CAR_Public/190805.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 5, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 155

                            Headlines

4T MFG LLC: Juarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ABRY BROTHERS: Saravia Seeks Overtime Pay for Laborers
ALLIANCE SECURITY: Bank's Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
ALMEDA-GENOA: Facundo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime, Lost Wages
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Narrows Claims in Scanlan USERRA Suit

ASSET RECOVERY: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought
ASSURANCE WIRELESS: Keeley Seeks Unpaid Wages for Promo Reps
AT&T INC: Accused of Selling Customers' Location Data
AT&T INC: Court Denies Bid to Stay Hoffman Class Suit
BARNES & NOBLE: Scarantino Sues over Elliott Advisors Buyout

BOEING COMPANY: Pilot C Files Suit Over 737 MAX Aircraft Defect
BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Phillips Files Suit Over ERISA Violation
BUCKEYE PARTNERS: McManus Suit Transferred to S.D Texas
CAPITAL ONE: Pfahning Suit Moved to Eastern District of Virginia
CHINESE HOSPITAL: Matsui Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Settlement in Gordon Suit Has Prelim Approval
CLASSIC OILFIELD: Class of Truck Drivers Certified in Fulmer Suit
COCA-COLA CO: Dismissal of Geffner False Advertising Suit Affirmed
COMENITY BANK: Wilson Sues over Repeated Robocalls
CONDUENT BUSINESS: Pisano Seeks Proper Regular Wages

CONGREGATION YETEV: $25K Abreu Labor Suit Settlement Has Approval
CREAM-O-LAND DAIRY: Court Flips Summary Judgment in Branch WHL Suit
CRYSTAL BALL: Mendez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CULTURAL CARE: Faces Mack Suit in District of Massachusetts
DANZE INC: 7th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Duncan Place's WPLA Claim

DAY & ZIMMERMANN: Waters Seeks OT Pay for Mechanical Supervisors
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Settles Aequitas Securities Class Action
DIAS & FRAGOSO: Settlement in Cuevas Suit Has Prelim Approval
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Wage Underpayment Class Action Pending
DOUGLAS CREEK: Disbarred Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Fraud

EAST COAST EGG: Valdez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Delivery Drivers
EDDIE BAUER: Oct. 25 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Class Action Over Razor "Pink Tax"
ENLOE MEDICAL: Lefevers Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Reeves Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers

FARMERS INSURANCE: Barnett Suit Moved to W.D. Oklahoma
FYRE FESTIVAL: JA Rule, Margolin Free From Fraud Class Action
GOLDEN GATE: Court Remands Collins & Frank to State Court
GREENE CTY, MO: Lewis Seeks OT Pay for Correctional Officers
H.D. SMITH: Hestrup Sues Over Increase in Insurance Premiums

HELIUS MEDICAL: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
HONDA MOTOR: Class Suit Over Faulty Acura RDX Vehicles Filed
HYATT HOTELS: Customers File Class Action Over "Resort Fees"
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Fails to Pay for Emissions Warranties, Boyd Claims
ICEBREAKER NATURE CLOTHING: Reid Sues over ADA Violations

INSIGHT GLOBAL: Prather Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA
INTER-LOCAL PENSION FUND: Judge Shuts Down Class Suit vs Teamsters
JACKSON MEMORIAL: Portales Seeks Overtime Pay for Nurses
JARROW FORMULAS: Shanks Seeks to Certify Class
JOHN HEATH: Illinois Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration

JP MORGAN: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Blake Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Grant Suit Asserts ERISA Breach
KELLER WILLIAMS: St. John & Penuela Sue over Unwanted Phone Calls
LAND HOME: Faces Lopez Suit in California Superior Court
LEX 1751: Villegas Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Laundromat Workers

LG ELECTRONICS: Class Suit Over Faulty Fridges Expands to Utah
LOBSTER PLACE: Lopez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Briggs Suit
MATCHESFASHION INC: Reid Sues over Civil Rights Violations
MATTERPORT INC: Kenner Sues over False Advertising

MDL 2433: Bid to Apply Tort Reform Act to Swartz's Claims Denied
MDL 2741: Munkres v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MDL 2741: Smith v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
MILFORD NISSAN: Pepper Seeks Overtime Wages for Sales Employees
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hitchens Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Jones-Basler et al Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Mason Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Noe Estate Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Osborne Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Ponzini Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.

