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
      direct the Settlement Agreement's consummation according
      to its terms;

   3. finding that the form and manner of Class Notice was
      implemented in accordance with the Settlement Agreement  
      and: (i) constitutes reasonable and the best practicable  
      notice; (ii) constitutes notice reasonably calculated,  
      under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of the  
      pendency of the litigation, the terms of the proposed  
      Settlement Agreement, the right to object to the proposed  
      Settlement Agreement or exclude themselves from the Class,  
      and the right to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing;  
      (iii) constitutes due, adequate, and sufficient notice to  
      all persons entitled to receive notice; and (iv) meets the  
      requirements of state and federal due process, the Federal  
      Rules of Civil Procedure, and any other applicable state  
      and/or federal laws;

   4. certifying a Settlement Class for the purpose of
      settlement;

   5. finding that all Class Members shall be bound by the  
      Settlement Agreement, including its release provisions,  
      except for those who have submitted a valid opt-out  
      request;

   6. directing that judgment be entered dismissing with  
      prejudice all individual and class claims asserted in the  
      litigation and rule that no costs or fees be assessed on  
      either party other than as expressly provided in the  
      Settlement Agreement and awarded by the Court in ruling  
      upon Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for an Award of Class  
      Representative Incentive Payment and Attorneys' Fees and  
      Costs;

   7. incorporating the release and related provisions set forth  
      in the Settlement Agreement and bar any Released Claims  
      against the Released Parties;

   8. continuing to appoint Plaintiff Shonntey Moodie as Class  
      Representative for settlement purposes;

   9. continuing to appoint Zimmerman Reed LLP and Mahoney Law  
      Group, APC as Class Counsel for settlement purposes;

  10. approving the work to date of JND Legal Administration  
      and continue to appoint it as Settlement Administrator;

  11. excluding all Class Members who timely filed exclusions  
      from the Class;

  12. overruling any and all objections to the settlement that  
      were timely filed and find that they fail to raise any  
      prima facie grounds for questioning the fairness,  
      reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement;

  13. approving payment of the benefits to the Class Members  
      consistent with the Settlement Agreement; and

  14. retaining jurisdiction over all matters relating to this  
      action, including but not 26 limited to the following:   
      (1) implementation and enforcement of the Settlement   
      Agreement pursuant to further orders of the Court, until   
      such time as the final judgment contemplated hereby has   
      become effective and each and every act agreed to be   
      performed by the parties hereto shall have been performed   
      pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, including all   
      payments set forth thereunder; (2) any other action   
      necessary to conclude this settlement and implement the   
      Settlement Agreement; (3) proceedings related to the   
      Motion for An Award of Class Representative Incentive   
      Payment and Attorney's Fees and Costs; and (4) the   
      enforcement, construction, and interpretation of the   
      Settlement Agreement.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

           Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
           Hannah B. Fernandez, Esq.
           ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
           2381 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 328
           Manhattan Beach, CA 90245
           Telephone: (877) 500-8780
           Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
           E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
                   hannah.fernandez@zimmreed.com

                - and -

           Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
           MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
           249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
           Long Beach, CA 90802
           Telephone: (562) 590-5550
           Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
           E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net



MAZDA MOTOR: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
it has filed a class action lawsuit against Mazda Motor of America,
Inc. and Mazda Motor Corporation in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all
persons in the United States who purchased, own, owned, lease or
leased the following vehicles: Mazda CX-9 (2007-2016); and Mazda 6
(2009-2013). The case is captioned Sonneveldt, et al. v. Mazda
Motor of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:19-cv-01298.

Owners or Lessees of Mazda vehicles with a defective water pump who
wish to discuss their legal rights or interests are encouraged to
contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Esq. or
Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com. For additional information please visit
www.ktmc.com/mazda-water-pump-engine-failure.

The complaint alleges that, beginning in 2007 and continuing
through the 2016 model year, Mazda has incorporated its MZI Cyclone
engine (the "Cyclone Engine") into hundreds of thousands of
vehicles, which include the CX-9 for model years 2007 through 2016
and the Mazda 6 for model years 2009 through 2013. The Cyclone
Engine contains an internal chain-driven water pump, which means
the timing chain is connected to the water pump and provides the
power the water pump needs to circulate coolant through the engine
when the engine is running. The chain-driven water pump is located
internal to the Cyclone Engine, behind numerous engine components,
including the timing chain cover.

Unbeknownst to purchasers and lessees of these vehicles, the
Cyclone Engine contains a defect in design, manufacturing,
materials and/or workmanship that causes the water pump to suddenly
and prematurely fail well-before the end of the useful life of the
engine, which leads to catastrophic engine failure or a costly
replacement due to the water pump's inaccessible placement in the
engine.

When the water pump prematurely fails without warning, coolant is
able to leak from the water pump into the oil pan and/or other
engine components, allowing it to mix with the engine's oil. The
mixture of engine oil and coolant circulates throughout the engine,
leading to destruction of the engine. Despite having knowledge of
this defect, Mazda continued selling defective vehicles, failed to
disclose the defect to owners and lessees, has not issued a recall,
and has not remedied the issue and/or compensated owners and
lessees of the defective vehicles.

Contact:

         James Maro, Jr., Esq.
         Adrienne Bell, Esq.
         Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Toll Free: (888) 299-7706
                    (610) 667-7706
         Website: www.ktmc.com
         Email: info@ktmc.com
                abell@ktmc.com
                jmaro@ktmc.com [GN]


MCSS REST: Court Certifies 4 Classes in Mendez FLSA/NYLL Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CATALINO MENDEZ et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MCSS REST. CORP. et
al., Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-2746 (NGG) (RLM) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge
Nicholas G. Garaufis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York certified four classes -- the Old Tipped
Employees, Old Non-Tipped Employees, New Tipped Employees, and New
Non-Tipped Employees.

The Plaintiffs, a group of 18 restaurant workers, move for Rule 23
class certification in the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
New York Labor Law ("NYLL") action against the Defendants, the
owners and operators of Cross Bay Diner in Howard Beach, Queens,
and Parkview Diner in Brooklyn.  

The Plaintiffs, who worked in a wide variety of tipped and
non-tipped positions, allege that the Defendants failed to pay them
the minimum wage or overtime pay for certain time periods between
May 31, 2010 and the present, in violation of FLSA and the NYLL.
They also allege that the Defendants failed to pay them
spread-of-hours premiums when working a shift and/or split shift of
10 or more hours, and that they did not receive uniform maintenance
pay, or proper wage statements and wage notices, in violation of
the NYLL.

The Plaintiffs filed the case on May 31, 2016.  Defendants MCSS,
Al-Ken, Michael Siderakis, and Konstantino Siklas ("Cross Bay
Defendants") answered on Sept. 1, 2016.

The Plaintiffs bring eight claims.  The first two are FLSA
collective action claims for unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum
wage on behalf of all non-management employees who worked at Cross
Bay Diner and Parkview Diner at any time since May 31, 2013.  The
other six are NYLL claims for: failure to pay minimum wage for all
hours worked in violation of § 650 et seq. ("Count Three");
failure to pay overtime for hours worked in excess of forty per
week in violation of Section 650 et seq. ("Count Four"); failure to
pay spread-of-hours premiums for days in which the employees lasted
ten or more hours in violation of N.Y. Comp. Code R. & Regs. Tit.
12, Section 137-1.7 (2010), 146-1.6 (2012) ("Count Five"); failure
to provide wage notices in violation of NYLL, Article 6, Section
195 ("Count Six"); failure to provide wage statements in violation
of Article 6, Section 195 ("Count Seven"); and failure to reimburse
for the purchase of required uniforms and to provide uniform
maintenance pay in violation of N.Y. Comp. Code R. & Regs. Tit. 12
Sections 138-1.8 (2009), 146-1.7 & 1.8 (2011) ("Count Eight").

With the Cross Bay Defendants' consent, the Court certified the
Plaintiffs' two FLSA claims as a collective action and authorized
the Plaintiffs to issue notice to all current and former
non-management employees who worked at Cross Bay at any time
between May 31, 2013 and Dec. 6, 2016.  The Defendants provided a
list of 46 employees who met this definition.  The parties have
exchanged discovery, taken depositions of four opt-in the
Plaintiffs, and obtained declarations from six other Plaintiffs.

Having previously obtained (with the consent of the Defendants who
have not defaulted) certification as a FLSA collective action,
Plaintiffs now ask the Court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over, and certify four classes with respect to, their NYLL claims.
Collectively, these four classes consist of non-management
employees who worked in the Cross Bay Diner or the Parkview Diner
during the relevant time period.  

Specifically, they move to certify Counts Three through Eight on
behalf of the following classes:

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

     2. All persons who worked as non-tipped employees at Cross Bay
Diner between May 31, 2010 and its closure after Hurricane Sandy in
or around Oct. 29, 2012 and at Parkview Diner at any time between
May 31, 2010 and its sale in or around July 2014 ("Old Non-Tipped
Employees").

The Plaintiffs further seek to certify Counts Three through Five,
Seven, and Eight on behalf of the following classes:

     3. All persons who worked as tipped employees at Cross Bay
Diner at any time between its reopening after Hurricane Sandy on or
about May 24, 2013 and the present ("New Tipped Employees"); and

     4. All persons who worked as non-tipped employees at Cross Bay
Diner at any time between its re-opening after Hurricane Sandy on
or about May 24, 2013 and the present ("New Non-Tipped
Employees").4

This means that there are two class periods: (1) the "Old Period,"
which encompasses employees that worked at either Cross Bay Diner
at any time between May 31, 2010 and Oct. 29, 2012, or Parkview
Diner at any time between May 31, 2010, and July 2014; and (2) the
"New Period," which encompasses Cross Bay Diner employees from May
24, 2013 to the present.

The Plaintiffs also request that the three Named Plaintiffs be
appointed the class representatives; that their counsel, Pelton
Graham LLC, be appointed as the class counsel under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(g); and that the court authorizes the Plaintiffs
to send notice to the Class Members.

The Cross Bay Defendants oppose the instant motion.  They argue
that the Plaintiffs have not met their burden under Rule 23(b)(3)
to show that questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
and that a class action is superior to other available methods for
adjudicating the controversy.  However, they do not contest the
Court's exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs'
NYLL claims.

Judge Garaufis granted the Plaintiffs' motion for an order
affirming that the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over their NYLL claims and certifying four classes -- the Old
Tipped Employees, Old Non-Tipped Employees, New Tipped Employees,
and New Non-Tipped Employees.  Plaintiffs Catalino Mendez, Eduardo
Chocoj, and Israel Rodriguez are appointed as the class
representatives.  Pelton Graham LLC is appointed as the class
counsel.  The parties are directed to proceed with class-wide
discovery and to confer regarding the form of class notice and the
production of the Class Members' contact information before
submitting a proposed notice to the Court.

The Judge held that the classes have satisfyed the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).  Having considered the 23(g)(1)(a)
factors, the Judge also finds that the four proposed classes will
be adequately represented by the Plaintiffs' counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/AtO7JJ from Leagle.com.

Catalino Mendez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Eduardo Chocoj, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated & Israel Rodriguez, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brent
E. Pelton -- pelton@peltongraham.com -- Pelton & Associates, PC.

MCSS Rest. Corp., Jointly and Severally & Miko Enterprises, LLC,
doing business as Parkview Diner, Defendants, represented by Arthur
H. Forman -- mail@ahforman.com -- Attorney at Law & Brian James
Hufnagel, Morrison Tenenbaum PLLC.

AL-KEN Corp., doing business as Cross Bay Diner, Michael Siderakis,
Jointly and Severally & Konstantinos Siklas, Jointly and Severally,
Defendants, represented by Arthur H. Forman, Attorney at Law.

Christos Siderakis, Jointly and Severally, Defendant, pro se.


MDL 2672: Denial of Claimants' Branded Title Claims Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Order Relates
To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 5730, 5731, 5737, 5807, 5898, MDL No. 2672 CRB
(JSC) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California affirmed the denial
of Claimants' branded title claims.

Under the Court-approved 2.0-liter and 3.0-liter settlement
agreements, Volkswagen initially processes claims for benefits.
The Court-appointed Claims Supervisor is then responsible for
validating VW's claims decisions.  If VW and the Claims Supervisor
determine that a claim is ineligible, the claimant may appeal to
the Court-appointed Claims Review Committee ("CRC").

Between Feb. 26, 2018 and Dec. 9, 2018, VW processed 5,913 branded
title claims, which included all of the claims that it had
previously placed on hold.  Of those claims, it approved 2,474 and
denied 3,439.  According to the Claims Supervisor, the majority of
eligible claims processed involved vehicles with rebuilt titles
[category 3 in the above framework], and the majority of ineligible
claims involved vehicles that had salvage titles as of Feb. 26,
2018 [category 4 in the above framework].  The CRC affirmed VW's
denials of the salvage-title claims, although some appeals remain
pending.

Certain claimants that went through this process have filed motions
in which they argue that the CRC, by adopting a framework for
handling their claims, and by then denying their claims pursuant to
that framework, effectively amended the settlement agreements
without Court approval.  They argue that the CRC exceeded its
authority in doing so, and they contend that under the unamended
agreements they are entitled to benefits.  VW, in opposing
Claimants' motions, argues that the CRC acted within its authority
and that the CRC's determinations are final.

Judge Breyer concludes that assuming that the CRC's determinations
are reviewable and that the CRC, through the February 26 framework,
effectively amended the 2.0-liter and 3.0-liter settlement
agreements, he approves those amendments, which are consistent with
the goals of the agreements and the Parties' intentions in agreeing
to settle their claims.  VW and the CRC denied the Claimants'
claims pursuant to the February 26 framework.  Having approved that
framework, the Judge affirmed the denial of Claimants' claims.  The
Claimants' motions, in which they seek an order that would reverse
the denial of their claims, are denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/98UVcE from Leagle.com.

Nicholas Benipayo, Plaintiff, represented by Robert B. Carey --
rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com
--
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Nadine Bonda, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Stewart --
astewart@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP & Thomas G.
Shapiro -- tshapiro@shulaw.com -- Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Brian Connelly, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas G. Shapiro,
Shapiro Haber and Urmy, LLP.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amie Adelia Vague --
avague@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White, Casey Erin
Lucier -- clucier@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Charles J.
Baker, III -- chuck.baker@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge
and Rice, Colin Hampton Tucker -- ctucker@rhodesokla.com -- Rhodes
Hieronymus Jones Tucker & Gable, Dana Woodrum Lang --
dana.lang@wbd-us.com -- Womble Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, David
M. Eisenberg -- eisenberg@bscr-law.com -- Sterchi, Cowden & Rice,
LLC, Henry Buist Smythe, Jr. -- henry.smythe@wbd-us.com -- Womble
Carlyle Sandridge and Rice, Howard Feller --
hfeller@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, William R. Scherer
--
wscherer@conradscherer.com -- Conrad and Scherer, LLP, J. Randolph
Bibb, Jr. -- rbibb@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King,
Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., James K. Toohey -- tooheyj@jbltd.com --
Johns & Bell LTD, Jeffrey Lance Chase -- JChase@herzfeld-rubin.com
-- Chase Kurshan Herzfeld & Rufin LLC, Jeffrey S. Rugg --
jrugg@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Jennifer
Marino Thibodaux -- jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- Gibbons PC.



MDL 2741: Strayhorn v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
E. BRUCE STRAYHORN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-377 (Filed June 6,
2019) was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco) on July 19, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-04118-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
          Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
          KAGAN LEGAL GROUP
          295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6 Palmanova Plaza
          Humacao, PR 00791
          Telephone: (939) 220-2424
          Facsimile: (939) 220-2477
          E-mail: andrew@kaganlegalgroup.com
                  liz@kagan-law.com

               - and -

          Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
          MOORE LAW GROUP, PLLC
          1473 South 4th Street
          Louisville, KY 40208
          Telephone: (502) 717-4080
          Facsimile: (502) 717-4086
          E-mail: jennifer@moorelawgroup.com

MDL 2800: Settlement Reached in Equifax Customer Data Theft Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equifax Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on July 22, 2019, that the company
has entered into multiple agreements that resolve a class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of U.S. consumers captioned In re: Equifax,
Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2800.

On July 19, 2019 and July 22, 2019, the Company entered into
multiple agreements that resolve a class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of U.S. consumers captioned In re: Equifax, Inc. Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 2800 (Consumer Cases) (the
"U.S. Consumer Litigation") and the investigations of the Federal
Trade Commission ("FTC"), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
("CFPB"), the Attorneys General of 48 states, the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico (the "MSAG Group") and the New York
Department of Financial Services ("NYDFS") (collectively, the
"Consumer Settlement").

Under the terms of the Consumer Settlement, the Company will
contribute $380.5 million to a non-reversionary settlement fund
(the "Consumer Restitution Fund") to provide restitution for U.S.
consumers identified by the Company whose personal information was
compromised as a result of the 2017 cybersecurity incident (the
"affected consumers").

The Consumer Restitution Fund will be used to (1) compensate
affected consumers for certain unreimbursed costs or expenditures
incurred by affected consumers that are fairly traceable to the
2017 cybersecurity incident, (2) provide affected consumers with an
opportunity to enroll in at least four years of credit monitoring
services provided by a third party unaffiliated with the Company or
alternative compensation for affected consumers who already have
other credit monitoring services, (3) provide affected consumers
with additional benefits such as identity restoration services and
(4) pay reasonable attorneys' fees and reasonable costs and
expenses for the plaintiffs' counsel in the U.S. Consumer
Litigation (not to exceed $80.5 million) and administrative and
notice costs.

The Company has agreed to contribute up to an additional $125
million to the Consumer Restitution Fund to cover unreimbursed
costs and expenditures described in (1) above in the event the
$380.5 million in the Consumer Restitution Fund is exhausted.

In addition, if the number of affected consumers who enroll in the
third party credit monitoring services described above in (2)
exceeds seven million, the Company may be required, under certain
circumstances, to contribute additional money into the Consumer
Restitution Fund to cover the incremental cost of providing credit
monitoring services to the additional affected consumers.

The Company also agreed to pay an additional $180.5 million to the
MSAG Group and the following monetary penalties: (1) $100 million
to the CFPB and (2) $10 million to the NYDFS.

The Company also agreed to implement certain business practice
commitments related to information security to safeguard the
personal information of consumers, including conducting third party
assessments of its information security program.

The Consumer Settlement, other than the agreement with the NYDFS,
is subject to court approval. The agreements regarding the U.S.
Consumer Litigation and the FTC and CFPB investigations are subject
to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (the "Court").

The settlement with the MSAG Group consists of substantially
similar agreements with each of the participating jurisdictions,
and each agreement is subject to court approval in the relevant
jurisdiction.

There can be no assurance that the courts in each relevant
jurisdiction will approve the agreements which make up the Consumer
Settlement.

The Company expects to pay the MSAG Group, the CFPB and the NYDFS
in the third quarter of 2019. The Company will establish and
contribute approximately $25 million to the Consumer Restitution
Fund promptly after the Court approves the issuance of notice of
class action settlement. That preliminary Court approval is
expected in the third quarter of 2019.