MONSANTO COMPANY: Prinses' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MOON RIDGE: Morris Moves for Class Certification Under WARN Act
NAVIGANT CYMETRIX: Chicas Suit Moved to C.D. California
NETFLIX, INC: Securities Statements Misleading, Wallerstein Says
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Certification of Involuntary Detainees Class Sought

NEW ORLEANS, LA: Caluda Class Certification Bid, Complaint Tossed
NEW YORK: Sued Over Religious Exemption Vaccination Law
NUDGE LLC: Court Dismisses Just Us RICO Suit Without Prejudice
OCWEN LOAN: Stromberg Renews Bid for Approval of $575,000 Deal
PETERSON'S HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Sued over Unsolicited Text Messages

PFIZER INC: Judge Refuses to Certify Class in Robitussin Case
PLAN B WELLNESS: Arneaud Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
PORT RESOURCES: 1st Cir. Affirms Treble Damages Award to Giguere
PRO TREE: $78,500 Settlement Reached in Hernandez Suit
PUTNAM COUNTY, TN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rich Alleges

RAYTHEON COMPANY: Lowinger  Files Suit Over UTC Merger Deal
REDDY BUILDERS: Santana Seeks OT Wages for Construction Workers
REVENUE FRONTIER: Court Certifies Class in Clough TCPA Class Suit
ROSEMARY HOSPITALITY: Florez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
SAMARCO MINERACAO: Court Dismisses Banco Safra Suit With Prejudice

SARBANAND FARMS: CSI Visa Needs License to Supply Farmworkers
SEE'S CANDIES: Judge Refuses to Certify Workers' Class Action
SKY BLUE EXPRESS: Kumar Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees
SMITH-PALLUCK: Renteria Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
SONOS, INC: Removes Steiner Suit to Central Dist. of California

SPA NAIL: Li Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of New York
SQUARETRADE, INC: Bid to Certify Class under Advisement
SUMMER HILL, NY: Court Dismisses Cayuga County from Ward Suit
SUN HAVEN: Website not Accessible to Blind, Dominguez Says
T-MOBILE CENTRAL: City of Springfield's Suit Remanded to State Ct.

TENCENT AMERICA: Kizak Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
TJX COMPANIES: Removes Schuchard Suit to C.D. California
TRISH MCEVOY: L. Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in New York
TROPICANA PRODUCTS: Bid to Certify Advertising Suit Classes Denied
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can't Compel Arbitration in Text Messaging Suit

USI SOLUTIONS: Faces Santos Suit in Northern District of Illinois
VIDA MEDICAL: Lopez Seeks OT Wages for Medical Assistants
VISION PRECISION: Removes Martinez Suit to E.D. California
WALLY'S DELI: Vazquez Seeks Overtime Pay for Grocery Employees
WALMART: Workers Must Pursue Sex Bias Claims in 79 Lawsuits

WARMLIVING HEALTH: Wilbon Seeks Overtime Wages
WELLS FARGO: Ronquillo Seeks Overtime Wages for Branch Managers
WESTERN RANGE: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Castillo Claims
WILL COUNTY, IL: Simon Lee's Class Certification Bid Denied
[*] DLA Piper Releases Roundup of Class Action Developments


                            *********

4T MFG LLC: Juarez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
Irving Wilfredo Juarez and Luis Manuel Cardoza Diaz, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. 4T Mfg
LLC and Kevin Hiebert, Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00549 (E.D.
Tex., July 24, 2019) is a putative collective action filed by
current and/or former employees of Defendants who work/worked for
Defendants in the manufacture of trailers and who like Plaintiffs,
are/were paid on a piece rate and/or hourly rate basis and are/were
not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay
for all hours worked over forty in each and every seven day
workweek.

Plaintiffs and the putative collective action members regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek as employees of
Defendants but were not paid all overtime premium compensation owed
under the Fair Labor Standards Act by Defendants, says the
complaint. Plaintiffs were occasionally paid overtime premium for
some hours worked over forty. However, Plaintiffs were regularly
not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay
for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, and Defendants did not
accurately record or pay all hours worked per workday and workweek
for Plaintiffs, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as welders.

Defendants are in the trailer manufacturing business with a
facility in Sumner, Texas located in Lamar County.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Rebecca Currier, Esq.
     Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
     Baron & Budd, P.C.
     3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Phone: (214) 521-3605
     Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
     Email: rcurrier@baronbudd.com
            avaught@baronbudd.com


ABRY BROTHERS: Saravia Seeks Overtime Pay for Laborers
------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ALEJANDRO SARAVIA, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons, the Plaintiff, vs. ABRY BROTHERS (HOUSTON), LLC
And MARK DIMITRIJEVIC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-02681 (S.D.
Tex., July 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Mr. Saravia worked for Defendants as a laborer from September 2017
until April 8, 2019.  His duties included, but were not limited to,
laying foundation, leveling houses and making holes and tunnels
under homes.

During his tenure with the Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly
worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff was paid on a
day-rate basis and was not paid an overtime premium for hours
worked over 40 hours in any workweek.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: 713-868-3388
          Facsimile: 713-683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
                  vijay@buenkerlaw.com

ALLIANCE SECURITY: Bank's Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
The case, Bank v. Alliance Security Inc. et al, Case No.
1:14-cv-00215 (Filed on July 23, 2014) was transferred in from the
United States District Court for the Northern District of West
Virginia to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on July 15, 2019 pursuant to a remand order by
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

In this complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by engaging in unsolicited
telephone sales. The case is now assigned to Hon. Judge Roslynn R.
Mauskopf. The United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia has opened Case No. 1:19-cv-04070-RRM-LB
for further proceedings.

Alliance Security Inc. offers security products and services. It
provides fire, burglar, and medical protection, as well as provides
home automation services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John W. Barrett, Esq.
     Jonathan Marshall, Esq.
     BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
     209 Capitol Street
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Telephone: (304) 345-6555
     Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
     E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
             jmarshall@baileyglasser.com


ALMEDA-GENOA: Facundo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime, Lost Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE FACUNDO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALMEDA-GENOA HOUSTON DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
D/B/A, ALMEDA-GENOA CONSTRUCTORS JC, AND DRAGADOS, USA. Defendants,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02721 (S.D. Tex., July 24, 2019) is a collective
action filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and a
class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure against Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages, lost
wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees.

Plaintiff regularly worked many hours in excess of 40 hours per
week for Defendants. In performing his duties, Plaintiff routinely
worked up to 11 hours per day, six days per week. However, the
Defendants prohibited Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees from reporting any hours in excess of 40 per week.
Additionally, Plaintiff was not allowed to report any hours worked
during the weekend. Plaintiff was not compensated for hours worked
during the weekend. Defendant manipulated payroll records to make
it appear that Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were
properly paid. In reality, Plaintiff was actually paid a flat
"salary" for only 40 hours per week. The Defendants' manipulation
of time and payroll records violates the FLSA's record keeping
requirements and demonstrates Defendants' willful and intentional
conduct designed to evade the requirements of the FLSA, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant.

Defendant Almeda-Genoa Houston Development, LLC, d/b/a Almeda-Genoa
Constructors JV is a foreign for-profit entity conducting business
in Houston, Harris County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Taft L. Foley, Esq.
     THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
     3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
     Houston, TX 77054
     Phone: (832) 778-8182
     Fax: (832) 778-8353
     Email: Taft.foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Narrows Claims in Scanlan USERRA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES P. SCANLAN on his own behalf and all others
similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC., et al, Civil
Action No. 18-4040 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in
part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Plaintiff Scanlan, a commercial airline pilot and a Major General
in the United States Air Force Reserve, has sued American Airlines
Group, Inc. ("AAG") and American Airlines, Inc. ("AAI"), his
employer and AAG's wholly owned subsidiary, in the putative class
action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act ("USERRA") 38 U.S.C. Sections 4301 et seq.
Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that he and others
similarly situated have been wrongfully denied certain rights and
benefits from AAG and AAI while on short-term military leave which
other employees receive while absent from work for jury duty, sick
leave, and union leave.  Scanlan seeks declaratory, injunctive, and
monetary relief.