The contribution of the remainder of the $380.5 million to the
Consumer Restitution Fund will be made after final Court approval
of the Consumer Settlement, which could occur as early as the
fourth quarter of 2019.

The timing of the final Court approval of the settlement agreement
for the U.S. Consumer Litigation cannot be predicted with certainty
as it will depend on a number of factors outside of our control,
including the number of objections, if any, to the settlement
agreement, the Court’s schedule and discretion, and any appeals,
among other factors.

The company's current plans are to finance the payments with
existing borrowing capacity, including under our $1.1 billion
five-year unsecured revolving credit facility and our $225 million
receivables funding facility.

The Company's participation in the Consumer Settlement does not
constitute an admission by the Company of any fault or liability,
and the Company does not admit fault or liability.

Equifax said, "If approved by an applicable court, the Consumer
Settlement will only resolve the U.S. Consumer Litigation and the
investigations of the FTC, CFPB, MSAG Group and NYDFS."

Equifax Inc., incorporated on December 20, 1913, is a global data,
analytics and technology company. It is a provider of information
solutions and human resources business process outsourcing services
for businesses, governments and consumers. The Company operates in
four segments: U.S. Information Solutions (USIS), International,
Workforce Solutions and Global Consumer Solutions. Its products and
services are based on databases of consumer and business
information derived from various sources, including credit,
financial assets, telecommunications and utility payments,
employment, income, demographic and marketing data. The company is
based in Atlanta, Georgia.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Dangelo et al. Suit Moved to E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Paul Dangelo and Jillian
Reginato, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 603541/2019, was removed 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 (Central Islip) on July
19, 2019. The suit demands $501,000 in damages. The suit alleges
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Established in 1953, MCM, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Encore
Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company providing debt
recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of
assets.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.

Attorneys for Midland Credit Management, Inc.:

          Dana Brett Briganti, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471-6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
          E-mail: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com

MIDLAND CREDIT: Doke Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID DOKE, the Plaintiff,
vs. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
8:18-cv-01567-JSM-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:

   1. certifying a Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act
      Class:

      "all consumers in the State of Florida who: (1) were sent
      letters by Midland Credit Management, Inc., that are
      substantially similar or materially identical to the
      Collection Letter attached to Plaintiff's Complaint; (2)
      relating to a consumer debt, (3) that was beyond the  
      statute of limitations; (4) on or after June 28, 2016";

   2. certifying a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Subclass:

      "all consumers in the State of Florida who: (1) were sent  
      letters by Midland Credit Management, Inc., that are  
      substantially similar or materially identical to the  
      Collection Letter attached to Plaintiff's Complaint; (2)  
      relating to a consumer debt, (3) that Defendant acquired  
      after it was in default; (4) and that was beyond the  
      statute of limitations; (4) on or after June 28, 2017";
      and

   3. designating Plaintiff as representative of the Class and  
      Plaintiff's Counsel be named Class Counsel.

MCM is a debt collector doing business in Florida that collects on
defaulted debts. MCM sent Plaintiff a Collection Letter that
Plaintiff alleges violated the FDCPA and FCCPA.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
          Brandon K. Breslow, Esq.
          KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.
          Post Office Box 3396
          Tampa, FL 33601 3396
          Telephone: (813) 229 1118
          Facsimile: (813) 221 6750
          E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com
                  bbreslow@kmf-law.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Baisden Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BAISDEN, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02035 (E.D. Mo, July 19, 2019), seeks
to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the
active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Cady, Esq.
          Ken Moll, Esq.
          MOLL LAW GROUP
          22 W Washington Street, 15 th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 462-1700
          Facsimile: (312) 756-0045
          E-mail: scady@molllawgroup.com
                  kmoll@molllawgroup.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Butler Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
HARRY BUTLER, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02040 (E.D. Mo, July 19, 2019), seeks to recover
damages suffered by the Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active
ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Cady, Esq.
          Ken Moll, Esq.
          MOLL LAW GROUP
          22 W Washington Street, 15 th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 462-1700
          Facsimile: (312) 756-0045
          E-mail: scady@molllawgroup.com
                  kmoll@molllawgroup.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Clays' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case, ELIZABETH E. CLAY and LOUIS CLAY JR., Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01042 (Filed on April
29, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The
transfer is pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-137)
regarding MDL NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. Furthermore, this product liability lawsuit is assigned
to Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The United States District Court for
the Northern District of California assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03522-VC to the proceeding.

In this complaint, Plaintiff seeks redress for the damages they
suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent
and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup,
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of
State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in
St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading
producer of glyphosate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Clifton Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, DENNIS W. CLIFTON, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01043 (Filed on April 29, 2019), was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The transfer is
pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-137) regarding MDL
NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. Furthermore,
this product liability lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge Vince
Chhabria. The United States District Court for the Northern
District of California assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-03544-VC to the
proceeding.

In this complaint, Plaintiff seeks redress for the damages they
suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent
and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup,
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of
State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in
St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading
producer of glyphosate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Culps' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
The case, SEAN R. CULP and ASHLEY CULP, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01044 (Filed on April 29,
2019), was transferred from the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The
transfer is pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-137)
regarding MDL NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. Furthermore, this product liability lawsuit is assigned
to Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The United States District Court for
the Northern District of California assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03546-VC to the proceeding.

In this complaint, Plaintiff seeks redress for the damages they
suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent
and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup,
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of
State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in
St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading
producer of glyphosate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Georges Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, WILLIAM E. GEORGE and ROBYN S. MALONEY-GEORGE,
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01047
(Filed on April 29, 2019), was transferred from the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
June 19, 2019. The transfer is pursuant to the Conditional Transfer
Order (CTO-137) regarding MDL NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. Furthermore, this product liability lawsuit
is assigned to Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The United States
District Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:19-cv-03547-VC to the proceeding.

In this complaint, Plaintiffs seek redress for the damages they
suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent
and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup,
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of
State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in
St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading
producer of glyphosate. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Jenningses' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, DENNIS D. JENNINGS and JO ANNE JENNINGS, Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00745 (Filed on March
29, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The
transfer is pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-137)
regarding MDL NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. Furthermore, this product liability lawsuit is assigned
to Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The United States District Court for
the Northern District of California assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03520-VC to the proceeding.

In this complaint, Plaintiffs seek redress for the damages they
suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent
and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup,
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of
State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in
St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading
producer of glyphosate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Joneses' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, ROBERT E. JONES and BARBARA S. JONES, Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00746 (Filed on March
29, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on June 19, 2019. The
transfer is pursuant to the Conditional Transfer Order (CTO-133)
regarding MDL NO. 2741 IN RE: ROUNDUP PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION. Furthermore, this product liability lawsuit is assigned
to Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria. The United States District Court for
the Northern District of California assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-03521-VC to the proceeding.

In this complaint, Plaintiffs seek redress for the damages they
suffered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent
and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup,
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation, Missouri Secretary of
State Charter No. F00488018, with a principal place of business in
St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational agricultural
biotechnology corporation that is regarded as the world’s leading
producer of glyphosate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOVING SOLUTIONS: Court Wants Settlement Terms Modified
-------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA MIDDLE RIDER, ALBERT ARELLANO, ROBERT GARZA, JOSE DON
CORONADO, the Plaintiffs, vs. MOVING SOLUTIONS, INC, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-04015-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Lucy H. Koh entered an order on July 20, 2019:

   1. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' second motion for
      preliminary approval of settlement; and

   2. scheduling a case management conference for October 2,
      2019 at 2:00 p.m.

The Court finds a flaw in the Settlement Agreement itself. The
Settlement Agreement defines "Released Claims" as all the claims
that "are alleged, related to or that reasonably could have arisen
out of the same facts alleged in the Action," including claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The problem is that any class
member who does not return the Claim Form will release the
"Released Claims," but will not release the FLSA claims. This is
inherently contradictory because "Released Claims" by definition
includes the FLSA claims. The parties try to side step this issue
in the Class Notice by discussing the release of the Released
Claims separately from release of the FLSA claims, but that is
simply not possible.

The parties must correct the definition of "Released Claims" in
their Settlement Agreement. In a Third Motion for Preliminary
Approval, the parties should define "Released Parties" in the Class
Notice. The parties should also use consistent language. For
example, the current Settlement Agreement uses the term "Class
Representative Enhancements," but the parties' Class Notice uses
both the terms "Class Representative Service Awards" and "Class
Representative Enhancements." As previously discussed, the parties
should be wary of using defined terms before actually defining
those terms. If attorneys' fees are ultimately awarded in this
case, the Court will not award attorneys' fees for repeated motions
for preliminary approval and multiple attempts at drafting an
adequate Class Notice.[CC]

NALCOR ENERGY: Labrador Class Suit Over Mud Lake Damage OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court
justice has ruled that a class-action lawsuit filed against Nalcor
Energy and the provincial government for damage to houses in Mud
Lake, Labrador, after flooding in the Churchill River in the spring
of 2017, can go ahead.

The case will examine whether the flooding, which devastated part
of the community, was caused by the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric
project.

"It's a big victory for the plaintiffs, in our view," said Ray
Wagner, Esq. -- classaction@wagners.com -- the Halifax lawyer who
launched the suit.

Without a class action, the plaintiffs wouldn't have the financial
capacity to file a suit on their own and seek compensation for the
damage to their homes caused by the floods, he said.

Water levels in the Churchill River began rising on May 11, 2017.
Five days later, half a kilometre of Mud Lake Road was underwater,
the court documents said. Mud Lake residents were forced to
evacuate the next day.

It was months before some residents felt they could return.

The hearing to have the case classified as a class action was held
April 26. Justice Gillian Butler delivered her written decision
approving the class-action suit on July 11.

Wagner said the case will now go to a common issues trial, where
the liability of the province and of Nalcor Energy will be
assessed. [GN]


NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Lacroix Maker Loses Out on Bid for Sanctions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has denied a request from the maker of LaCroix
sparkling waters to punish plaintiffs and their lawyers for
bringing an allegedly frivolous class action lawsuit over the
content of its drinks, which the company has branded "financial
terrorism," even though the lawsuit and the plaintiffs' marketing
promotion of it may have already cost the company more than $1
billion in market value.

Lenora Rice filed a complaint Oct. 1 in Cook County Circuit Court
against National Beverage Corp., alleging violation of express
warranties and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Protection Act, as
well as unjust enrichment. She said LaCroix sparking water drinks
are falsely labeled as "all natural" and alleged the drinks contain
such additives as those included in roach poison and cancer drugs.

National Beverage removed the complaint to federal court on Oct.
25. In a motion filed Feb. 14, the company called Rice's
allegations "outlandish, unsupported and verifiably false" and
branded itself as "the innovator supreme" that "ignited a
millennial cult that changed the soft drink industry into the
healthier, better-for-the-consumer industry that it is today."

Rice alleged LaCroix products include chemical compounds like ethyl
butanoate, limonene, linalool and linalool propionate, which she
said are synthetically created flavoring tools. National Beverage
said Rice's claim "relies upon a so-called laboratory analysis
which did not actually test whether the ingredients in LaCroix are
natural or synthetic," and further maintained "a laboratory
accredited under the strict standards set by the International
Standards Organization tested LaCroix's ingredients and confirmed
that they were derived from only natural sources, with conclusive
proof that no trace of artificial or synthetic additives are
included in LaCroix sparkling water."

In an opinion issued July 11, U.S. District Judge Joan Gotschall
said National Beverage "makes a sympathetic case" in part by
claiming the lawsuit already cost them more than $1 billion in
market value. But the judge ultimately found the motion for
sanctions relies "on argument and not evidence" and "provides the
court with little basis for ruling in its favor."

Gotschall noted the sanctions request invoked Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure No. 11, which is intended to deter baseless federal
lawsuits, but pointed to nothing Rice or her lawyer -- William H.
Beaumont, Esq. of Beaumont Costales, in Chicago -- did after the
case was removed to federal court that would trigger sanctions.

National Beverage answered the complaint in November, after having
it transferred from state to federal court, rather than moving for
a dismissal. Gotschall wrote that means Rice can't "be sanctioned
for advocating the complaint's sufficiency in a response to a
motion to dismiss." She further explained that information that
surfaced during a discovery process under the supervision of
Magistrate Judge Mary Rowland does not trigger Rule 11
protections.

Gotschall also said judges are required to determine if suits like
Rice's were filed for a proper purpose after sufficient pre-suit
investigation. She disagreed with National Beverage's argument that
Rice employed a "misguided and unreasonable" reading of Food and
Drug Administration regulations.

"Before examining whether plaintiff's counsel should have known
that the regulation means what defendant says it means," Gotschall
wrote, "defendant should give the court some basis for believing
that plaintiff's interpretation is unreasonable. Just saying so,
even if repeatedly, does not do so."

Gotschall said disputes over what constitutes natural and synthetic
ingredients are resolved enough to brand Rice's lawsuit as
frivolous at this stage of litigation. She likewise said the fact
Rice tested only one LaCroix flavor isn't persuasive because, if
her allegations proved true, it wouldn't invalidate her entire
complaint.

"Whether the four identified substances are natural or synthetic
appears to be a central issue in this suit," Gotschall wrote.
"However that issue is resolved, it is unlikely that the substances
used to achieve the fruit taste in other flavors are significantly
different."

Gotschall did say a Beaumont Costales press release about the
lawsuit could be seen as an attempt to maximize the value of a
possible settlement, but that she couldn't issue sanctions "without
any indication that the statements were not true or that the
complaint is without a reasonable basis."

Attorneys for National Beverage Corp. are K&L Gates LLP, of
Chicago, San Francisco and Miami. [GN]


NEW YORK: BOD Files 44 Appeals in Gulino Suit to 2nd Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the
City of New York filed appeals from the District Court's judgment
entered on June 6, 2019, in the lawsuit styled Gulino, et al. v.
Board of Education, et al., Case No. 96-cv-8414, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York
City).

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

The appellate cases brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit are:

-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1952
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1992
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1975
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1980
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1981
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1966
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1949
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1968
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1971
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1956
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1960
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1972
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1959
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1986
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1993
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1963
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1970
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2037
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2006
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2013
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2034
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2021
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2039
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2017
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2055
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2033
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2018
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2035
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2014
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2007
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2038
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2016
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2054
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2010
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2000
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2022
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-1997
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2002
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2020
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2028
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2031
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2027
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2015
-- Gulino, et al. v. Board of Education, et al., Case No. 19-2254

Plaintiff-Appellees Miriam Santos, Asia Madera, Sherri Dais, Maria
Bello, Linda Matos, Romelina Nunez, Iris Medina, Ana Green,
Sharlene Ford, Carmen Natal, Morris-Bretto, Denise
Jenkins-Thompson, Maria Haynes, Adriana Flores, Rupert Davis, Elena
Oesterreicher, Jeff Michel, Shirley Louison, Ana Burgos, Amina
Mateo-Duff, Edy Lajara, Pedro Castillo, Barbara C. Abraham, Marc
Anthony Titus, Sandra Sutton, Lucia Cruz, Denise Watkins, Jose
Mendoza, Lisandra Guzman, Jacqueline Garnett, Thelma Bradley,
Margarita Pena, Antonia Pearson, Maribelle Hernandez, Altagracia
Alvarez, Myriam Rodriguez, Josephine Maselli, Anna Betancourt,
Betty J. Moorning, Sandra Grace Thompson, Corlinda Cook, Sheila
Morris, Christabel Norma Bishop and Maribel A. Pimentel are
represented by:

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

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

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


NIKE RETAIL: 9th Cir. Flips Summary Judgment in Rodriguez Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ISAAC RODRIGUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NIKE RETAIL
SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-16866 (9th Cir.),
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (i) reversed District Court's grant of summary judgment for
Nike and (ii) remanded for further proceedings consistent with
Troester v. Starbucks Corp.

Nike requires its retail employees to undergo "off the clock" exit
inspections every time they leave the store.  Seeking compensation
for the time spent on these exit inspections, Plaintiff Rodriguez
brought a class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated
Nike employees.

On Sept. 12, 2017, the District Court granted summary judgment for
Nike, holding the Rodriguez's claims were barred by the federal de
minimis doctrine, which precludes recovery for otherwise
compensable amounts of time that are small, irregular, or
administratively difficult to record.  The Court dismissed the
case.

Rodriguez filed his notice of appeal on Sept. 14, 2017, and on
April 20, 2018, the Court stayed appellate proceedings pending the
California Supreme Court's decision in Troester.   The California
Supreme Court subsequently held in Troester, that the federal de
minimis doctrine does not apply to wage and hour claims brought
under California law.

As noted, Rodriguez filed his appeal and opening brief before the
California Supreme Court issued its decision in Troester.  The
parties subsequently stipulated that Rodriguez would strike his
opening brief and file a revised brief in light of Troester.  In
his revised brief, Rodriguez argues that the District Court erred
in granting summary judgment for Nike based on the federal de
minimis doctrine.  Nike argues that reversal is unwarranted because
the amounts of time at issue are de minimis even under Troester.

The issue on appeal is straightforward: whether the District Court
erred in granting summary judgment for Nike based on the federal de
minimis doctrine.  The answer, after Troester, is equally clear:
the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to wage and hour
claims brought under the California Labor Code.  By applying the
doctrine to Rodriguez's claims, the District Court failed --
understandably, given the legal landscape at the time -- to apply
the relevant substantive law.

Judge Rakoff concludes that given the evidence, he cannot conclude
that exit inspections qualify as "split-second absurdities."  Nor
do they appear so irregular that it is unreasonable to expect the
time to be recorded.  Even according to Crandall's study, the vast
majority of inspections took measurable amounts of time, and there
is a genuine dispute between the parties as to whether these
amounts were more than "minute," "brief," or "trifling."  As such,
the record does not support affirmance of the District Court's
grant of summary judgment.  Accordingly, he reversed and remanded
for further proceedings consistent with Troester.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/IZyqJ5 from Leagle.com.

Max W. Gavron (argued), Nicholas Rosenthal, and Larry W. Lee,
Diversity Law Group APC, Los Angeles, California; William L. Marder
-- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- Polaris Law Group LLP, Hollister,
California; Dennis S. Hyun, Hyun Legal APC, Los Angeles,
California; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jon D. Meer -- jmeer@seyfarth.com -- (argued) and Michael Afar --
mafar@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Los Angeles, California,
for Defendant-Appellee.


NKLG CAFE: Denied Castelan Overtime, Meal/Rest Breaks, Says Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Javier Castelan, individually and on behalf all other
employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NKLG Cafe Corp.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-04082 (E.D. N.Y., July 15, 2019), seeks
unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid "spread-of-hours" premium,
compensation for failure to provide wage notices at the time of
hiring and failure to provide paystubs, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law including monetary damages and other relief.

NKLG Cafe Corp. operates as "Aliada," a restaurant located at 29-19
Broadway, Astoria, NY 11106 where Castelan worked as a cook. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jiajing Fan, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 10G
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718)353-8588
      Email: jfan@hanglaw.com


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Court Approves $108MM Settlement in Knurr Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northrop Grumman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court has
approved the parties' proposal to resolve the Steven Knurr, et al.
v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN), for $108 million,
subject to certain terms and conditions.