Before the court is the motion of the Defendants to dismiss the
amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Judge Bartle first considers AAI's motion to dismiss count III for
failure to state a claim.  Scanlan alleges that AAI's policy of not
paying employees out on short-term military leave while paying
employees for comparable forms of short-term leave, such as for
jury duty, sick leave, and union leave, violates Section 4316(b)(1)
of USERRA.

The Judge holds that the purposes of USERRA is to encourage
noncareer service in the uniform services by eliminating or
minimizing the disadvantages to civilian careers and employment
which can result from such service and to prohibit discrimination
against persons because of their service in the uniformed services.
The words of USERRA must be construed liberally in favor of those
in the uniformed services.  Congress, they agree, did not impose a
requirement in USERRA that employers in all instances provide
differential pay to employees while on military leave.
Nonetheless, Section 4316(b)(1) clearly mandates that employees on
military leave be treated equally with other employees with respect
to their terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

Equal treatment exists only if those employees on short-term
military leave have the same rights and benefits as other employees
in comparable situations.  Scanlan has plausibly alleged that he
and those similarly situated have not been afforded equal treatment
with other employees in comparable situations.  Count III of the
amended complaint states a viable claim for relief under Section
4316(b)(1) of USERRA.

Scanlan alleges in count I of the amended complaint that AAG
violated Section 4316(b)(1) of USERRA by not crediting participants
who took short-term military leave with imputed earnings for those
periods when calculating their profit sharing awards, while
crediting participants with their full earnings while on jury duty,
sick leave, and union leave.  As a result, he asserts that
participants who took short-term military leave had lower "eligible
earnings," and received lower profit sharing awards, than provided
to employees who take comparable forms of leave.

The Judge's analysis with respect to count III likewise applies
with respect to count I.  Scanlan has plausibly alleged a claim
under Section 4316(b)(1) that AAG has not provided equal rights and
benefits under its profit sharing Plan to employees on short-term
military leave.  Scanlan's claim under count I survives.

Finally, AAG moves to dismiss count II which alleges that AAG's
calculation of profit sharing awards under its Plan violates
Section 4318(b)(1) of USERRA.  The Judge rejects Scanlan's
contention that the regulation applies to the Plan at issue.  The
Plan certainly is not "sponsored by a State, government entity, or
church" and is not otherwise similar to any such plan.  Moreover,
the Judge reads this regulation as more likely clarifying that
USERRA incorporates ERISA's general definition of employee benefit
pension plan but does not contain the same express exclusions
listed in 29 U.S.C. Section 1003(b), such as plans administered by
the government and churches.  The Plan is neither an employee
benefit pension plan under ERISA nor a plan exempted from ERISA but
covered by USERRA.  Scanlan has not stated a claim for relief in
count II under Section 4318(b)(1).

Based on the foregoing, Judge Bartle granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

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

JAMES P. SCANLAN, Plaintiff, represented by ADAM HARRISON GARNER,
THE GARNER FIRM LTD, COLIN M. DOWNES -- colin@blockesq.com --
BLOCK
& LEVITON LLP, HANNAH COLE-CHU, OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, MATTHEW
ZACHARY CROTTY, CROTTY & SON LAW FIRM, PLLC, PETER ROMER-FRIEDMAN,
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, R. JOSEPH BARTON -- joe@blockesq.com -- BLOCK
& LEVITON LLP & THOMAS G. JARRARD.

AMERICAN AIRLINES GROUP, INC. & AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendants, represented by KENNETH A. MURPHY --
kenneth.murphy@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP & MARK W.
ROBERTSON -- mrobertson@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP.


ASSET RECOVERY: Final Approval of Settlement Agreement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as JOHN SANDRI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
1:18-cv-01182-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
final approval of a class settlement agreement.

The Settlement, if approved, contemplates a $2,000 payment to
Plaintiff. The FDCPA differentiates between the recovery available
to the plaintiff and the recovery available to class members. Thus,
Plaintiff may be awarded up to $1,000 in statutory damages.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          3010 South Appleton Road
          Menasha, WI 54952
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: Philip@SternThomasson.com
                  Andrew@SternThomasson.com
                  Francis@SternThomasson.com

ASSURANCE WIRELESS: Keeley Seeks Unpaid Wages for Promo Reps
------------------------------------------------------------
ERICA DIPLACTDO; TYLER KEELEY: RYAN LABRIE, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,  vs. ASSURANCE
WIRELESS OF SOUTH CAROLINA. LLC; SPRINT CORPORATION; BOSS
ENTERPRISE, INC.; KURALAY BEKBOSSYNOVA, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 19-0888 (Mass. Super., July 12, 2019), is an
action for unpaid wages, independent contractor misclassification,
and related claims, pursuant to the Massachusetts Wage Act, the
Massachusetts Minimum Wage Law, and the Massachusetts Independent
Contractor Statute.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiffs as
promotions representatives.