On August 12, 2016, a putative class action complaint, naming
Orbital ATK and two of its then-officers as defendants, Steven
Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN), was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia.

The complaint asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of Orbital ATK
securities for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, allegedly arising out of false and
misleading statements and the failure to disclose that: (i) Orbital
ATK lacked effective control over financial reporting; and (ii) as
a result, it failed to record an anticipated loss on a long-term
contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and supply small caliber
ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.

On April 24, 2017 and October 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed
amended complaints naming additional defendants and asserting
claims for alleged violations of additional sections of the
Exchange Act and alleged false and misleading statements in Orbital
ATK's Form S-4 filed in connection with the Orbital-ATK Merger.

The complaint seeks damages, reasonable costs and expenses at
trial, including counsel and expert fees, and such other relief as
deemed appropriate by the Court.

On June 7, 2019, the court approved the parties' proposal to
resolve the litigation for $108 million, subject to certain terms
and conditions. The company continues to negotiate with and pursue
coverage litigation against various of its insurance carriers.

Northrop Grumman Corporation, a security company, provides products
in the areas of autonomous systems, cyber, space, strikes, and
logistics and modernizations in the United States, the Asia
Pacific, and internationally. The company operates through four
segments: Aerospace Systems, Innovation Systems, Mission Systems,
and Technology Services. Northrop Grumman Corporation was founded
in 1939 and is based in Falls Church, Virginia.


NOVA SKIN: Illegally Sent Marketing Texts, Kaufman TCPA Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARY KAUFMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NOVA SKIN INC. d/b/a NOVA SKIN PRODUCTS, Case No.
0:19-cv-61784-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2019), alleges that the
Defendant often sends marketing text messages providing different
types of offers and savings for future purchases without first
obtaining express written consent to send such marketing text
messages as required to do so under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Nova Skin is a Florida corporation with a principal office located
in Miami, Florida.

The Defendant owns and operates non-surgical, non-medical skin care
treatment facilities, as well as offers and/or sells to the public
at-large chemical peels, mesotherapy and spa equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD KNAAK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. OPTIO SOLUTIONS, LLC D/B/A QUALIA COLLECTION
SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-1036 (E.D Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order on July 18, 2019, certifying
a class, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as Class Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

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

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

PASCO COUNTY: Squitieri, et al. Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as CHRISTOPHER J. SQUITIERI, et
al, Individually and on behalf of the class, the Plaintiffs, v.
PASCO COUNTY SHERIFF CHRISTOPHER NOCCO et al, the Defendants,  Case
No. 8:19-cv-00906-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order on July 17, 2019:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons legally authorized to be employed in the
      United States who are or have been employed with the Pasco
      County Sheriff’s Office, its subsidiaries or affiliates in

      Florida at any time from May 2011 to the present";

   2. designating Plaintiffs as the class representative for the
      Class; and

   3. designating Plaintiffs' counsel be designated as Class
      counsel.

The Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendants' depression of their
wages in violations of the federal and state Florida Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Acts statutes.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs is:

          John F. McGuire, Esq.
          McGUIRE LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          1173 N.E. Cleveland Street
          Clearwater, FL 33755
          Telephone: (727) 446-7659
          Facsimile: (727) 446-0905
          E-mail: mlawoff1@tampabay.rr.com

POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polaris Industries Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend two putative class actions pending in Minnesota.

One putative class action is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota and arises out of allegations
that certain Polaris products suffer from unresolved fire hazards
allegedly resulting in economic loss, and is the result of the
consolidation of the three putative class actions the company
reported in its April 26, 2018 quarterly report and that were filed
between April 5-10, 2018: In re Polaris Marketing, Sales Practices,
and Product Liability Litigation (D. Minn.), June 15, 2018.

The second putative class action is also pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota and alleges
excessive heat hazards on certain other Polaris products and seeks
damages for alleged economic loss: Riley Johannessohn, Daniel
Badilla, James Kelley, Kevin Wonders, William Bates and James
Pinion, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Polaris Industries (D. Minn.), October 4, 2016.

Polaris said, "With respect to both class action lawsuits, the
Company is unable to provide any reasonable evaluation of the
likelihood that a loss will be incurred or any reasonable estimate
of the range of possible loss."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Polaris Industries Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and
markets power sports vehicles worldwide. It operates in five
segments: ORV/Snowmobiles, Motorcycles, Global Adjacent Markets,
Aftermarket, and Boats. The company was founded in 1954 and is
headquartered in Medina, Minnesota.


PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Lopez Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHAEL A. LOPEZ, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE CO., the Defendant, Case No.
0:18-cv-61844-WPD (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all individuals insured under Defendant's personal motor
      vehicle Policy substantially similar to Exhibit A to First
      Amended Complaint and issued in Florida (1) who submitted
      a comprehensive and/or collision claim to Defendant on a
      vehicle covered under the Policy; (2) Defendant settled
      the claim of the insured paying the insured what Defendant
      considered actual cash value for the vehicle; (3)
      Defendant took title to the vehicle in its name; and (4)
      Defendant on its own or through a vendor, sold the vehicle
      for salvage resulting in payment to Defendant of a net
      positive dollar amount from the sale." From five years
      before the filing of this complaint until the day the
      Court decides class certification (Class Period);

   2. appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; and

   3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel, and for
      such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

The Plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of a class of Defendant's
insureds (including Plaintiff) whose motor vehicles Defendant
insured and had been declared a total loss under the Policy.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Edward H. Zebersky, Esq.
          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6 th Street, Suite 2150
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com;
                  mfistos@zpllp.com; ndiaz@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Alec Schultz, Esq.
          Carly A. Kligler, Esq.
          LEON COSGROVE, LLP
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: aschultz@leoncosgrove.com;
                  ckligler@leoncosgrove.com;
                  eperez@leoncosgrove.com;
                  cmanzano@leoncosgrove.com

Counsel for the Defendant are:

          Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
          Bryan T. West, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          Three Brickell City Centre
          98 Southeast Seventh Street
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 305-374-5600
          Facsimile: 305-374-5095
          E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com
                  bryan.west@akerman.com

               - and -

          James Matthew Brigman, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
          Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          King & Spalding LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: 404-572-4600
          E-mail: mbrigman@kslaw.com
                  jcashdan@kslaw.com
                  jbarrett@kslaw.com
                  zmcentyre@kslaw.com

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Bid to Consolidated AMCA Breach Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that motions to
consolidate and transfer the 31 class action lawsuits related to
the AMCA Data Security Incident are pending  before the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

On June 3, 2019, the Company reported that Retrieval-Masters
Creditors Bureau, Inc./American Medical Collection Agency ("AMCA"),
informed the Company and Optum360 LLC, which provides revenue
management services to the Company, about a data security incident
involving AMCA (the "AMCA Data Security Incident").

AMCA (which provided debt collection services for Optum360)
informed the Company and Optum360 that AMCA had learned that an
unauthorized user had access to AMCA's system between August 1,
2018 and March 30, 2019. AMCA first informed the Company of the
AMCA Data Security Incident on May 14, 2019.

AMCA's affected system included financial information (e.g., credit
card numbers and bank account information), medical information and
other personal information (e.g., social security numbers).

Test results were not included. Neither Optum360's nor the
Company's systems or databases were involved in the incident. AMCA
has also informed us that information pertaining to other
laboratories customers was also affected.

To date, approximately 31 class action lawsuits related to the AMCA
Data Security Incident have been filed against the Company, most of
which name other defendants, in federal courts in a number of
districts.

The cases are putative class actions in which the plaintiffs, who
purport to represent various classes of consumers, assert a variety
of common law and statutory claims in connection with the AMCA Data
Security Incident.

Motions to consolidate and transfer these cases to a single U.S.
District Court are pending before the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, incorporated on September 20, 1996,
is a provider of diagnostic information services. The Company
operates through two businesses: Diagnostic Information Services
and Diagnostic Solutions. The company is based in Secaucus, New
Jersey.


RECKITT BENCKISER: Police/Firemen Fund Hits Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
City of Sterling Heights Police and Fire Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, Rakesh Kapoor, Adrian
Hennah, Shaun Thaxter and Adrian Bellamy, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-15382, (D. N.J., July 15, 2019), seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Reckitt is a consumer goods and health conglomerate headquartered
in the United Kingdom with substantial operations in the United
States. Its American Depository Shares (ADS) are traded on the U.S.
over-the-counter  market under the ticker symbol "RBGLY." Its
division dedicated to opioid addiction treatments is known as
Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. whose primary source of
revenue was the manufacture and sale of Suboxone Tablets, a
treatment for opioid addiction.

Defendants allegedly inflated sales of Suboxone between 2010 and
2014 to include more than $500 million in payments from Medicare
and Medicaid. On July 24, 2017, the Department of Justice and U.S.
Federal Trade Commission conducted investigations into Reckitt
Pharma operations. On this news, the price of Reckitt ADSs dropped
5%. Then, on February 19, 2018, Reckitt announced that it had
recorded an exceptional charge of GBP296 million due to the
investigations and that the investigation 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 which
detailed a multi-billion-dollar scheme to defraud the public and
the investors through the marketing and sale of Suboxone. On this
news, the price of Reckitt ADSs again declined over 6%.

The City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System
purchased Reckitt shares and lost substantially after corrective
disclosures. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      David R. Buchanan, Esq.
      Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      77 Water Street
      55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
      Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
      Telephone: (212) 584-0700
      Fax: (212) 584-0799
      Email: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
             dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com
             cayers@seegerweiss.com

             - and -

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-7423
      Email: davew@rgrdlaw.com
             bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

             - and -

      Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
      VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
      79 Alfred Street
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 578-1200
      Fax: (313) 578-1201


RESOURCE ENERGY: GSSI's Bid to Decertify Class in Moresi Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Moresi, v. Resource Energy Ventures And Construction
Co LLC, Case No. 15-cv-02224 (W.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Carol B.
Whitehurst of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, Lafayette Division, denied Defendant Gulf Coast
Services, Inc. ("GSSI")'s Motion To Decertify Conditional Class
Certification.

On Jan. 3, 2017, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify their claims of misclassification under
Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against
Resource Energy Ventures and Construction Co., LLC ("REVCO") and
GSSI.  The Court conditionally certified the class and directed
that notice be sent to welders, fitters and welder helpers who
worked for REVCO or were contracted to GSSI at the BAE facility in
Mobile, Alabama to build a vessel from July 20, 2015 to Dec. 31,
2015.  The parties agree that eight individuals have opted-in as
members of the class.  

GSSI now moves to decertify the conditionally certified class.
GSSI concedes that the eight claimants are similar insofar as they
all (1) recognized REVCO as their payroll employer; (2) worked at
the BAE facility in Alabama; (3) were labor supplied by REVCO to
GSSI under a subcontract; (4) were supervised by GSSI during the
job to make sure the job met BAE requirements; (5) signed contracts
saying GSSI would pay REVCO and they would not bill/collect from
GSSI; and (6) GSSI has stipulated that it is deemed to be a joint
employer of the 8 REVCO employees (plaintiffs) for the purpose of
the FSLA but claims payment as a defense.  Hence, it is undisputed
that the claimants shared factual and employment settings beyond
simply sharing the same job title.  They performed similar work, in
the same location under similar conditions including receiving no
overtime pay.

Magistrate Judge Whitehurst concludes that the Plaintiffs share
similar factual and employment settings and are similarly situated,
the Defendant's defenses are more collective than individual, and
that fairness and procedural considerations favor collective
treatment of the case.

Accordingly, she deied GSSI's Motion To Decertify Conditional Class
Certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Ek9KiZ from Leagle.com.

Dylan John Moresi, individually & on behalf of others similarly
situated, Wilfred Henry, Jr, Colby Babino, Nathaniel Thomas,
Desmond J Connor, Sr, Khonesavan Khamsingsavath, Dale Joseph Nesom,
Kam Kaysonpheth, Troy Matthews & Johnathan Wayde Rollins,
Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth D. St. Pe , Law Office of
Kenneth D. St. Pe & Matthew Scott Parmet -- matt@parmet.law --
Parmet PC.

Resource Energy Ventures & Construction Co L L C, Defendant,
represented by Edward Paul Landry -- Lanwat@landrywatkins.com --
Landry Watkins et al.

Gulf South Services Inc, Defendant, represented by David M. Flotte
-- dflotte@shmrlaw.com -- Salley Hite et al & James Gary Albertine,
III -- jalbertine@shmrlaw.com -- Salley Hite et al.

Gulf South Services Inc, Cross Claimant, represented by David M.
Flotte, Salley Hite et al & James Gary Albertine, III, Salley Hite
et al.

Resource Energy Ventures & Construction Co L L C, Cross Defendant,
represented by Edward Paul Landry, Landry Watkins et al.


ROYAL CANADIAN: 1,000+ Women to File Claims in $100MM Payout
------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Gerster, writing for Globalnews.ca, reports that over a
thousand women are expected to file claims in the second
$100-million sexual harassment class action leveled against the
Royal Canadian Mountain Police in recent years.

This new class action and settlement, which covers volunteers,
municipal and contract employees who worked in conjunction with the
Mounties, was announced earlier this week in Vancouver. The federal
court is expected to approve the settlement this fall.

Only 1,500 women are expected to make claims even though the
settlement itself incorporates around 41,000 women, whose work
dates back to 1974.

The claim estimate is in keeping with the first $100-million sexual
harassment class action settlement in 2016. At the time, all
parties involved expected roughly 1,000 claims would be made. By
the time the claim period closed last year, they had blown past
those estimates with 3,131 submitted claims.

Angela Bespflug, Esq. -- abespflug@callkleinlawyers.com -- lawyer
for the current plaintiffs, says they are prepared for the
possibility that this settlement also exceeds estimates.

On paper, though, it might seem a bit odd considering class action
litigators have long been concerned about low take-up rates. An
Ontario Law Reform Commission report in 1982 put the average
take-up rate for U.S. claims at somewhere between 10 and 15 per
cent. That means that of all the people eligible for compensation,
less than a quarter are -- on average -- claiming it.

More recently, Ward Branch, a former class action litigator and now
a justice of the B.C. Supreme Court, called take-up rates the
"dirty little secret in class actions in Canada," according to a
2011 paper from lawyers Paul Morrison, Esq. --
paulmorrison@millerthomson.com -- and Michael Rosenberg, Esq. --
mrosenberg@mccarthy.ca

Following a review of more than 100 of his firm's own class action
cases while he was still a practitioner, Branch found take-up rates
ranged from two per cent to 40 per cent. There isn't even 100 per
cent take up in cases where compensatory cheques are mailed
directly to people no questions asked, says Jeff Orenstein, Esq. --
jorenstein@clg.org -- a lawyer at Consumer Law Group, "people lose
the cheque, forget to cash it -- that is, unfortunately, human
nature."

Still, those take up rates are much higher than in other cases,
Orenstein says. As a general rule? "The more you make people do,
the lower your claim rate will be."

So why do people not seem to be put off by the independent RCMP
claims process, which can take months and involve an in-person
interview?

Bespflug has an idea:

"I think there's a desire for redress, for taking control of their
story and their life and, in their own quiet way, saying I'm
standing up to the RCMP and this behaviour won't be tolerated."

Beyond that desire for redress or vindication, experts say there
are other reasons, too, why a Mountie class action settlement might
generate more claims than a consumer one.

The estimates aren't always accurate
Take-up rates vary depending on the type of lawsuit, says Paul
Morrison, Esq. a partner at Miller Thomson. In some cases, he says,
it's really easy to know who's been affected and, as a result, it's
easier to let them know they are eligible for compensation.

"But there are some class actions where the class is very large but
it's not terribly easy to specifically identify who is a member,"
he says.

The latest RCMP sexual harassment class action incorporates around
41,000 women whose municipal, contract or volunteer work involved
the RCMP, but there's no one database with all their names and
contact information on it.

There's also no precise way to know how many of those 41,000 women
suffered sexual harassment and, of those who did, how many will
come forward to make a claim.

The 1,500 estimate is an "educated guess," Bespflug says. Part of
the settlement includes $250,000 earmarked for notifying people
across the country that the class action was settled and they may
be eligible to make a claim.

The 2016 sexual harassment class action was highly publicized for
years before a settlement was reached, giving women a chance to
contact the litigators throughout the process, which enables them
to estimate how many people will make claims, says Jasminka
Kalajdzic, a law professor at the University of Windsor.

Still, she says, an estimate is all it is.

"Of course, we know now that triple that number ultimately made a
claim and it's not hard to understand why there would be that
discrepancy," she says.

"There would be women who either didn't hear about the settlement
or the case or who heard about it but didn't think they had to
contact the firm until there was a specific claims process to
participate in, or people who just weren't ready to think about or
acknowledge what happened to them."

Ultimately, it was good news that triple the number of expected
claims were filed in the 2016 settlement, says Luciana Brasil, Esq.
-- lbrasil@branmac.com -- a class action lawyer with Branch
MacMaster.

"It tells you, obviously, that there was really a wrong that is
being addressed with a settlement," she says. "The fact that there
are people coming forward and going through that shows that they
devised a process that works, that is not discouraging people from
participating."

There are some class actions where people are eligible for $10 if
they spent a few moments putting their name and address into an
online form, says Jeff Orenstein. And yet, he says, some people
just won't do it.

"People don't really want to do very much for 10 bucks."

There is a lot of money on the table when it comes to the Mountie
settlement. The 2019 settlement is tiered, just like the 2016 one,
with payments ranging from $10,000 for less severe harassment to
$220,000 for the most severe harassment.

"For thousands of dollars people will do it, they will spend the
time," says Orenstein, and "If people feel physically, emotionally,
psychologically injured they're more likely to act on it."

Compare widespread allegations of sexual harassment within the RCMP
to a consumer class action, say, a recent one that offers between
$15 and $55 in compensation to anyone who purchased certain
gas-powered lawnmowers between Jan. 1, 1994, and Dec. 31, 2012.

There's a unique sense of vindication, Bespflug says. "People don't
feel harmed to their core in those cases."

"This is a special breed of case where there really is an innate
desire to obtain justice. So if you need to do a little bit of work
for that, I think most of these women are prepared to do that."

Mountie class actions are ‘notorious'

There are some class actions that everybody seems to know about,
says Paul Morrison, Esq.
He worked on one: the class action resulting from E. coli
contamination in Walkerton, Ont., that killed seven people and made
2,300 other people ill.

The case had more than 100 per cent take up, says Morrison, in part
because it was "notorious."

"Everybody knew about what had happened and everybody was following
it," he says. "It was very, very easy for the members of the class
to be identified or to self identify."

People living and working in the town identified, as did people who
didn't actually live in Walkerton but happened to be there during
the 2000 outbreak.

That notoriety is why Morrison isn't surprised that the 2016 RCMP
sexual harassment settlement received unexpectedly high claims.

"Everybody is aware of the allegations … and it's very easy for
class members to self-identify," he says. "For those two reasons,
one would expect the take-up rate to be quite high." [GN]


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bronson et al. Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ALEXIS BRONSON AND CRYSTAL
HARDIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-02300-WHA
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on August 22, 2019,
for an order:

   1. granting certification of injunctive relief class of:

      "California residents who purchased (in California) and
      currently own Samsung plasma televisions models
      manufactured since 2013";

   2. appointing Crystal Hardin as class representative; and

   3. appointing Attorneys Paul S. Rothstein and Kyla V.
      Alexander as class counsel.

Samsung is alleged to have failed to make functional a PDPs
available to their Authorized Service Centers in California for
seven years.

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

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

SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Hamidi Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KOUROSH HAMIDI, et al., and the CLASS THEY SEEK TO
REPRESENT, Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
LOCAL 1000, and BETTY YEE, California State Controller, Defendants,
Case No. 2:14-cv-319 WBS KJN (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (i)
granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss; (ii) denied as moot the
Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive and declaratory relief; (iii)
dismissed with prejudice the California State Controller from the
lawsuit; and (iv) denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen
Discovery.

Fifteen employees of the State of California brought the class
action against Defendants Service Employers International Union
Local 1000 and the California state controller, alleging that the
Defendants' 'opt-out' system for collecting optional union fees
violates the First Amendment.  On remand from the Ninth Circuit,
the Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for
prospective relief.  The Plaintiffs move to reopen discovery.

After the Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendants, the
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  After the parties had filed
their briefs on appeal, the Supreme Court issued its decision in
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal
Employees.

Because the parties agreed that Janus impacts the case, the Ninth
Circuit then vacated the court's judgment and remanded the case for
further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court's decision.  The
panel also noted that the Court may determine in the first instance
whether any of the Plaintiffs' claims are moot.

Pursuant to the discussion with the parties at the status
conference on remand, the Court set a briefing schedule for the two
motions at issue in the Order: (1) the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief as moot; and
(2) the Plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery on the affirmative
defense of good faith.  The court held a hearing on these motions
on June 17, 2019.

The Plaintiffs, inter alia, ask for declaratory and injunctive
relief against the opt-out procedure the Defendants used to collect
optional union dues.  Because the Defendants have abandoned this
procedure because they can no longer collect union dues without an
employees' affirmative consent, they maintain that these claims for
relief are now moot.  In response, the Plaintiffs concede that
their claim for injunctive relief is now moot, but they insist that
this change in policy does not render their claim for declaratory
relief moot.

Because the Defendants' decision to abandon the challenged conduct
did not arise because of this litigation, Judge Shubb finds that
the voluntary cessation rubric does not apply, and thus that there
is no longer a dispute between the parties as to the claims for
prospective relief.

Next, at the outset, the Court must decide whether the challenged
conduct ended due to the Defendants' "voluntary cessation" of
collecting fees.  All available evidence indicates that they
changed their position, not because of the lawsuit, but because the
Supreme Court's decision in Janus rendered the collection of union
dues from nonconsenting public employees unconstitutional.
Accordingly, because the allegedly wrongful behavior could not
reasonably be expected to recur, the Judge will dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief as moot.  And because the
Plaintiffs have no claims remaining against the state controller,
the Judge will dismiss the state controller from the lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs seek to reopen discovery on the union Defendant's
good faith defense.  Judge Shubb resolves this motion solely under
the diligence factor.  Although the union raised this affirmative
defense in its answer, the Plaintiffs concede that they failed to
satisfy the deadline for completion of discovery.  The Plaintiffs
had ample opportunity to conduct discovery, almost 11 months, yet
they simply failed to diligently pursue evidence relevant to the
affirmative defense.

Existing case law gave the Plaintiffs ample notice of this defense
and what may constitute relevant evidence.  While the Plaintiffs
argue that only a few courts discussed this defense in the context
of public-sector union cases prior to Janus, Janus itself said
nothing about the good faith defense, and thus cannot constitute a
relevant change in the law for the purpose of renewed discovery.

Accordingly, because the contours of the union's affirmative
defense and relevant case law have not changed since the outset of
the litigation, the Plaintiffs' failure to diligently pursue
discovery is not otherwise excused and the Judge will deny the
Plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery.

Based on the foregoing, (i) granted the Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss; (ii) denied as moot the Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive
and declaratory relief; (iii) dismissed with prejudice the
California State Controller from the lawsuit; and (iv) denied the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Reopen Discovery.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/pv5KDl from Leagle.com.

Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi, Kim McElroy, Dawn P. Ammons, William L.
Blaylock, Christopher Browne, Ryan Christensen, Kelli Giles,
Madeline L. Lopez, Clint Miller, Gary W. Morrish, Virginia Ollis,
Olayemi Sarumi, Cecilia Stanfield, Antonia Toledo & Diane C. Tutt,
Plaintiffs, represented by W. James Young, National Right to Work
Legal Defense Foundation Inc., pro hac vice & Steven R. Burlingham,
Gary, Till, Burlingham & Lynch.

Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey B. Demain -- jdemain@altshulerberzon.com --
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Anne Marie Giese, Service Employees
International Union, Local 1000, Eric Prince Brown --
ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altschuler Berzon, LLP, Eve H.
Cervantez -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP, Patrick Casey Pitts -- cpitts@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler
Berzon, LLP & York Jiann Chang, SEIU Local 1000.


STAGE STORES: SMs Class in Qazi FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MALEEHA QAZI, et al, Plaintiffs, v. STAGE STORES, INC.
D/B/A PEEBLES, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:18-CV-780 (S.D.
Tex.), Judge Keith P. Allison of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas Houston Division, granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action and
to Approve and Facilitate Notice to Similarly Situated Employees.

The Plaintiffs brought the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case
as a putative class action on behalf of themselves and other
employees of the Defendant.  The Plaintiffs were employed as Store
Managers, working in eight different stores across four states at
various times.  The Defendant classified Store Managers as exempt
from the FLSA's overtime provisions at all times relevant to the
lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs argue that this exempt classification violated the
FLSA because they spent the majority of their workdays performing
non-exempt duties such as selling merchandise; working on the sales
floor; restocking products; marking down sale items; keeping
clothing organized; operating the register; and other general
customer service duties, working on assignments provided by
corporate; and filling in for hourly associates.  They argue that
they are similarly situated to each other as well as members of the
potential class because (1) they were all subject to the same
uniform policy regarding compensation, (2) the job description for
Store Managers is the same regardless of store location or size,
and (3) Store Managers had similar customer service, sales, and
operations job duties.

The Plaintiffs support their contentions with declarations from
each of the potential class representatives, as well as 15 uniform
job postings, and deposition testimony of the Defendant's corporate
representative.  When deposed by the Plaintiffs, the Defendant's
corporate representative admitted that the variations that existed
between store manager positions in various stores did not affect
whether the manager was cosidered exempt.

The Defendant argues that the Court should deny the Certification
Motion.  It claims that nationwide certification is inappropriate
because many issues would need to be individually determined, and
the only company-wide policy applicable to the Plaintiffs is an
official policy which is legal.  The Defendant supports its
position by comparing the declarations and depositions of the
Plaintiffs with the deposition of current Store Manager Holly Watts
and the declarations of eleven current Store Managers.

The Defendant also opposes notification of some potential class
members on the basis that they may be bound to individually
arbitrate their claim:.  It states that 16 members of the proposed
putative class have arbitration agreements.  The Plaintiffs do not
challenge the validity of these arbitration agreements, but rather
argue that arbitration concerns should not be addressed at this
stage of litigation.

Judge Allison finds that while the Defendant's evidence contradicts
the story told by the depositions of the current Plaintiffs as to
the duties of Store Managers, they do not show that the experiences
of the Plaintiffs themselves varied so widely that their concerns
are primarily personal or that the Court would be unable to manage
a class.  

The Judge also finds that Plaintiffs have also met their burden in
showing that aggrieved individuals exist and are similarly situated
under the "lenient" Lusardi standard.   There is no dispute that
the Plaintiffs were subject to a common policy that exempted them
from overtime pay; rather, there is a dispute about whether this
policy was a violation of the FLSA.  The legality of the
Defendant's policy is a question better resolved once the parties
have had the opportunity to conduct full discovery.  The Judge need
not find total uniformity, and in the case, it is clear that the
Plaintiffs were all subject to the same pay practice and job
requirements.

The Judge further finds that, under Fifth Circuit precedent, the
Defendant is correct that notice to potential class members who
have signed arbitration agreements with the Defendant is
inappropriate at this time.  Notice should therefore be distributed
only to individuals who are not subject to arbitration agreements.

For these reasons, Judge Allison granted the Plaintiffs'
Certification Motion.  The collective action is conditionally
certified pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) as a collective of
all current and former Store Managers ("SMs") employed by
Defendant, Specialty Retailers, Inc. d/b/a Peebles, nationwide at
any time from Oct. 18, 2013 through present.

Within 14 days of the Order, the Defendant will deliver to the
Plaintiffs' counsel a computer-readable data file containing the
names, last known mailing addresses, last known home and cell phone
numbers, last known personal and work email addresses, social
security numbers, and work locations for all the Collective
members.

The form of the Notice and Consent to Join Form will be the Notice
attached as Exhibit I to the Plaintiffs' Motion.  The Notice and
Consent to Join Forms will be sent to all members of the
Collective, exept those with arbitration agreements, via First
Class U.S. Mail, email, and text message.

A Reminder Postcard will issue via First Class U.S. Mail, email,
and text message to members of the Collective, except those with
arbitration agreements, who, as of halfway through the completion
of the notice period, have not submitted a completed Consent to
Join Form.

The Plaintiffs are authorized to create a website at which members
of the Collective may review the Notice and electronically submit a
Consent to Join Form.

A copy of the Notice will be posted in a conspicuous location in
the "break worn" or similar office space where such legal notices
are normally posted at each of Defendant' locations in which
Collective members are or were employed.

A copy of the Notice and Consent to Join Form will be included in
the currently employed Collective members' pay envelopes or other
method of delivery of the Collective members' paycheck information
as may be applicable, so long as those individuals have not signed
arbitration agreements.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/gnrQYW from Leagle.com.

Maleeha Qazi, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Gershbaum --
cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com -- Hepworth Gershbaum et al, David A.
Roth --  droth@hgrlawyers.com -- Hepworth, Gershbaum & Roth, PLLC,
Gregg I. Shavitz -- gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- SHAVITZ LAW GROUP,
P.A., pro hac vice, Janine Kapp, Hepworth Gershbaum Roth PPLC, pro
hac vice, Logan A. Pardell -- lpardell@shavitzlaw.com -- SHAVITZ
LAW GROUP, P.A., Marc S. Hepworth -- mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com --
Hepworth Gershbaum et al, Paolo Chagas Meireles --
pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com -- SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A., Rebecca S.
Predovan -- rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com -- Hepworth Gershbaum et al &
Alan Luis Quiles -- aquiles@shavitzlaw.com -- SHAVITZ LAW GROUP,
P.A.

Amy Ackley, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Luis Quiles, SHAVITZ LAW
GROUP, P.A., Gregg I. Shavitz, SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A., Logan A.
Pardell, SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. & Paolo Chagas Meireles, SHAVITZ
LAW GROUP, P.A.

Stage Stores, Inc. d/b/a Peebles, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Kristin M. Simpsen -- kristin.simpsen@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee &
Taft, James Bradley Spalding -- bspalding@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC, John H. Lassetter -- jlassetter@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, PC, Kevin Stephen Little -- klittle@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson PC, Lyndsey M. Marcelino --
lmarcelino@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Michael F.
Lauderdale -- michael.lauderdale@mcafeetaft.com -- McAffee Taft PC
& Tony G. Puckett -- tony.puckett@mcafeetaft.com -- McAfee & Taft.


STATE COLLECTION: Summary Judgment Bid in FDCPA Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSE BORN, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STATE COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., a
foreign profit corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:18-CV-0374-TOR
(E.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington granted the Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment.

On Nov. 30, 2018, Plaintiff Born initiated the putative class
action against Defendant State under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the Washington Collection Agency Act
("WCAA"), and Washington's Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA").  The
Plaintiff primarily alleges that the Defendant's name "State
Collection Service" gave the false impression that the debt
collection company was in some way associated with the State of
Washington in violation of the FDCPA.

On Aug. 15, 2018, the Plaintiff made a payment of $7,419 on her
account.  On Aug. 29, 2018, she received a write-off of her
balance, totaling $8,200.88, for qualifying charity care from
Deaconess Hospital.  After applying the charity care discount to
her account, the Plaintiff was left with a balance of $431.63
($16,051.51 less $8,200.88 less $7,419.  Deaconess Hospital also
gave the Plaintiff an additional self-pay discount of $361.16,
further reducing her remaining balance to $70.47.  On Oct. 15,
2018, the Plaintiff made a $10 payment to Deaconess Hospital, which
left a balance of $60.47 on her account.

On Nov. 2, 2018, Deaconess Hospital sent the Plaintiff's account to
collections.  The account was received by and assigned to Defendant
State on Nov. 5, 2018.   That same day, thePlaintiff called
Deaconess Hospital's "Patient's Financial Experience Department" to
discuss the status of her account.  Speaking with a Hospital
employee, the Plaintiff explained that she received a threatening
letter informing her that her account was going to be sent to
collections.  The Hospital employee confirmed that the Plaintiff's
account did leave the office and go to collections as of last week.
When she asked if she could do anything about the account being
sent to collections, the Hospital employee stated that she could
definitely provide the Plaintiff with the number for the agency
that had been assigned the account.  After noting the phone number,
the Plaintiff asked the Hospital employee to provide the name of
the collection agency.  The Hospital employee stated that the name
of the collection agency was "State Collections."

On Nov. 7, 2018, Defendant State sent its first collection notice
to the Plaintiff.  The letter informed her that a past due account
had been referred to Defendant for debt collection from Deaconess
Hospital and confirmed that the account balance was $60.47.  The
letter was printed on Defendant State's letterhead, which displayed
the name "State Collection Service Inc." along with an address in
Madison, Wisconsin.

Before the letter was received by the Plaintiff, on Nov. 8, 2018,
the Plaintiff called Defendant State to discuss the status of her
account.  

After the letter was received by the Plaintiff and after consulting
her attorney, on Nov. 29, 2018, the Plaintiff again called the
Defendant.  As before, the Defendant's employee stated at the
beginning of the call that it is an attempt to collect a debt and
any information obtained will be used for that purpose and that the
Plaintiff's account related to a "balance of $60.47 with
MultiCare."  The Plaintiff confirmed that she was calling to
resolve the balance on her account and proceeded to pay the
remaining $60.47.  The following day, the Plaintiff initiated th
putative class action against Defendant State.

On April 24, 2019, Defendant State filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment, seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff's federal and state
law claims.  The Plaintiff filed a response to the Defendant's
motion on May 28, 2019.  In her response, she voluntarily withdrew
her state law claims under the WCAA and the WCPA.  Accordingly,
those state law claims are dismissed.  Only the Plaintiff's FDCPA
claims remain before the Court.

Judge Rice finds that the least sophisticated debtor would not be
misled by the Defendant's use of the name "State Collection
Service."  Accordingly, he dismisses the Plaintiff's claims under
15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(1) and (2)(A).

Because he concludes that the Defendant's use of the name "State
Collection Service" was not materially false or misleading, the
Judge also finds that the Defendant's use of the name was not an
unfair attempt to collect a debt under section 1692f.  Accordingly,
the Plaintiff's claim under section 1692f of the FDCPA is
dismissed.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment.  He dismissed the Plaintiff's FDCPA claims against the
Defendant with prejudice.  The District Court Executive is directed
to enter the Order, enter Judgment for the Defendant and furnish
copies to the counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/t4HUFx from Leagle.com.

Rose Born, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Kirk D. Miller --
kmiller@millerlawspokane.com -- Kirk D Miller PS.

State Collection Service Inc, a Foreign Profit Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey I. Hasson, Hasson Law LLC &
Courtney Allen Cross, Hasson Law, LLC.


T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Defend 401(k) Plan Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend itself from a class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, over its 401(k) Plan.

On February 14, 2017, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price
Associates, Inc., T. Rowe Price Trust Company, current and former
members of the management committee, and trustees of the T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program were named as defendants in a lawsuit
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland.

The lawsuit alleges breaches of ERISA's fiduciary duty and
prohibited transaction provisions on behalf of a class of all
participants and beneficiaries of the T. Rowe Price 401(k) Plan
from February 14, 2011, to the time of judgment.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of the complaint as a
class action. T. Rowe Price believes the claims are without merit
and is vigorously defending the action.

T. Rowe Price said, "This matter is in the discovery phase of
litigation and we cannot predict the eventual outcome, or whether
it will have a material negative impact on our financial results,
or estimate the possible loss or range of loss that may arise from
any negative outcome."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2000, is a
financial services holding company. The Company provides global
investment management services through its subsidiaries to
investors across the world. The Company provides an array of
Company sponsored the United States mutual funds, other sponsored
pooled investment vehicles, sub advisory services, separate account
management, recordkeeping, and related services to individuals,
advisors, institutions, financial intermediaries and retirement
plan sponsors. The firm was previously known as T. Rowe Group, Inc.
and T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. was
founded in 1937 and is based in Baltimore, Maryland.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: BARJO Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
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 August 20, 2019 to contact the Firm to learn
more about the class action filed against Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Limited (NYSE: TEVA), and appointment of lead
plaintiff.

The class action, Employees' Retirement System of the City of St.
Petersburg, Florida v. Teva Pharmaceutical et al., Case No.:
19-cv-2711, was filed in the US District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Teva American Depository Shares ("ADS") between August 4, 2017 and
May 10, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages against Teva and certain executives for alleged
violations of federal securities laws.  Following recent news of
the filing of a massive antitrust lawsuit against Teva alleging
price-fixing of generic drugs, the price of Teva stock dropped
roughly 15%, and is now trading significantly less than it was at
the middle of the Class Period.  Teva recently announced that the
Company will present scientific abstracts in Philadelphia today
through July 14, 2019, relating to the treatment of migraines.

If you've suffered damages from investing in Teva 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 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 August 20, 2019.

Contact:

         Anthony Barbuto, Esq.
         Barbuto & Johansson, P.A.
         12773 Forest Hill Blvd., 101
         Wellington, FL 33414
         Website: www.barjolaw.com
         Phone: 1-888-715-2520
         Email: anthony@barjolaw.com [GN]


TGI FRIDAYS: Man's Legal Crusade Gets Class Status on Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
David Porter, writing for Kiro Seattle, reports that it's not yet
last call for a New Jersey man's lawsuit claiming TGI Fridays broke
consumer fraud laws by not publishing drink prices.

A state appeals court ruled on July 11, 2019, that a lower court
erred when it denied class action status to Robert Cameron's
lawsuit.

The suit claims Cameron was "shocked" when he dined at a location
in Toms River in 2012 and discovered upon paying that his "mass
produced" beer cost more than $5 and his soda cost nearly $3.