Assurance Wireless did not pay Plaintiffs or other promotions
representatives an hourly rate equal to minimum wage for all of the
hours that they performed services for Assurance Wireless, the
lawsuit says.

Sprint and Assurance jointly operate as "Assurance Wireless" to
sell wireless services to customers in various stales, including
Massachusetts.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Brook S. Lane, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: 617 607 3261
          Facsimile: 617 488 2261
          E-mail: brook@fairworklaw.com

AT&T INC: Accused of Selling Customers' Location Data
-----------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
despite assurances to the contrary, AT&T has been selling its
customers' location data to creditors, bounty hunters, landlords,
prison officials, and all sorts of third parties, according to data
privacy watchdog Electronic Frontier Foundation in a federal class
action filed on July 16.

AT&T is the second largest wireless carrier in the United States,
with more than 153 million subscribers.

The class action led by customers Katherine Scott, Carolyn Jewel
and George Pontis also names aggregators LocationSmart and Zumigo,
which bought location and network information from AT&T and sold it
down a chain of third parties for commercial purposes.

In a statement, attorney Abbye Klamann Ognibene, Esq. --
aognibene@piercebainbridge.com -- with Los Angeles firm Pierce
Bainbridge said location data is both highly specific and very
valuable to anyone wanting to know the most personal details about
someone. Location data has also been used to stalk and harass
people: The complaint cites the FBI investigation of former
Missouri sheriff Corey Hutcheson, who used location data AT&T and
LocationSmart sold to a company called Securus Technologies to
track Scott County Judge David Dolan and five state troopers.

"The location data AT&T offered up for sale is extremely precise
and can locate any of its wireless subscribers in real time,
providing a window into the intimate details of their lives: where
they go to the doctor, where they worship, where they live, and
much more," Ognibene said.

A Securus data breach in May 2018 revealed AT&T customers' location
data had been exposed to countless third parties, the plaintiffs
say in their complaint. On the same day, a security researcher at
Carnegie Mellon found LocationSmart's product demo contained a flaw
that allowed literally anyone to obtain the real-time location any
AT&T customer.

AT&T then falsely stated it had suspended Securus' and other
aggregators' access to customer data, the plaintiffs say, but just
a few days later, a Motherboard article reported the carrier was
selling customers' phone locations to car salesmen, bail bondsmen,
landlords and bounty hunters for as little as $7.50.

"In sum, between May 2018 and March 2019, media reports revealed
the existence of a vast, illegal market for the real-time location
data of AT&T customers," the complaint says. "AT&T granted direct
access to this data to the aggregator defendants, who in turn sold
such access to hundreds of third parties -- including bounty
hunters, bail bondsmen, landlords, and law enforcement -- with
AT&T's consent. This system allowed the precise, real-time location
data of millions of Americans to be bought and sold by unknowable
third parties for years without customer consent or knowledge and
without valid legal authority. Despite numerous representations by
AT&T that it would end the aggregator defendants' access to this
data, the practice -- and the risks it created -- continued without
consequence."

The plaintiffs say data supplied by AT&T's enhanced 911 technology,
which allows 911 responders to locate a customer's phone in case of
emergency, is also sold to location tracking companies without AT&T
customers' knowledge or consent.

The Federal Communications Commission first raised privacy red
flags back in 2010 regarding indoor 911 calls. In February 2015,
the FCC adopted privacy rules that required the carrier to certify
that it would not use information in the National Emergency Address
Database or associated data "for any purpose other than for the
purpose of responding to 911 calls, except as required by law."

AT&T vowed it would not.

However, the plaintiffs say AT&T began providing customers' GPS
data to the aggregators and their downstream customers, which
publicly advertise their ability to pinpoint a person's location
using the same technology as emergency personnel.