Cameron claims he wouldn't have ordered the drinks if he had known
the prices beforehand, and he alleges the chain purposely hasn't
listed them because it has conducted studies showing it can charge
more by doing so.

His lawsuit seeks to force TGI Fridays to admit that it violated
consumer laws and to include the prices on menus, on behalf of
anyone who "received a menu and ordered a beverage from a menu
without a price" over a span of several years at two TGI Fridays at
the New Jersey shore, according to the court filing.

TGI Fridays, which denies that its policies break the law, says it
has added the prices to its menus.

But that isn't enough, according to Sander Friedman, Esq. an
attorney who argued the case for Cameron.

"The reason you need a class for this kind of thing is they could
change back to their old practices and the only thing that could
monitor that is Bob Cameron," Friedman said.

Cameron's suit had initially sought monetary damages for all
customers who had ordered drinks at restaurants in Toms River and
Manahawkin. But that claim was later dropped.

An attorney who argued on behalf of the company didn't return a
message on July 12 seeking comment on the ruling.

The suit is similar to another one filed against the chain several
years ago. The state Supreme Court ruled in that case in 2017 that
individuals could seek monetary damages, but it denied class action
status that could have led to thousands of consolidated claims.

Debra Dugan had alleged consumer fraud laws were violated because
prices weren't listed and she was charged one price for a drink at
the bar and a higher price at a table.

The 2-1 ruling on July 11, the state appeals court wrote that while
the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in the Dugan case rightly noted
that no case law supports requiring a restaurant to list its drink
prices, "there is no legal authority that holds to the contrary -
that the omission is in fact lawful."

In his dissent, Judge Joseph Yannotti wrote that granting class
action status would ignore that many patrons may not actually have
suffered financial harm.

"Other patrons may have been return customers, who knew the prices
that defendant would charge for beverages," Yannotti wrote. "In
addition, other patrons may have had no concern as to the amounts
defendant would charge for drinks. Thus, there is a lack of
cohesiveness among the putative class members as to whether they
were, in fact, harmed by the lack of beverage pricing on the
menus." [GN]


TIER ONE: Hymes Class Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CORY HYMES, CORY ALLEN, RICARDO BENITEZ, FRANCISCO DIAZ, and JESUS
FRANCISCO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. TIER ONE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Florida corporation, and
ALFRED MUNOZ, individually, Case No. 1:19-cv-22941-KMM (S.D. Fla.,
July 16, 2019), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Tier One Solutions Inc. operates as a security services company.
The Company specializes in security, investigation, and executive
protection solutions, security consulting, as well as fireman
training.  Tier One Solutions serves customers in the state of
Florida.  Alfred Munoz is an employee of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chad E. Levy, Esq.
          David M. Cozad, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
          1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 588
          Sunrise, FL 33323
          Telephone: (954) 763-5722
          Facsimile: (954) 763-5723
          E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com
                  david@levylevylaw.com


TINDER INC: Allison Appeals Decision in Kim Suit to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Rich Allison and Steve Frye filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Lisa Kim, et al. v. Tinder, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:18-cv-03093-JFW-AS, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Tinder settled
a class action lawsuit for $17.3 million over charging users 30 and
older double the standard fee for one of its subscription
services.

The premium tier, called Tinder Plus and introduced in 2015, gave
users perks like the ability to rewind swipes, more Super Likes,
and the option to swipe for people located in other countries.

Tinder was criticized when its service launched for its age tiers,
which charged a $9.99 monthly fee for users under 29 and $19.99 for
users 30 and up.  At the time, Tinder defended the pricing model
and compared the tiers to Spotify's discounted rates for students
in a statement to NPR.  A Tinder spokesperson commented, "During
our testing we've learned, not surprisingly, that younger users are
just as excited about Tinder Plus, but are more budget constrained
and need a lower price to pull the trigger."

The case was first filed in a California court last April 2018,
with plaintiff Lisa Kim filing on behalf of an estimated 230,000
other class members.  Tinder first blocked the case by citing the
arbitration clause in its Terms of Service, and Kim appealed that
clause when the settlement was reached.  The company will now have
to pay class members a combined $11.5 million in compensation.  For
dropping the claims, class members will receive 50 Super Likes, and
an additional choice of a $25 check, 25 more Super Likes, or a free
Tinder Plus or Tinder Gold subscription.

The appellate case is captioned as Lisa Kim, et al. v. Tinder,
Inc., et al., Case No. 19-55807, 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;

   -- Appellants Rich Allison and Steve Frye's opening brief is
      due on October 21, 2019;

   -- Appellees Lisa Kim, Match Group, Inc., Match Group, LLC and
      Tinder, Inc.'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 LISA KIM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Adrian Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
          324 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

               - and -

          John P. Kristensen, Esq.
          Christina Le, Esq.
          KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
          12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200
          Los Angeles, CA 90066
          Telephone: (310) 507-7924
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
                  christina@kristensenlaw.com

Objectors-Appellants RICH ALLISON and STEVE FRYE are represented
by:

          Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
          KRALOWEC LAW, P.C.
          750 Battery Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 546-6800
          E-mail: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com

               - and -

          Danielle Leonard, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          E-mail: dleonard@altshulerberzon.com

Defendants-Appellees TINDER, INC., a Delaware corporation; MATCH
GROUP, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and MATCH GROUP,
INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by:

          Donald R. Brown, Esq.
          Robert H. Platt, Esq.
          MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4318
          E-mail: dbrown@manatt.com
                  rplatt@manatt.com


TOTAL SYSTEM: Wolf Balks at Global Payments Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
JACK WOLF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES, INC., THADDEUS
ARROYO, KRISS CLONINGER III, WALTER W. DRIVER JR., SIDNEY E.
HARRIS, JOIA M. JOHNSON, CONNIE D. MCDANIEL, RICHARD A. SMITH, JOHN
T. TURNER, M. TROY WOODS, and GLOBAL PAYMENTS INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-00115-CDL (M.D. Ga., July 18, 2019), alleges that
Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of in connection with the a Registration Statement.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 28,
2019, pursuant to which Total System Services, Inc. will be
acquired by Global Payments Inc.

On May 27, 2019, TSYS's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Global Payments.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of TSYS
will receive 0.8101 shares of Global Payments common stock for each
share of TSYS common stock they own.

On July 3, 2019, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Registration Statement omits material information with respect
to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration
Statement false and misleading.

Total System is an American credit card processor, merchant
acquirer and bank credit card issuer. TSYS provides payment,
processing, merchant, and related payment services to financial and
nonfinancial institutions in the United States, Europe, Canada,
Mexico, and internationally.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305

U.S. STEEL: Defrauded and Misled Investors, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that an
investor has filed a class action lawsuit against United States
Steel Corp., alleging it defrauded and misled stockholders and
employees.

Roy Cetlin, individually as assignee of Maud Cetlin and Cassandra
Cetlin as successor-in-interest to Ceroy Inc., on behalf of 2230439
Ontario Ltd. and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a complaint on April 24, 2019, in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania against United States
Steel Corp., Mario Longhi, David B. Burritt, and Dan Lesnak,
alleging violation of the Federal Securities Law, false and
misleading statements, and fraud.

The defendant by 2014 claims he had experienced years of losses,
resulting in a total 90% drop in their stock price and bankruptcy
of its Canadian subsidiary. The defendant, Longhi, hired McKinsey
to launch a "transformational process" that was supposed to improve
the company's operations, supply chain, procurement, manufacturing
and more, the suit says.

The U.S. steel market began to deteriorate over the course of 2015
and the defendant was forced to the brink of bankruptcy with a $1.5
billion end-of-year loss for 2015 and failure to turn a profit in
six years, the suit says.

As the defendant struggled financially, it abandoned its
initiatives on employee engagement and reliability-centered
maintenance and began to focus only on cost-cutting to salvage the
bottom line, the suit says. The defendant began to lay off
thousands of employees, which allegedly left the company with too
few individuals to run the facilities safely.

The United Steelworkers Union had filed a grievance in August 2016
about the layoffs and demotions and subsequent safety concerns.
Investigators faulted the defendant for failing to de-energize live
parts before an employee worked on them, failing to properly train
employees and other discrepancies, the suit says.

The defendant, however, is accused of continuing to cut corners,
instructing plan managers to do the "bare minimum to get by" and
try to fix broken machinery without the proper repairs. The
defendant, though aware that it was deferring important maintenance
and repairs, allegedly continued to do so but claimed that it was
operating as it ought to be. In 2016, the defendant launched a
secondary stock offering even though it was planning on decreasing
production, which would result in the company losing significant
market share, the suit says.

The plaintiff is seeking trial by jury, interest, attorney and
expert fees, cost of court and relief deemed fit.

The plaintiff is represented by Pittsburgh attorney Vincent
Coppola, Esq. -- vcoppola@pribanic.com -- and Shannon Hopkins, Esq.
Nancy Kulesa, Esq., Stephanie Bartone, Esq. and Gregory Potrepka,
Esq. of Levi & Korsinsky. [GN]


UA LOCAL 91: Faces King Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD KING, ANTHONY ROBINSON, CHRIS SAMUEL, NOLAN JONES, JR.,
BRIAN STRUGGS; Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UA LOCAL 91, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS,
STEAMFITTERS, WELDERS And HVAC TECHNICIANS; UNITED ASSOCIATION OF
JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING
INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, UNION OF PLUMBERS,
FITTERS, WELDERS AND SERVICE TECHNICIANS; DAY & ZIMMERMAN, INC.;
DAY & ZIMMERMAN NPS, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01115-KOB (N.D. Ala.,
July 16, 2019), alleges civil rights act violations.

The lawsuit is an action for declaratory judgment, injunctive
relief, equitable relief and monetary relief instituted to secure
the protection of and to redress the deprivation of rights secured
through Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 1981, that provide for relief against
discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color and
retaliation, notes the complaint.

UA Local 91 is a subsidiary, affiliate and/or agent of its parent
International Union--the United Association of Journeymen &
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, Union of
Plumbers, Fitters, Welders & Service Techs.

The Defendant Unions do business in this jurisdiction and are
subject to suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the Civil Rights Act
of 1866, as amended.

Day & Zimmerman, Inc. and Day & Zimmerman NPS, Inc. are employers
subject to suit under the Civil Rights Acts.  Day & Zimmerman
provides diversified commercial services.  The Company offers
architecture, engineering, procurement, maintenance, staffing,
defense, and construction services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., Esq.
          Ann K. Wiggins, Esq.
          Rocco Calamusa, Jr., Esq.
          Russell W. Adams, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          E-mail: rwiggins@wigginschilds.com
                  awiggins@wigginschilds.com
                  rcalamusa@wigginschilds.com
                  radams@wigginschilds.com


UMR, INC: Berceanu et al. Sue over Defective UBH Guidelines
-----------------------------------------------------------
LUCIANA BERCEANU, on her own behalf and on behalf of her
beneficiary daughter, and all others similarly situated, JUDY
HERNANDEZ, on her own behalf and on behalf of her beneficiary
husband, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UMR,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-00568-wmc (W.D. Wisc., July
11, 2019), seeks:

     -- a declaration that UMR's adoption of a defective United
Behavioral Health (UBH) guidelines violated UMR's fiduciary duties;
and

     -- issuance of permanent injunction ordering UMR to stop
utilizing the guidelines, and instead adopt guidelines that are
consistent with generally accepted standards of medical practice.

According to the complaint, despite finding that Judy Hernandez's
husband met the criteria for coverage for services at the intensive
outpatient level of intensity, UMR denied all coverage for Mr.
Hernandez's continued care in his residential treatment program,
rather than reimbursing at the rate applicable to intensive
outpatient programs. UMR's failure to approve Mr. Hernandez's
claims at the rate for the level of care for which UMR found he
qualified (intensive outpatient treatment) created a windfall for
the Hernandez Plan's sponsor and for UMR's affiliated stop-loss
insurer. Despite finding that Berceanu's daughter met the criteria
for coverage for services at the partial hospitalization level of
intensity, UMR denied all coverage for her continued care in her
residential treatment program, rather than reimbursing at the rate
applicable to partial hospitalization. UMR's failure to approve
Plaintiff Berceanu's daughter's claims at the rate for the level of
care for which UMR found she qualified (partial hospitalization)
created a windfall for the Berceanu Plan's sponsor and for UMR's
affiliated stop-loss insurer. Berceanu incurred significant
unreimbursed expenses for her daughter's residential treatment.

The Berceanu Plan and the Hernandez Plan (Plaintiffs' Plans) are
both governed by ERISA. The Plaintiffs' Plans both cover treatment
for sickness, injury, mental illness, and substance use disorders.
Residential treatment is a covered benefit under the Plaintiffs'
Plans.

UMR is the benefit claims administrator for the Plaintiffs' Plans.
As such, both Plans grant discretion to UMR to interpret plan
terms, including limitations and exclusions, in determining whether
services are covered and to cause any resulting benefit payments to
be made by the Plans.

Because UMR exercises discretion with respect to the administration
of the Plaintiffs' Plans, and makes all benefit determinations, UMR
is a fiduciary within the meaning ERISA, 29 U.S.C. section 1104.

UMR is responsible for adopting and applying the defective UBH
guidelines and adjudicating the claims for benefits. It is also
responsible for causing the ERISA plans to issue benefits for
covered services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Robert J. Gringas, Esq.
          GINGRAS , CATES AND WACHS
          8150 Excelsior Drive
          Madison, WI 53717
          Telephone: (608) 833-2632
          E-mail: gingras@gcwlawyers.com

               - and -

          D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          Adam B. Abelson, Esq.
          Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq.
          ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
          1185 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 704-9600
          E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
                  jcowart@zuckerman.com
                  aabelson@zuckerman.com
                  creynolds@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Meiram Bendat, Esq.
          PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
          8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 598-3690
          E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com

UNITED PARCEL: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Coates Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff La Tasha Coates filed an appeal from a Court ruling in
the lawsuit titled La Tasha Coates v. United Parcel Service, Inc.,
Case No. 2:18-cv-03012-PSG-AFM, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
sought certification of two classes:

    * Security Check Class:

      "all non-exempt, non-delivery-driver employees employed by
      United Parcel Service, Inc. at a "Clean-In / Clean-Out"
      facility in California at any time from December 29, 2013
      through the date of class certification"; and

    * Meal Break Class:

      "all non-exempt, non-delivery-driver employees employed by
      United Parcel Service, Inc. in California at any time from
      December 29, 2013 through the date of class certification";

The appellate case is captioned as La Tasha Coates v. United Parcel
Service, Inc., Case No. 19-80092, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner LA TASHA COATES, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Robert Drexler, Jr., Esq.
          Melissa Grant, Esq.
          John Ely Stobart, I, Esq.
          Ryan Wu, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com
                  Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com
                  john.stobart@capstonelawyers.com
                  ryan.wu@capstonelawyers.com

Defendant-Respondent UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., an Ohio
corporation, is represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
          Amanda Bolliger, Esq.
          GRUBE BROWN & GEIDT LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3330
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 358-2810
          E-mail: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
                  amandabolliger@gbgllp.com

               - and -

          James Robert Evans, Jr., Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          333 S. Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2901
          Telephone: (213) 576-1146
          E-mail: james.evans@alston.com


UNITED STATES: D.C. App. Affirms Class Certification in UACs Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, J.D., ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ET AL., Appellees, v. ALEX MICHAEL AZAR, II, SECRETARY,
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL., Appellants, Case No. 18-5093
(D.C. App.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (i) affirmed the class certification order and the portions
of the preliminary injunction enjoining obstructions to abortion
access; and (ii) vacated those portions of the order relating to
the U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., Office of Refugee
Resettlement ("ORR"), About Unaccompanied Alien Children's
Service's alleged disclosure policies.

Unaccompanied alien children ("UACs") are minors in the United
States with no lawful immigration status and no parents or legal
guardians in the country able to care for them.  According to the
government's published information about UACs, UACs have multiple
inter-related reasons for undertaking the difficult journey of
traveling to the United States, which may include rejoining family
already in the United States, escaping violent communities or
abusive family relationships in their home country, or finding work
to support their families in the home country.

The ORR, a program in the Department of Health and Human Services,
bears responsibility for the "care and placement" of UACs.  Most
UACs are referred to ORR by the Department of Homeland Security
("DHS") after having been apprehended by immigration authorities at
the border.  Some unaccompanied minors who hail from countries
contiguous with the United States may be immediately repatriated to
their countries of origin by DHS.  But the overwhelming majority of
UACs are from non-contiguous countries and are therefore
transferred to ORR custody.

In fiscal year 2018, almost 50,000 unaccompanied minors were
referred to ORR.  Federal law requires prompt placement of UACs in
the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the
child.  Pursuant to that requirement, ORR usually places
unaccompanied minors in one of roughly 100 federally funded
shelters across the country.

Roughly 30% of the unaccompanied minors to arrive in the United
States in recent years have been female.  Each year, ORR has
several hundred pregnant unaccompanied minors in its custody.  In
fiscal year 2017, the only year for which there is data in the
record concerning abortion requests, 18 pregnant unaccompanied
minors in ORR custody requested an abortion.

In March 2017, ORR announced that shelters are prohibited from
taking any action that facilitates an abortion without direction
and approval from the Director of ORR.  A shelter thus could assist
a minor if an abortion would be consistent with the relevant
state's laws.  If a shelter objected to permitting a minor abortion
access on religious or other grounds, ORR would transfer her to a
shelter willing to provide access.

Under the new policy's requirement to secure the ORR Director's
approval before permitting abortion access, Scott Lloyd, who became
Director in March 2017, denied every abortion request presented to
him during his tenure.  He refused every request regardless of the
circumstances, including when the pregnancy resulted from rape.
The requirement to obtain the Director's approval thus functions as
a blanket ban.

The ban, though, applies only to those unaccompanied minors who are
in ORR custody (including those at ORR grantee shelters).  A minor
who is released to a sponsor, or who obtains lawful immigration
status, thus is no longer subject to the abortion bar.  The same is
true of unaccompanied minors who turn 18 and are then transferred
to DHS custody.  DHS, unlike ORR, allows pregnant women in its
custody to obtain abortions.

The class action was brought in the name of the four Plaintiffs --
Jane Doe, Jane Poe,  Jane Roe and Jane Moe -- who were
unaccompanied minors in ORR custody and whose requests for an
abortion were denied under the new policy.

On March 30, 2018, the district court certified a class of the
Plaintiffs consisting of all pregnant, unaccompanied immigrant
minor children (UCs) who are or will be in the legal custody of the
federal government.  The court certified the class under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), which applies when a defendant
acts on grounds that apply generally to the class, such that an
injunction (or declaratory relief) is appropriate as to the entire
class.

On the merits, the court granted a preliminary injunction to the
class.  It explained that the government may not prohibit any woman
from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before
viability.  That "basic proscription," the court determined,
controls the outcome in the case.  The court concluded, ORR's
absolute veto nullifies a UAC's right to make her own reproductive
choices.  And "ORR's policy vests the power to decide the future of
a UAC's pregnancy in one man: Director Lloyd, whose ultimate
decision is substantially controlled by -- if not entirely based on
-- his ideological opposition to abortion.

The district court initially entered its preliminary injunction on
March 30, 2018, and then clarified it on April 16, 2018.  The
injunction contains two relevant provisions.  First, it enjoins the
government from interfering with or obstructing any class member's
access to an abortion or other pregnancy-related care (and also
enjoins any interference with access to a judicial bypass or
abortion counseling).  Second, the court enjoined the government
from revealing, or forcing class members to reveal, the fact of
their pregnancies or their abortion decisions to anyone.

Those two aspects of the preliminary injunction -- the access
mandate and the disclosure bar -- have been appealed by the
government.  The government also appeals the district court's grant
of class certification. The government, though, does not appeal
other provisions of the preliminary injunction that bar retaliation
against class members or shelters for abortion-related decisions
and actions.

Based on a faithful application of the Supreme Court's precedents,
the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have established both
requirements of the "inherently transitory" exception.
Accordingly, the district court's class certification relates back
to the date of the pleadings, and all the class's claims remain
live.

The Court then reviews the district court's certification of the
class only for abuse of discretion.  It finds no abuse of
discretion and thus affirm the certification of a class of pregnant
UACs in ORR custody.

The Court also finds that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in certifying a class consisting of all pregnant
unaccompanied minors who are or will be in ORR custody.  Both sides
to the dispute thus can economically deal with an issue affecting
many individuals in one fell swoop, consistent with the objectives
of Rule 23.

Having established the Court's jurisdiction and having sustained
the class' certification, the Court finally comes to the merits of
the preliminary injunction granted by the district court.  It
cannot accept the government's effort to justify ORR's ban on
access to abortions on the theory that unaccompanied minors can
voluntarily depart the country.  The undue-burden framework has
never been thought to tolerate any burden on abortion the
government imposes simply because women can leave the jurisdiction.
That is especially so for voluntary departure, which: is granted
only at the government's discretion; may not come soon enough even
if awarded; is exceedingly unlikely to enable an unaccompanied
minor to obtain an abortion in her country of origin in any event;
and requires abandoning potentially viable claims of entitlement to
stay in the United States.  

The Court therefore agrees with the district court that the
Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success in connection with
their claim that ORR's restriction on abortion access infringes
their protected right to choose to terminate their pregnancies.

Because the Plaintiffs have made a sufficient showing that the
various preliminary-injunction factors weigh in their favor, the
Court affirms the district court's order preliminarily enjoining
the government from interfering with unaccompanied minors' access
to a pre-viability abortion.

Nonetheless, the Court is unable to meaningfully review the portion
of the district court's preliminary injunction addressed to the
alleged disclosure policies without a more developed understanding
of the content of those polices.  It thus vacates the portion of
the district court's order preliminarily enjoining the government
from disclosing (or forcing class members to disclose) information
related to their pregnancies and abortion decisions, so that the
district court on remand can give a more fulsome account of its
findings and conclusions in that regard.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court affirmed the class
certification order and the portions of the preliminary injunction
enjoining obstructions to abortion access.  It vacated those
portions of the order relating to ORR's alleged disclosure policies
and remanded for further explanation.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/jm4kaP from Leagle.com.

August E. Flentje, Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice,
argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief were Hashim
M. Mooppan, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Michael C.
Heyse, Attorney.

Ken Paxton Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
State of Texas, Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General, Kyle Hawkins,
Assistant Solicitor General, David J. Hacker, Special Counsel for
Civil Litigation, Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General for the State of Alabama, M. Stephen Pitt, General
Counsel for the Governor of Kentucky, Jeff Landry , Attorney
General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana,
Eric Schmitt, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for
the State of Missouri, Doug Peterson, Attorney General, Office of
the Attorney General for the State of Nebraska, Dave Yost, Attorney
General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Ohio, Mike
Hunter, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
State of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Office of the
Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, and Patrick
Morrisey, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
State of West Virginia, were on the brief as amici curiae States of
Texas, et al. in support of appellants.

Brigitte Amiri argued the cause for appellees. With her on the
brief were Meagan Burrows, Jennifer Dalven, Arthur B. Spitzer,
Scott Michelman, Daniel Mach, and Melissa Goodman.

Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney
General for the State of New York, Anisha S. Dasgupta, Deputy
Solicitor General, Ester Murdukhayeva, Assistant Solicitor General,
Brian E. Frosh , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
for the State of Maryland, Maura Healey, Attorney General, Office
of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General
for the State of New Jersey, Hector Balderas, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Joshua
H. Stein , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
State of North Carolina, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oregon, Josh
Shapiro , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Xavier Becerra, Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General for the State of California, William
Tong, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
State of Connecticut, Kathy Jennings, Attorney General, Office of
the Attorney General for the State of Delaware, Russell A. Suzuki,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of
Hawaii, Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney
General for the State of Illinois, Thomas J. Miller, Attorney
General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Iowa,
Aaron Frey, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for
the State of Maine, Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, Office of
the Attorney General for the State of Washington, Karl A. Racine,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the District
of Columbia, Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General, Office of
the Attorney General for the State of Vermont, and Mark R. Herring,
Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, were on the brief for amici curiae States
of New York, et al. in support of appellees.

Jennifer R. Cowan was on the brief for amici curiae The American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, et al. in support of
plaintiffs-appellees.

Joel Dodge and Jane Liu were on the brief for amici curiae
Reproductive Rights, Health, and Justice Organizations and Allied
Organizations in support of appellees.

Roxann E. Henry was on the brief for amici curiae Immigrants Rights
Advocates supporting plaintiffs-appellees.


VERB TECHNOLOGY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against  Verb Technology Company,
Inc. (NASDAQ: VERB) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Verb securities
from January 3, 2018 and May 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by
visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/verb.

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

The complaint alleges that on January 3, 2018, Verb revealed a
purported agreement with Oracle America, Inc. (the "Oracle
Agreement") and filed Form 8-K with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission omitting the text of the agreement itself.
The complaint continues to allege that throughout the Class Period,
Verb continued to hype this relationship. During this time, Verb
stock price increased over 200% up from $0.12 per share on January
3, 2018 to $2.70 on April 19, 2018.

Then on April 23, 2018, Verb revealed the actual terms of the
Oracle Agreement through the filing of a Form 8-K.  The complaint
alleges that the terms of the agreement exposed that the prior
representations regarding the scope of the relationship with Oracle
were materially misleading. Following this news, Verb stock dropped
43% from the previous week to close on April 30, 2018 at $1.54 per
share.  The stock continued to drop and and closed at $3.04 per
share on April 20th.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/verb. or you may contact Peretz
Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in Verb you have until September 9, 2019 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

Contact:

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


VERB TECHNOLOGY: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on July 9, 2019, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against Verb Technology Company,
Inc. (VERB). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities
laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class
Period, which is January 3, 2018 through May 2, 2018.

To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-verb-technology-company-inc/

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Verb Technology
Company, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, September 9,
2019 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights please contact:

         Robin Hester, Esq.
         Federman & Sherwood
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         Website: www.federmanlaw.com
         Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]


VERB TECHNOLOGY: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Verb Technology Company, Inc. (Nasdaq: VERB) in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the
securities of Verb between January 3, 2018 through May 2, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges Defendants 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.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the September 9, 2019
lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


VERB TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of 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.

Contact:

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


WHEATFIELD, NY: Bids to Dismiss SAC in E. Andres Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH ANDRES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF
WHEATFIELD, OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, BELL HELICOPTER
TEXTRON, INC., CROWN BEVERAGE PACKAGING, LLC, GREIF, INC., REPUBLIC
SERVICES, INC., and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00377 (W.D. N.Y.), Judge Christina Reiss of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of New York granted the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC").

The Plaintiffs are current or previous owners or renters of
residential properties in North Tonawanda, New York, and the
surrounding area, who have lived in that area for at least one
year.  They seek to bring a class action suit against the
Defendants arising out of the Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to toxic
and hazardous substances emanating from the Town's Nash Road
landfill ("Site").

The Site is a closed, unlined, uncapped landfill on 25 acres of
real property located at 7415 Nash Road, Wheatfield, New York,
immediately north of the City of North Tonawanda and east of Nash
Road.  At all times relevant to this action, the Town owned the
Site, which was operated by the Niagara Sanitation Company between
1964 and 1968 for the disposal of municipal and industrial wastes.

In 1989, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation ("NYSDEC"), Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
performed a "Phase II Investigation."  NYSDEC's recommendations
allegedly revealed that shallow groundwater at the Site contained
significant contamination of toxic organic compounds and metals and
that there was a potential for the contaminants to migrate
off-site.  

The Plaintiffs allege that, despite the EPA's Report and NYSDEC's
investigation, no action was taken, none of the recommendations
were performed, and the Site remained just as it was.  The adjacent
community was not informed of any findings or directives, or warned
of any potential danger to persons or property, and residents
continued to use the Site for recreational activities.

According to Plaintiffs, the Town was fully aware that the Site
contained an unknown quantity of toxic chemicals, toxic
contaminants and waste, industrial solvents and sludge, and banned
pesticides.  Despite this awareness, the Town left the Site
abandoned for decades, without proper cleanup, oversight, or
management, with no signage as to the danger, no fencing of the
property to prevent access, and without engineering controls to
prevent seepage and transport of contamination on to the
surrounding properties.

On March 26, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed the action in New York
state court.  On May 3, 2017, the lawsuit was removed to federal
court.  On Oct. 27, 2017, they filed their First Amended Complaint.
The Defendants responded by filing motions to dismiss for failure
to state a claim.  At a June 18, 2018 hearing, the court granted
the motions to dismiss on the record and granted the Plaintiffs
leave to amend.

On Aug. 17, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed the SAC.  In their SAC, the
Plaintiffs assert the following claims: Count One: response costs
incurred or to be incurred by the Plaintiffs in connection with the
Site pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"); Count Two:
contribution for response costs under Section 113(f) of CERCLA;
Count Three: declaratory relief as to future costs under Section
113(g)(2), (4) of CERCLA; Count Four: the Town's violation of the
Plaintiffs' substantive due process rights for a state-created
danger pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; Count Five: the Town's
violation of the Plaintiffs' substantive due process rights to
bodily integrity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; Count Six:
state law negligence; Count Seven: state law strict liability; and
Count Eight: state law trespass.

The Defendants again move to dismiss, arguing the Plaintiffs fail
to state a claim for relief because they fail to plausibly allege
their injuries, a theory of causation, and the essential elements
of claims under CERCLA or for trespass.  The Town filed a separate
motion to dismiss on the basis that the Plaintiffs' conclusory
allegations are insufficient to plead claims under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.

The Plaintiffs oppose dismissal.  On Feb. 8, 2019, the Court held
oral argument and thereafter took the pending motions under
advisement.

Judge Reiss finds that the allegations are identical for each
Plaintiff who owns or rents real property near the Site.  Although
they contend they have incurred response costs in the form of
substantial investigation and sampling costs necessary to determine
the nature and extent of releases, threatened releases, and
contamination around the Site, the results of their investigation
are not reflected in the SAC.   Because the SAC fails to give the
Defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests, and does not allege sufficient factual matter to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, the
Defendants' motions to dismiss must be granted.

Although dismissal has been granted, the Judge proceeds to analyze
the Defendants' challenges to the essential elements of the claims
in order to facilitate appellate review and any further amendment.

At the pleading stage, the Plaintiffs' assertion that their
sampling and investigation were NCP-compliant is sufficient.  Their
allegation that they collectively incurred $80,000 in response
costs, however, is not.  On this basis, the Judge would dismiss
Count One for failure to allege the essential elements of a Section
107(a) CERCLA response costs recovery claim.

In Count Two, the Plaintiffs seek contribution from the Defendants
for their response costs.  Because Pthe laintiffs fail to plausibly
allege a cost-recovery claim and the existence of a prior civil
enforcement action, their contribution claim must also fail.

The Plaintiffs assert they are entitled to declaratory relief under
CERCLA in Count Three of their SAC and request that the Court
enters a determination that the Defendants are liable under CERCLA
Sections 107(a) and 113(f), for past, present, and future costs of
assessment, containment, response, removal, and remediation arising
from the presence of hazardous substances, at the Site.  Because
the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a claim for relief under
Section 107, or any CERCLA provision, their request for declaratory
relief also fails.

Next, conclusory allegations in support of an intentional tort
claim will not suffice.  As a result, the Plaintiffs fail to state
the essential elements of a trespass claim.

Finally, in Counts Four and Five, the Plaintiffs assert claims
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Town alleging that the
Site violates their rights to substantive due process because it is
a state-created danger that interferes with their bodily integrity.
In the SAC, the Plaintiffs allege the Town was aware of the risks
to persons and property posed by the Site, deliberately ignored
this risk, and took steps to conceal it, was aware that the Site
had the capacity to contaminate neighboring properties, and was
aware that the Site was being used for recreational purposes, and
nonetheless failed to heed directives to notify neighbors and
residents of the Site's dangers.  Although the Plaintiffs have
failed to allege causation and their claims fail for that reason,
these allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to assert a
claim of "deliberate indifference" under Monell v. Department of
Social Services of the City of New York.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Reiss granted the Defendants'
motions to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 14, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/9FT6SB from Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Andres, Jason Berent, Ryan Caldwell, individually and on
behalf of Z.C. and M.C., Deanna Caldwell, individually and on
behalf of Z.C. and M.C., Todd Carson, Michael Coles, Dawn
D'Agostino, Cory D'Agostino, individually and on behalf of G.D.,
Christopher Daigler, David Daigler, Katlin Daigler, Katherine
Daigler, Michael DiPota, Anthony DiPota, Mary DiPota, Nicolas
DiPota, Stacey Drmota, Fred Drmota, Megan Drmota, Ryan Follendorf,
Timothy Follendorf, Catherine Follendorf, William Forth, Glen
Gebhardt, Jolie Giardino, Jennie Gonas, Rachel Kaiser, John Keefe,
Gail King, individually and on behalf of T.K., J.J.K., Brianna
King, John King, Janelle King, Robert Kocsis, Sarah Kraus, Varsha
Kraus, Thomas Krueger, Cindy Krueger, Larry Krueger, Larry Krueger,
II, Gregory Lisinski, William Maines, Nancy Maines, Kelli
Meisenburg, Betty Neumann, Douglas Neumann, Donald Richards, Debra
Rogers, Kyle Rogers, James Rosebrock, John See, Rene See, Kathleen
See, Kimberly Sosnowski, individually and on behalf of K.S.,
Jennifer Standish, Dennis Stickney, Brett A. Grawe, Rebecca Grawe,
individually and on behalf of Alexis Grawe., B.G., all others
similarly situated & Hallie Beth Daigler, Plaintiffs, represented
by Lilia Factor, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Ashley M. Liuzza, Stag
Liuzza, LLC, Christen Civiletto, Louise R. Caro --
LCaro@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Michael G. Stag, Stag
Liuzza, LLC, Paul J. Napoli -- PNapoli@napolilaw.com -- Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC & Tate James Kunkle -- TKunkle@napolilaw.com --
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC.

Melanie Berent, Holly Truszkowski, Cynthia Denick, Dana Berent,
individually, Zachary Grawe, Lauren Olewnik, Donald Rogers,
Stephanie Evans, Karrie Gebhardt, Lori Richards, Clinton Moultrie,
Shirley Coles, Christopher Richards, Nicholas Coles, Karen
Stickney, Carole Keefe, Jason Richards, Colby Moultrie & Gerald
Truszkowski, Plaintiffs, represented by Lilia Factor, Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC & Ashley M. Liuzza, Stag Liuzza, LLC.

Town of Wheatfield, a municipality located in Niagara County, New
York, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Niagara
Sanitation Company, Defendant, represented by Charles D. Grieco --
cgrieco@bsk.com  -- Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Dennis K.
Schaeffer -- dschaeffer@bsk.com -- Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC &
Matthew E. Brooks, Jones Hogan & Brooks, LLP.

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Individually and as Successor in
Interest to Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kevin M. Hogan, Phillips Lytle LLP, Andrew P.
Devine, Phillips Lytle LLP, Douglas E. Fleming, III, Dechert LLP,
pro hac vice, Joel A. Blanchet, Phillips Lytle LLP, Mara Cusker
Gonzalez, Dechert LLP & Sheila L. Birnbaum, Dechert LLP, pro hac
vice.

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., individually and as Successor in
Interest to Bell Aircraft Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Joseph J. Welter , Goldberg Segalla LLP, Susan E. VanGelder,
Goldberg Segalla LLP & Neil A. Goldberg, Goldberg Segalla LLP.

Crown Beverage Packaging, LLC, individually and as Successor in
Interest to Continental Can, Defendant, represented by Laurie Styka
Bloom, Nixon Peabody LLP.

Greif, Inc., individually and as Successor in Interest to Greif
Bros. Cooperage Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian
Clinton Mahoney, Harris Beach LLP & Richard T. Sullivan, Harris
Beach LLP.

Republic Services, Inc., individually and as Successor in Interest
to Niagara Sanitation Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Robert M. Rosenthal, Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

Honeywell International Inc., individually and as Successor in
Interest to Bell Aerospace, Defendant, represented by John G. Horn,
Harter, Secrest and Emery LLP.

Town of Wheatfield, a municipality located in Niagara County, New
York, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Niagara
Sanitation Company, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Charles D.
Grieco, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Dennis K. Schaeffer, Bond,
Schoeneck & King, PLLC & Matthew E. Brooks, Jones Hogan & Brooks,
LLP.

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Individually and as Successor in
Interest to Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation, ThirdParty
Plaintiff, represented by Kevin M. Hogan, Phillips Lytle LLP,
Andrew P. Devine, Phillips Lytle LLP, Douglas E. Fleming, III,
Dechert LLP, pro hac vice, Joel A. Blanchet, Phillips Lytle LLP,
Mara Cusker Gonzalez, Dechert LLP & Sheila L. Birnbaum, Dechert
LLP, pro hac vice.

Crown Beverage Packaging, LLC, individually and as Successor in
Interest to Continental Can, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by
Laurie Styka Bloom, Nixon Peabody LLP.

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., individually and as Successor in
Interest to Bell Aircraft Corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented by Joseph J. Welter, Goldberg Segalla LLP & Neil A.
Goldberg, Goldberg Segalla LLP.

United States of America, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Leon
B. Taranto, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division,
Environmental Torts Branch, Michael S. Cerrone, U.S. Attorney's
Office, Sue S. Chen, U.S. Department of Justice Environmental
Enforcement Section, Christina M. Falk, U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Environmental Torts Branch & Danielle Sgro, U.S.
Department of Justice.

Greif, Inc., individually and as Successor in Interest to Greif
Bros. Cooperage Corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by
Brian Clinton Mahoney, Harris Beach LLP & Richard T. Sullivan,
Harris Beach LLP.


WOOD-MODE INC: Ex-Employee Launches Class Action Over Pensions
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Beauge, writing for Penn Live, reports that a former Wood-Mode
Inc. employee has sued the custom wood cabinet company seeking a
court order to gain access to his pension funds.