"AT&T and data aggregators have systematically violated the
location privacy rights of tens of millions of AT&T customers," EFF
Staff Attorney Aaron Mackey said in a statement. "Consumers must
stand up to protect their privacy and shut down this illegal
market. That's why we filed this lawsuit."

The proposed class wants a judge to determine whether AT&T and the
data aggregators violated the Federal Communications Act and
intentionally disregarded customers' privacy rights.

AT&T spokesman Jim Greer called the allegations false.

"The facts don't support this lawsuit, and we will fight it," Greer
said in an email. "Location-based services like roadside
assistance, fraud protection, and medical device alerts have clear
and even life-saving benefits. We only share location data with
customer consent. We stopped sharing location data with aggregators
after reports of misuse."

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

         https://is.gd/nGG7AZ


AT&T INC: Court Denies Bid to Stay Hoffman Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT HOFFMAN, Plaintiff, v. AT&T INC., RANDALL L.
STEPHENSON, JOHN J. STEPHENS, SAMUEL A. DI PIAZZA JR., RICHARD
FISHER, SCOTT T. FORD, GLENN H. HUTCHINS, WILLIAM E. KENNARD,
MICHAEL B. McCALLISTER, BETH E. MOONEY, JOYCE M. ROCHÉ, MATTHEW K.
ROSE, CYNTHIA B. TAYLOR, LAURA D'ANDREA TYSON, and GEOFFREY Y.
YANG, Defendants, Docket No. 650797/2019, Motion Seq. No. 002 (N.Y.
Sup.), Judge Barry Ostrager of the New York County Supreme Court
denied without prejudice the Defendants' motion to stay the action
in favor of a subsequently filed and unquestionably more
comprehensive federal action.

The case is a securities class action on behalf of the former
shareholders of Time Warner Inc., alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the June 2018 acquisition
of Time Warner by AT&T.  In order to acquire Time Warner, AT&T
issued 1.185 billion shares of new AT&T stock pursuant to a
Registration Statement that, the Plaintiff alleges, failed to
disclose serious deterioration in AT&T's DirecTV and DirecTV Now
business.  

New York resident Hoffman initially filed the class action
complaint on Feb. 7, 2019.  On April 10, 2019, the Court granted on
consent a motion to designate Scott & Scott Attorneys at Law LLP
and Hedin, Hall LLP as the co-lead counsel for the proposed class.
Subsequently, a First Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on
May 7, 2019 together with discovery requests.  The Court has
subject matter jurisdiction over the case.  And, in the Commercial
Division, discovery is not stayed by motion practice without leave
of the Court.

On April 1, 2019, Plaintiff Melvin Gross filed a federal complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
Gross v. AT&T Inc., alleging violations of both the 1933 Act and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The federal action asserts
broader claims on behalf of classes of variously situated Time
Warner and AT&T shareholders.  Pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"), the federal Court is presently
considering applications by at least five sets of the plaintiff's
counsel to be designated either lead counsel or co-lead counsel.
The duration of that process is uncertain.

Prior to the creation of the Commercial Division of the New York
State Supreme Court, and even thereafter, the general rule was that
securities actions in the Court that were less comprehensive than
related federal court actions, including actions first filed in the
Court, should be stayed in favor of the more comprehensive federal
court actions.  The general rationale of Barron v. Bluhdorn and its
progeny is that where there is a substantial overlap between the
parties and issues and relief sought in both state and federal
courts, staying the state court case would avoid the waste of
judicial resources, potential inconsistent rulings, and duplication
of effort.  And, federal courts have been perceived to have a
greater familiarity with securities law.

Judge Ostrager holds that clearly, after the U.S. Supreme Court's
ruling in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver Cnty. Emps. Ret. Fund, and the
creation of specialized commercial courts in New York, the
reasoning of the Barron case cannot be mechanically applied.  The
circumstances present in the case do not lend themselves to the
historical Barron analysis.  

In the instant matter, a New York plaintiff has initiated discrete
claims on behalf of Time Warner shareholders that can be well on
the way to judicial resolution while five sets of the Plaintiff's
lawyers jockey for control of a federal court action that includes
claims on behalf of individuals who are not members of the state
court class as well as the members of the state court class.  The
liability issues in a 1933 Act case are, if anything, less complex
than issues the Commercial Division resolves every week.