Donald Yerger of Middleburg seeks classification of the suit filed
July 19, 2019, in Snyder County court as a class action to
represent all Wood-Mode employees who have not been able to obtain
their pension money.

Many of the 938 employees who lost their jobs when the plant in
Kreamer abruptly shut down on May 13 have had difficulty accessing
the money they contributed

Failure to allow access to the money could cause financial harm to
former employees, especially those left without normal income when
the plant closed, the suit states.

The pension funds have been duly earned and promised, the complaint
states.

Sunbury attorney Joel M. Wiest, Esq., who is representing Yerger
and other Wood-Mode employees without cost, said the suit in no way
should interfere with the attempt by Bill French to buy the assets
of Wood-Mode.

The owner of Professional Building Systems in Middleburg has a
signed purchase agreement. Wood-Mode's prime lender, Great Rock
Capital, also has signed it, he said.

Wood-Mode and its two principals, CEO Robert L Gronlund and his son
R. Brooks Gronlund, president and chief operating officer, are
defendants in a federal lawsuit that also seeks to become a class
action for all former employees.

William Swede, Curtis Trego and Tina Clapper have accused the
company of not providing a 60-day notice of a pending closing as
required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act.

They are seeking wages and benefits for the 60 days as if they had
received notice.

Wood-Mode claims providing such notice would have precluded it from
being able to sell the business or obtaining needed capital to keep
operating, neither of which occurred. [GN]


YALE UNIVERSITY: Kwesell Civil Rights Suit Questions $1K HEP Fine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LISA KWESELL; CHRISTINE TURECEK; AND JASON SCHWARTZ, individually
and on behalf all others similarly situated v. YALE UNIVERSITY,
Case No. 3:19-cv-1098 (D. Conn., July 16, 2019), is brought on
behalf of all current and former employees of Yale, who are or were
required to participate in Yale's Health Expectation Program or pay
a fine adding up to $1,300 annually between January 1, 2017, and
present.

The Plaintiffs contend that Yale's $1,300 fine not only slashes
employees' expected income; it violates their civil rights.  The
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA") prohibit employers from extracting
medical or genetic information from employees unless that
information is provided voluntarily, the Plaintiffs assert.

Founded in 1701, Yale is a private academic institution located in
New Haven, Connecticut.  Yale offers an array of undergraduate and
graduate degrees and employs over 4,700 faculty members and
thousands of staff.  In 2018, Yale reported total net assets of $32
billion.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua R. Goodbaum, Esq.
          Joseph D. Garrison, Esq.
          Elisabeth J. Lee, Esq.
          GARRISON, LEVIN-EPSTEIN, FITZGERALD & PIRROTTI, P. C.
          405 Orange Street
          New Haven, CT, 06511
          Telephone: (203) 777-4425
          Facsimile: (203) 776-3965
          E-mail: jgoodbaum@garrisonlaw.com
                  jgarrison@garrisonlaw.com
                  elee@garrisonlaw.com

               - and -

          Dara S. Smith, Esq.
          Elizabeth Aniskevich, Esq.
          Daniel B. Kohrman, Esq.
          AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION
          601 E Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20049
          Telephone: (202) 434-6280
          Facsimile: (202) 434-6424
          E-mail: dsmith@aarp.org
                  eaniskevich@aarp.org
                  dkohrman@aarp.org


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1 Asbestos Suit Filed in St. Louis on July 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Louis Record reported that the following cases categorized
as "asbestos" cases were on the docket in the St. Louis 22nd
Judicial Circuit Court on July 12:

   * Dennis Young v. 3M Company; Atlantic Richfield Company; BP
Products North America Inc.; Borg Warner Morse Tec Llc; Cbs
Corporation; Certainteed Corporation; Chicago Pneumatic Tool
Company LLC; Cooper Industries LLC; Copes Vulcan Inc; Crane
Company; Crosby Valve Llc; Cyprus Amax Minerals Co; Daniel
International Corp.; Dap Products Inc; Exxonmobil Oil Corporation;
Flowserve Us Inc; Fluor Corporation; Fluor Enterprises Inc.; Ford
Motor Company; Foster Wheeler Corporation; General Electric
Company; General Gasket Corporation; Goodyear Tire & Rubber
Company; Goulds Pumps Ipg Llc; Grinnell Llc; Hercules Llc;
Honeywell International Inc.; Imo Industries Inc.; Inc. Armstrong
Pumps; Industrial Holdings Corp.; Ingersoll Rand Company;
International Paper Company; Johnson & Johnson; Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; Nooter Corp; PTI Union LLC; Pneumo Abex Llc;
Premier Brands of America Inc.; Resco Holdings LLC; Riley Power
Inc; Rust International Inc.; Saint Gobain Abrasives Inc; Shell
Chemical Lp; Shell Oil Company; Spence Engineering INC Co.; Spirax
Sarco Inc; Sterling Fluid Systems USA LLC; Texaco Inc; The Dow
Chemical Company; The Gorman Rupp Company; Trane Us Inc; Union
Carbide Corp.; Urs Corporation; Warren Pumps Llc; Zurn Industries
LLC, Case No. 1922-CC10859

Randy Lee Gori (plaintiff's attorney)


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 288 Dead From Asbestos Cancer in Shropshire
------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Robertson, writing for Shropshire Star, reported that
asbestos-related cancer has claimed 288 lives in Shropshire since
the 1980s, new figures have revealed.

Charity Mesothelioma UK has warned that the danger posed by
asbestos is often underestimated, and called for action to rid
buildings of the deadly substance.

Since 1981, when records began on deaths related to the disease,
190 people have died in the Shropshire Council area, and 98 in
Telford & Wrekin.

The figures show the recent impact of the disease, which can often
be delayed in its appearence and a result of exposure many decades
before.

Between 2013 and 2017, 16 men and seven women died of the disease
in Telford & Wrekin, while 48 died in Shropshire.

In Powys Asbestos-related cancer deaths are also at their highest
level since records began, with 27 between 2013 and 2017.

Inhaling asbestos fibres can lead to mesothelioma, a lethal cancer
affecting the lining of the lungs, which can take decades to
develop.

Fire claiming lives years on

A number of Telford residents developed asbestos-related disease as
a result of a huge fire at the Telford army depot COD Donnington in
1983.

The blaze scattered ash containing asbestos for 15 square miles
around the town.

It was three days before the council began its clean-up operation,
by which time many residents had already done so themselves.

In May this year a coroner ruled that a groundsman who helped in
the clean-up had died as a result of asbestos exposure.

Peter Henry Brittain, 77, of Haygate Road, Wellington, had worked
to remove a large amount of asbestos following the 1983 fire.

Last year the family of a Telford mother of four were also awarded
a payout from the Ministry of Defence after it was accepted her
mesothelioma had been a result of the fire.

Susan Maughan, a mother-of-four who also had eight grandchildren
and one great-grandchild, died in 2015 aged 63, three years after
her diagnosis.

Earlier this year the trust that runs Shropshire’s two main
hospitals was ordered to pay £34,000 after refurbishment work in
2012 exposed employees and contractors to asbestos.

The issue of suspected asbestos had been reported by a worker at
the trust, who was sacked and later won an unfair dismissal claim.

Nationwide, deaths caused by the cancer have almost quadrupled over
35 years, reaching nearly 13,000 at the latest count.

The UK has the highest incidence of mesothelioma in the world, due
to the regular use of asbestos to construct buildings between 1940
and 1970.

The material was banned in 1999, but damage to older buildings can
release fibres into the air.

'There is no safe level of asbestos exposure'

Liz Darlison, from Mesothelioma UK, said: "There is no safe level
of asbestos exposure, and we should be doing much more to protect
people, particularly children.

"The time from exposure to developing the disease can take several
decades, which is why the level of concern is perhaps not fully
appreciated.

"As a nation, we must take responsibility and rid our buildings of
this cancer-causing substance, for the sake of our children, their
children, and every generation in the future."

Kate Sweeney, personal injury lawyer at law firm Stephensons, said
that many people consider asbestos "a problem of the past".

"This is simply not the case," she said.

"Asbestos-related illnesses do not only occur in tradespeople or
people who have worked in the construction industry.

"This potentially deadly material has been used in all types of
buildings, and is still present in many primary schools."

The Health and Safety Executive said that it expects mortality
rates from mesothelioma to decline after 2020.

A spokesperson said: "Since the dangers of asbestos became clear,
successive governments have, over many years, made a concerted and
sustained effort to address the issue."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6,335 Bendix Claims vs. Honeywell Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. had 6,335 unresolved asbestos-related
claims at June 30, 2019, involving predecessor company Bendix
Friction Materials (Bendix) business, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

Of the 6,335 unresolved claims, 3,118 of which are for nonmalignant
claims while the remaining 3,217 are for mesothelioma and other
cancer claims.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cU106h


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Electrician Dies of Asbestos-related Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hutchinson, writing for Chronicle Live, reported that their
world spiralled downwards after the death of the man they hailed
their hero as the head of the family.

And for years, after losing Andrew Slorance to an asbestos-related
cancer, they struggled to come to terms with his passing.

But this devastated family has finally found the strength to fight
justice from the grave as they seek answers from Andrew's former
employers.

The dad-of-two's loving relatives are calling for his old workmates
from the Swan Hunter yard in Wallsend, North Tyneside, to come
forward and help them with their case.

Andrew was a former ships' electrician, who lived in Whitley Bay
and passed away aged 75 in April 2003 after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lining of the lung linked to
contact with asbestos materials.

His loss has had a huge impact on his wife Barbara and their
children Jill and Neil. And they have all suffered with mental
health issues during the years afterwards.

Now, 16 years on from his death, they have finally found the
courage to instruct specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers at
Irwin Mitchell to investigate how Andrew came to develop
mesothelioma and whether it may be linked to his work at the Swan
Hunter yard in the 1960s and 1970s.

As part of their ongoing investigation, the legal experts are now
calling for anyone who recalls working with Andrew or worked in a
similar role at the site to come forward and provide information
which could assist their case.

Devoted wife Barbara, 84, who was married to Andrew for over 44
years, said: "The whole family was devastated when Andrew passed
away and it affected us all very badly.

"It has taken a very long time for us to get into a position where
we felt comfortable trying to get answers regarding what Andrew
faced and we would be hugely grateful to anyone who might be able
to shed light on the work he did at Swan Hunter's."

Daughter Jill, 55, of North Shields, said: "Dad kept his illness
quite quiet, he was a very private man and he didn't want us to
worry.

"He passed away in hospital, he was so frightened, in so much pain
but so brave. Dad was very family based and was a good provider for
us. He worked so hard and was such a dedicated family man. We just
want answers now."

Andrew originally took up a position as a ships'
electrician/electrical overseer for the Admiralty based at the Swan
Hunter yard in 1965. After about one year, he was transferred to
Bath but he returned to the North East in the early 1970's and
remained at Swan Hunter's yard until he retired in about 1992.

He was involved in the construction of iconic vessels including the
Ark Royal and HMS Coventry. He inspected electrical works and was
involved in sea trials before vessels were put into service with
the Royal Navy.

Debbie Schofield, the specialist asbestos-related disease lawyer at
Irwin Mitchell who represents the family, said: "Barbara, Jill, and
Neil have faced an incredibly difficult time in the past few years
and it has been very hard for them to come to terms with their
loss.

"They have shown tremendous strength by seeking to gain answers as
to how the illness which led to Andrew's death was caused and we
would hugely grateful to anyone who may be able to help us in our
efforts.

"Any information regarding the working conditions at Swan Hunter
could make a huge difference to this case."

The family's compensation claim is against the Ministry of Defence.
A spokesman for the MoD said: "We cannot comment on individual
cases. We carefully consider all claims."

Anyone with information is asked to contact Debbie Schofield at
Irwin Mitchell's Newcastle office on 0191 434 0726 or email
debbie.schofield@irwinmitchell.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Highest Level of North Yorkshire Asbestos Deaths
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stray FM reported that asbestos-related cancer deaths in North
Yorkshire are at their highest levels since records began.   

128 people in North Yorkshire died from the disease between 2013
and 2017, according to data from the Health and Safety Executive.  


It is the highest level since records began in the 1980s.  From
1983-87, 19 deaths were reported.

A charity is warning that the danger posed by asbestos is often
underestimated. Mesothelioma UK says action needs to be taken to
rid buildings of the substance.  

Inhaling asbestos fibres can lead to mesothelioma, a lethal cancer
affecting the lining of the lungs.  It can take decades to
develop.

Nationwide, deaths caused by the cancer have almost quadrupled over
35 years, reaching nearly 13,000 at the latest count.

The UK has the highest incidence of mesothelioma in the world, due
to the regular use of asbestos to construct buildings between 1940
and 1970.

The material was banned in 1999, but damage to older buildings can
release fibres into the air.

Liz Darlison, from Mesothelioma UK, said:

"There is no safe level of asbestos exposure, and we should be
doing much more to protect people, particularly children.  The time
from exposure to developing the disease can take several decades,
which is why the level of concern is perhaps not fully appreciated.
As a nation, we must take responsibility and rid our buildings of
this cancer-causing substance, for the sake of our children, their
children, and every generation in the future."

Kate Sweeney, personal injury lawyer at law firm Stephensons, said
that many people consider asbestos "a problem of the past".  She
said:

"This is simply not the case.  Asbestos-related illnesses do not
only occur in tradespeople or people who have worked in the
construction industry.  This potentially deadly material has been
used in all types of buildings, and is still present in many
primary schools."

But the Health and Safety Executive said that it expects mortality
rates from mesothelioma to decline after 2020.

A spokesperson said:

"Since the dangers of asbestos became clear, successive governments
have, over many years, made a concerted and sustained effort to
address the issue."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Faces Suits on Bendix Claims Accounting
------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is facing two putative class action
complaints alleging violations of securities law over prior
accounting matters on asbestos claims related to Bendix Friction
Materials business, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "On September 13, 2018, following completion of
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Division of
Corporation Finance's review of our prior accounting for
liabilities for unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims, the SEC
Division of Enforcement advised that it has opened an investigation
related to this matter.  Honeywell intends to provide requested
information and otherwise fully cooperate with the SEC staff.

"On October 31, 2018, David Kanefsky, a Honeywell shareholder,
filed a putative class action complaint alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 related to the prior
accounting for Bendix asbestos claims.

"On May 15, 2019, Wayne County Employees' Retirement System,
another Honeywell shareholder, filed a putative class action
asserting the same claims relating to substantially the same
alleged conduct in the same jurisdiction.

"We believe neither complaint has any merit."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cU106h


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.6BB Bendix Liabilities at June30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded total liabilities of US$1,569
million at June 30, 2019, in asbestos-related liabilities involving
predecessor company Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings
that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form.
Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to
asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the
vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements.

"It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or stabilize
in the future.

"Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated
liability for resolution of asserted (claims filed as of the
financial statement date) and unasserted Bendix-related asbestos
claims and excludes the Company's legal fees to defend such
asbestos claims which will continue to be expensed by the Company
as they are incurred.  We have valued Bendix asserted and
unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous
five years.  We update the resolution values used to estimate the
cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during the fourth
quarter each year.

"Honeywell reflects the inclusion of all years of epidemiological
disease projection through 2059 when estimating the liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims.  Such liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic and
anticipated claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of asserted and unasserted Bendix asbestos claims
reflects coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market.  Based on
our ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims.  This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and our
consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with our
insurers.

"Reimbursements associated with the indemnification and
reimbursement agreement with a Garrett subsidiary (the "Agreement")
were US$77 million for the six months ended June 30, 2019 and
offset operating cash outflows incurred by the Company.  As the
Company records the accruals for matters covered by the
indemnification and reimbursement agreement, a corresponding
receivable from Garrett for 90 percent of such accrual is also
recorded.  This receivable amount was US$12 million in the six
months ended June 30, 2019.  As of June 30, 2019, Other Current
Assets and Other Assets includes US$170 million and US$989 million
representing the short-term and long-term portion of the receivable
amount due from Garrett under the indemnification and reimbursement
agreement.

"In our ongoing communications with Garrett with respect to the
Agreement and Garrett's associated material weakness disclosure in
its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, Garrett has
taken the position that (i) Honeywell has not satisfied all of its
obligations under the Agreement, and (ii) the Agreement is
unenforceable either in whole or in part.  We strongly believe that
Garrett's allegations have no merit, nor are they material to
Honeywell.  We believe we have fully complied with our obligations
under the Agreement and that the Agreement is enforceable in its
entirety.  We intend to continue to have ongoing discussions with
Garrett to try to resolve this matter."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cU106h


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $2.5-Bil. Liabilities at June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded total liabilities of US$2,471
million related to asbestos matters at June 30, 2019, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related
personal injury actions related to North American Refractories
Company ("NARCO"), which was sold in 1986, and Bendix Friction
Materials ("Bendix") business, which was sold in 2014."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cU106h


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $902MM NARCO Liabilities at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$902 million at June 30,
2019, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor company
North American Refractories Company (NARCO), according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Honeywell's predecessor, Allied Corporation
owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986.  When the NARCO business was sold,
Honeywell's predecessor entered into a cross-indemnity agreement
with NARCO which included an obligation to indemnify the purchaser
for asbestos claims.  Such claims arise primarily from alleged
occupational exposure to asbestos-containing refractory brick and
mortar for high-temperature applications.  NARCO ceased
manufacturing these products in 1980, and the first asbestos claims
were filed in the tort system against NARCO in 1983.  Claims
filings and related costs increased dramatically in the late 1990s
through 2001, which led to NARCO filing for bankruptcy in January
2002.  Once NARCO filed for bankruptcy, all then current and future
NARCO asbestos claims were stayed against both NARCO and Honeywell
pending the reorganization of NARCO.

"Following the bankruptcy filing, in December 2002 Honeywell
recorded a total NARCO asbestos liability of US$3.2 billion, which
was comprised of three components: (i) the estimated liability to
settle pre-bankruptcy petition NARCO claims and certain
post-petition settlements (US$2.2 billion, referred to as
"Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability"), (ii) the estimated liability
related to then unasserted NARCO claims for the period 2004 through
2018 (US$950 million, referred to as "NARCO Trust Liability"), and
(iii) other NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations totaling US$73
million.

"As of June 30, 2019, our total NARCO asbestos liability of US$902
million reflects Pre-bankruptcy NARCO liability of US$159 million
and NARCO Trust Liability of US$743 million.  Through June 30,
2019, Pre-bankruptcy NARCO Liability has been reduced by
approximately US$2 billion since first established in 2002, largely
related to settlement payments.  The remaining Pre-bankruptcy NARCO
Liability principally represents estimated amounts owed pursuant to
settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO
bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims
to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the
settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures.  The other
NARCO bankruptcy-related obligations were paid in 2013 and no
further liability is recorded.

"As of June 30, 2019, Honeywell has not made any payments to the
NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims as any Annual
Contribution Claims which have been paid since the Trust became
operational have been funded by cash dividends from HWI.

"Honeywell continues to evaluate the appropriateness of the US$743
million NARCO Trust Liability.  Despite becoming effective in 2013,
the NARCO Trust has experienced delays in becoming fully
operational.  Violations of the Trust Distribution Procedures and
the resulting disputes and challenges, a standstill pending dispute
resolution, and limited claims payments, have all contributed to
the lack of sufficient normalized data based on actual claims
processing experience in the Trust since it became operational.  As
a result, we have not been able to further update the NARCO Trust
Liability.  The US$743 million NARCO Trust Liability continues to
be appropriate because of the unresolved pending claims in the
Trust, some portion of which will result in payouts in the future,
and because new claims continue to be filed with the NARCO Trust.
When sufficiently reliable claims data exists, we will update our
estimate of the NARCO Trust Liability and it is possible that a
material change may need to be recognized.

"Our insurance receivable of US$299 million as of June 30, 2019,
corresponding to the estimated liability for asserted and
unasserted NARCO asbestos claims, reflects coverage which
reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and
defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market.  We conduct
analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is
recoverable for asbestos claims.  While the substantial majority of
our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers
are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of
probable recoveries.  We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency
issues surrounding insurers."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/cU106h


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Iowa Sues Contractor Over Cedar Rapids Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Rapids News reported that the State of Iowa has sued a Cedar
Rapids company for alleged asbestos-removal violations during
renovations of Cedar Rapids Washington High School in 2014 and
2015.

The petition was filed in Linn County District Court. It claims
Abatement Specialties failed to thoroughly inspect and remove
asbestos before renovations, among other things.

Abatement Specialties could face a  penalty of up to $10,000 a day
for each violation.

According to the petition, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources
received an anonymous telephone complaint in June 2015 stating that
Abatement Specialties left asbestos debris throughout the school.

A news release states:

"An investigation revealed both asbestos debris and airborne
particles outside containment areas in the school while teachers,
staff, students and construction workers were present, according to
the lawsuit.

The district closed Washington during the abatement and removed
Abatement Specialties from the project.

The DNR sent violation letters to the company and school district
in July 2015. The matter was referred to the Iowa Attorney
General’s Office in 2016.

In August 2017, the Cedar Rapids Community School District reached
a consent decree with the state over the violations. As part of the
settlement, the district produced a series of videos to inform and
educate Iowa school officials on proper asbestos identification,
mitigation and removal."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Targets Science Behind Talc Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley, writing for Bloomberg, reported that Johnson & Johnson,
seeking to head off claims by thousands of women that its iconic
baby powder caused their cancer, took aim at some of the science
cited in lawsuits alleging the company's talc-based products were
tainted in the past with asbestos.

During a hearing, lawyers for the world's largest maker of
healthcare products questioned the procedures used by Dr. William
Longo, who tested talcum powder for asbestos. J&J hopes a judge
will bar Longo from testifying for the women suing the company in
cases consolidated in federal court in Trenton, N.J.

J&J said Longo and other expert witnesses for plaintiffs used
unreliable methods to conclude the talc products once contained
asbestos -- a carcinogen -- and that exposure could cause ovarian
cancer. If U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson buys J&J's arguments
and knocks out some or all of the plaintiffs' experts, that would
hamstring about 12,000 pending cases.

"Many millions of dollars are riding on how the judge comes down on
the question of which experts can testify," said David Logan, a law
professor at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island. "The
plaintiffs have the burden of proving the powders caused cancer. If
they can't offer an expert to tell jurors about that issue, the
cases go down the drain."

J&J faces a total of more than 14,000 lawsuits accusing it of
hiding baby powder health risks for more than 40 years to protect
one of its best-known brands. The company's shares have been under
pressure because of investors' concerns about talc litigation.

Since the first trials started in 2016, J&J has been hit with a
series of high-profile damage awards, including a $4.7 billion
verdict last year in St. Louis. The company also has won multiple
trials over the talc claims and is appealing the Missouri
state-court verdict.

The vast majority of the talc suits are gathered before Wolfson for
pretrial information exchanges and test trials. She's resisted
setting any of the consolidated cases for trial while she weighs
the viability of the scientific evidence behind the health claims,
which J&J dismisses as flawed.

According to court filings by J&J's lawyers, the idea that talc --
even untainted by asbestos -- can cause ovarian cancer flies in the
face of scientific consensus about causes of the often-fatal
disease.

Experts including Longo came up with their claims about talc solely
to help plaintiffs' lawyers win their cases, J&J's said in court
filings. The scientists ready to testify for the women "use an
unscientific methodology developed for litigation purposes,
disregarding well-established distinctions" of what constitutes
asbestos contamination, the company's lawyers said.

During a hearing before Wolfson, Longo testified he used the same
testing methods J&J employed in the past to check talc samples for
asbestos. J&J scientists have used the asbestos-testing methods
"since 1974," Longo said. He's already testified for plaintiffs in
at least half a dozen cases around the U.S.

Allison Brown, one of J&J's lawyers, said governmental agencies
investigating reports of asbestos in talc don't use the same method
as Longo and that Longo, who owns a materials-testing firm, doesn't
personally test talc samples anymore.

Wolfson will have to decide if testimony by experts such as Longo
is premised on sound scientific methods and can be considered as
reliable by jurors, said Carl Tobias, who teaches about mass-tort
law at the University of Richmond Law School in Virginia.

"It can be difficult for judges to ascertain whether the methods
expert witnesses employ are sound because most judges are not
trained in scientific methodology," Tobias said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J Told FDA in '70s Asbestos in Talc Was Safe
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that Johnson & Johnson told the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration in the 1970s that its baby powder could include a
safe level of asbestos even though the company has touted a "zero
tolerance" policy, according to testimony at a New Jersey state
trial over claims four people developed mesothelioma by using the
product.

With a company representative on the stand, one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys, Chris J. Panatier of Simon Greenstone Panatier PC,
pointed to internal documents showing that the pharmaceutical giant
told regulators that a certain amount of the toxic mineral in the
baby powder was safe.

Law360 also reported that an attorney defending Johnson & Johnson
against claims its talcum powder caused mesothelioma pressed an
environmental health expert to acknowledge research to the
contrary, highlighting for a New Jersey jury asbestos studies by
scientists and the company's sophisticated quality control and
asbestos detection methods.

Continuing a cross-examination in the Middlesex County courtroom of
Superior Court Ana C. Viscomi, J&J attorney Diane Sullivan of Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP and the plaintiffs' expert, scientist James
Webber, often espoused competing takes on topics ranging from the
definition of asbestos with respect to toxic exposure.




ASBESTOS UPDATE: Recent Rulings Show Blocks to Trust Transparency
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Vulpio, Esq. -- vulpioa@whiteandwilliams.com -- White and
Williams LLP, in an article for JD Supra, wrote In In re Garlock
Sealing Technologies, LLC, 504 B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014), the
court confirmed what many asbestos defendants and their insurers
long suspected: that "the withholding of exposure evidence by
plaintiffs and their lawyers was significant and had the effect of
unfairly inflating the recoveries against Garlock" and other
defendants. This "startling pattern of misrepresentation" included
plaintiffs' attorneys who, out of "perverted ethical duty,"
counseled their clients to file claims against multiple trusts
without valid factual grounds for so doing. Such "double dipping"
and other abuse not only harms asbestos defendants and insurers,
but also dilutes recoveries for legitimate claims. Now -- five
years after Garlock -- the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched
a coordinated initiative to fight asbestos trust fraud and
mismanagement. However, a series of recent bankruptcy court rulings
suggests that this initiative stumbled out of the gate by focusing
on the wrong issues. Asbestos defendants and their insurers can
learn from the DOJ's missteps.

In November 2017, invoking Garlock, 20 state attorneys general
wrote to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking him to devote
DOJ resources to fighting asbestos trust abuse. A September 13,
2018 DOJ press release announced an initiative to increase the
transparency and accountability of asbestos trusts. Through its
United States Trustee Program (UST), the DOJ objected to the
debtors' proposed legal representative for future claims (FCR) in
several Chapter 11 cases involving asbestos liabilities: Lawrence
Fitzpatrick in Duro Dyne and James L. Patton, Jr. in Maremont,
Fairbanks and Imerys Talc.

While acknowledging the need for a FCR in each case, UST objected
to the debtors' proposed candidates. Attempting to turn their
extensive prior experience with asbestos trusts against them, UST
portrayed them as part of a "closed group" of asbestos trust
professionals whose advocacy would be tempered by a desire to be
engaged in future cases. UST cited Garlock as evidence that Patton
and Fitzpatrick had failed to adequately safeguard against fraud,
mismanagement, and inflated professional fees in past engagements.
According to the DOJ, the debtor's choice of FCR deserved no
deference and letting the debtor pick a FCR is akin to allowing the
target of an investigation to choose the investigator. Rather,
additional candidates from outside the closed group (i.e., without
prior asbestos trust experience) should be solicited.

In each case, the court prioritized the immediate need to preserve
trust assets by providing an expedient path to plan confirmation
over the more remote and nebulous risk that the trust might fall
victim to fraud down the road.

In In re Duro Dyne National Corporation, Case No. 18-27963 (MBK)
(Bankr. D.N.J. Feb. 20, 2019), Judge Kaplan articulated "serious
concerns" that adopting UST's approach "would for all practical
purposes render a pre-negotiated plan impossible for those seeking
a channeling injunction." He expressly rejected the objectors'
heightened "independent and effective" standard, observing that
"[d]emanding proof of effectiveness can become a dangerous and
slippery slope for all professionals in a bankruptcy proceeding."
While recognizing that "there can be value and valid reasons to
challenge and reconsider the status quo," Judge Kaplan declined to
"imperil this company's reorganization, add layers of additional
administrative expense, place at risk the jobs of hundreds of
employees, or unnecessarily jeopardize the recoveries for present
and future claimants by delaying this reorganization through the
appointment of a new future rep, who must retain professionals,
[and] engage in his or her own due diligence, only to reach the
same point of review" as Fitzpatrick. The UST filed an appeal in
Duro Dyne, which remains pending.

Likewise, in In re Maremont Corporation, Case No. 19-10118 (KJC)
(Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 11, 2019), practical considerations swayed
Judge Carey. Noting that "Patton has been involved in this case for
over a year, successfully assisting the stakeholders in getting to
a prepackaged plan," Judge Carey feared that appointing someone new
would add "significant costs and delay to these cases." In general,
the process UST advocated -- including soliciting additional
candidates -- would impair asbestos debtors' ability to effectuate
prepackaged bankruptcy cases. Rather, Judge Carey concluded, "[i]f
it is correct that investigation into the process of FCR
appointments is necessary or to the extent the system is flawed,
that seems to be an exercise to be undertaken by authorities other
than the judiciary." Judge Carey approved Patton's appointment,
concluding UST had failed to show that Patton would be anything
other than independent and effective.

In In re Fairbanks Company, Case No. 18-41768 (PWB), 2019 Bankr.
LEXIS 1220 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Apr. 17, 2019), Judge Bonapfel agreed
with a majority of UST's arguments, but nonetheless approved
Patton's appointment. Noting that any party may nominate a FCR,
Judge Bonapfel concurred with UST that "a debtor's or [creditors']
committee's choice [of FCR] is not entitled to deference," and that
the standard for appointment "requires more than a determination
that the candidate is qualified and disinterested." Given present
claimants' competing interest in the same assets, FCRs "must also
be capable of acting as an objective, independent and effective
advocate for the best interest of the future claimants."
Ultimately, Judge Bonapfel found that Patton satisfied this
heightened standard and that his experience in prior cases was an
asset rather than a liability. Unlike Duro Dyne and Maremont,
Fairbanks was not a prepack; Judge Bonapfel observed that Patton
had engaged in no prepetition negotiations, mooting one of UST's
key arguments.

Similarly, in In re Imerys Talc America, Inc., Case No. 19-10289
(LSS), 2019 Bankr. LEXIS 1452 (Bankr. D. Del. May 8, 2019), Judge
Silberstein balanced UST's valid concerns with the need for
pragmatism. Citing Fairbanks with approval, she adopted a
heightened "independent and effective" standard, knowingly
"depart[ing] from a long line of cases" -- including Duro Dyne and
Maremont -- "in which the disinterestedness standard was applied."
Judge Silberstein noted that the relevant standard "has only
recently been challenged and courts have only begun to explore the
appropriate standard." However, she found that Patton met the
heightened standard and, like her fellow judges, rejected UST's
argument that Patton's "experience should count against him." While
Imerys Talc was not a prepack, Judge Silberstein recognized, "it
would not be possible to propose a prepacked case if a legal
representative were not selected prepetition." As such, Judge
Silberstein approved Patton's appointment, subject to his making
certain additional disclosures.

Despite Judge Carey's suggestion that "authorities other than the
judiciary" would be best suited to address asbestos fraud, the
legislative and executive branches of the federal government seem
unlikely to craft a solution any time soon. The Furthering Asbestos
Claim Transparency (FACT) Act would amend the Bankruptcy Code to
require asbestos trusts to file quarterly reports -- publicly
available on the bankruptcy docket -- disclosing all demands
received from, and the basis for any payments made to, asbestos
claimants. Since its introduction in 2013, FACT has remained
stalled in Congress. On the executive front, the DOJ has
experienced substantial upheaval in recent months. Attorney General
Sessions resigned at the President's request just weeks into the
initiative. Sessions' replacement, Attorney General William Barr,
seemingly has other higher-profile issues on his plate. Principal
Deputy Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio, who spearheaded
the initiative, exited the DOJ in April 2019.

The DOJ may have detracted from its valid concerns about asbestos
trust fraud by appearing to personally attack well-respected FCR
candidates. The DOJ fared much better by filing traditional
confirmation objections challenging specific aspects of trust
distribution procedures (TDP) and offering constructive criticism
aimed at better safeguarding against fraud. USTs in Duro Dyne and
Maremont extracted TDP revisions using this more conventional
approach. In Maremont, for example, Judge Carey directed debtors to
revise the TDP to require claimants to provide certain additional
information to the trust and to permit the trust to obtain other
information in its discretion, and the debtor voluntarily modified
the TDP to address other UST objections. The recent decisions
suggest that insurers should consider proposing specific,
attainable anti-fraud measures -- such as enhanced reporting
requirements akin to those proposed under FACT -- that can be
integrated into debtors' proposed TDP. Even if DOJ leadership has
lost interest in the issue, regional UST offices remain an
invaluable ally for insurers in the fight for greater asbestos
trust transparency.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steam Plant Owner Pleads Guilty in Asbestos Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cornelius Frolik, writing for Dayton Daily News, reported that the
owner of the popular Dayton event venue the Steam Plant has pleaded
guilty to a federal count of failing to thoroughly inspect for the
presence of asbestos.

John Riazzi, who owns the former power generating plant at 617 E.
Third St., agreed to waive his right to prosecution by indictment
and agreed to prosecution by bill of information.

Last year, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency filed a
complaint against Riazzi accusing him of violating the Clean Air
Act.  Authorities accused Riazzi of knowingly failing to inspect
the steam plant before its renovation and knowingly failing to
provide the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of notice before
work began. Riazzi also was accused of knowingly failing to wet
regulated asbestos-containing material as it was removed during
renovation.

He pleaded guilty to the information pending against him for
failing to thoroughly inspect for asbestos.  In 2016, paid and
directed two workers to remove roofing materials on the building
that contained asbestos, according to the statement of facts in
Riazzi's case.
Riazzi had no reason to believe the workers were trained to
evaluate or handle asbestos and did not tell them the roof may have
asbestos, according to the statement of facts in the case.

Riazzi was warned the roof contained asbestos but did not instruct
them to take any specific precautions related to the materials, the
statement of facts said.

The workers were scrap metal collectors and haulers who did odd
jobs at the steam plant.
Riazzi's general contractor, MV Commercial Construction
(Miller-Valentine Group), had told him it would cost about $20,000
to abate the asbestos-containing roofing materials.  He paid the
two workers about $5,000 to remove the materials over a weekend,
according to the statement of facts.  In September 2016, Riazzi
filed a civil lawsuit against MV Commercial Construction, alleging
the company made false claims that potentially sparked a criminal
investigation.

He is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 30.  The charge carries a
maximum prison sentence of fives years and a maximum fine of
$250,000. But as part of the plea agreement, prosecutors will not
object to probation.  St. Peter Partners LLC, Riazzi's company,
purchased the Steam Plant in 2015 from the city of Dayton.  He
renovated the building into offices and an event space that is
popular place to host weddings, fundraisers, parties and public
events.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Talc Left "Fingerprint" in Travel Agent's Lungs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reported that a Kentucky travel agent who died of
mesothelioma had a signature mix of talc and asbestos in her lung
tissue traceable to talcum powder, according to evidence presented
in an unusual joint trial against manufacturers Johnson & Johnson
and Colgate-Palmolive.

After opening arguments, a jury heard expert witness testimony in a
case brought by the family of former travel agent Donna Ann Hayes,
who died in December 2016 of mesothelioma.  Hayes' family believes
her disease originated with the use of both companies' talcum
powder.

Mesothelioma.net reported that Mrs. Hayes was diagnosed with the
rare and fatal form of cancer at the age of 72 and died 8 months
after diagnosis. In describing what he found in the mesothelioma
victim's lung tissue, Brown University's Alpert Medical School
professor David Egilman indicated that Mrs. Hayes' lungs contained
a "fingerprint" found only in asbestos fibers that are found in
cosmetic talc.

Egilman is an expert in epidemiology and occupational medicine, and
in testifying about the finding of anthophyllite in her lung tissue
said, "Anthophyllite is not mixed with talc in any commercial
product -- aside from talc."  He added that the finding of an
additional sample of tissue containing another type of asbestos
called tremolite was also a combination that has "only been
reported in cosmetic talc products."

The cosmetic talc products being accused of causing Mrs. Hayes’
mesothelioma were Colgate Palmolive's Cashmere Bouquet powder,
which she started using at the age of 18, and Johnson & Johnson's
talc-based powder later. A deposition that she gave before her
death and testimony provided by her husband indicated that she had
continued using it for years, and that they believe that both
products caused her illness.

Both Johnson & Johnson's talc-based powders and Colgate-Palmolive's
Cashmere Bouquet have been named as being responsible for malignant
mesothelioma and ovarian cancer in Mrs. Hayes and over 14,000
pending lawsuits, as well as several others that have already been
heard and decided. Many of those cases have yielded
multi-million-dollar verdicts on behalf of victims of
asbestos-related diseases.

While mesothelioma has typically been associated with industrial
exposure to asbestos, the news that cosmetic talc products were
contaminated with asbestos has raised the specter of untold numbers
of consumers being diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases now and
in the future, Mesothelioma.net said.

Law360 added that counsel for Johnson & Johnson attempted to cast
doubt on the methods of an electron microscopy expert who testified
in the Kentucky trial that he found asbestos in its talcum powder
products, pressing him on why he used a different method in
previous talc evaluations. Microscopy expert Lee Poye retured to
the stand during the second week of the trial on claims brought by
the Ms. Hayes' family.


                            *********

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 ***