The Defendants are free to test the merits of the Plaintiff's
claims before the Court, which is familiar with the issues in the
case, and there is no reason to believe that the merits of the
Plaintiff's claims cannot be resolved as efficiently and, perhaps,
more expeditiously than the 1933 Act claims asserted in the federal
action because the likelihood is that more than one set of counsel
will be appointed to represent differently situated shareholders in
the federal action and the pleadings in the federal court may not
be fixed for an extended period of time.  And, because the federal
action involves broader issues and multiple classes of
shareholders, the federal court may consider staying the 1933 Act
claims in the federal action in favor of this earlier filed
action.

In short, the "first filed" rule must have some vitality in a
post-Cyan world.  Otherwise, 1933 Act cases could never proceed in
state court whenever a subsequently filed federal court action
asserts claims in addition to 1933 Act claims.  If developments in
the federal action provide sufficient cause for the Court to
revisit the disposition of the motion to stay proceedings in the
action, the Court will entertain a subsequent motion to stay this
action.  In the meantime, the case will proceed.

Accordingly, Judge Ostrager denied without prejudice to renew the
Defendants' motion to stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 21, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/Cah1ry from Leagle.com.


BARNES & NOBLE: Scarantino Sues over Elliott Advisors Buyout
------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SCARANTINO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. BARNES & NOBLE, INC.,
LEONARD RIGGIO, GEORGE CAMPBELL JR., MARK D. CARLETON, SCOTT S.
COWEN, WILLIAM T. DILLARD II, AL FERRARA, PAUL B. GUENTHER,
PATRICIA L. HIGGINS, IRWIN D. SIMON, KIMBERLY A. VAN DERZON,
CHAPTERS HOLDCO INC., and CHAPTERS MERGER SUB INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01320-UNA (D. Del., July 16, 2019), stems from a
proposed transaction announced on June 7, 2019, pursuant to which
Barnes & Noble, Inc. will be acquired by affiliates of Elliott
Advisors (UK) Limited, Chapters HoldCo Inc. and Chapters Merger
Sub, Inc.

On June 6, 2019, Barnes & Noble's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
Chapters. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Barnes &
Noble's stockholders will receive $6.50 in cash for each share of
Barnes & Noble common stock they own.

On July 9, 2019, the defendants filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange in
connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation
Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed
Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and
misleading, the lawsuit contends, in violation of Sections 14(e),
14(d), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Barnes & Noble, Inc., a Fortune 1000 company, is the bookseller
with the largest number of retail outlets in the United States and
a retailer of content, digital media, and educational
products.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, 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 -

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

BOEING COMPANY: Pilot C Files Suit Over 737 MAX Aircraft Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
PILOT C, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated
v. THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2019CH08394
(Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., July 17, 2019), seeks compensation on behalf
of the Plaintiff and over 150 pilots qualified to fly the Boeing
737 MAX series of aircraft as employees of an international airline
("Airline C").

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's personal and
professional life was disrupted when BOEING and the Federal
Aviation Administration (the "FAA") engaged in an unprecedented
cover-up of known design flaws of the MAX, which predictably
resulted in the crashes of two MAX aircraft and grounding of all
MAX aircraft worldwide, according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff relied on BOEING's representations that the MAX was
safe when the Plaintiff chose to qualify to fly the MAX, and the
Plaintiff suffered significant Jost wages, among other economic and
non-economic damages, when the MAX was grounded with no end in
sight. Additionally, the Plaintiff suffered severe emotional and
mental distress when the Plaintiff was compelled to fly the
MAX--placing the Plaintiff's life and the lives of the crews and
passengers in danger--despite the growing awareness of the
dangerous nature of the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation
System (the "MCAS") and other problems that BOEING had previously
concealed or failed to disclose to the Plaintiff, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was a British citizen and licensed pilot employed by
an international airline.  Due to BOEING's substantial influence in
the commercial aviation industry, the Plaintiff is in fear of
reprisal from BOEING and discrimination from BOEING customers,
including Airline C at BOEING's behest and has, therefore, chosen
to file this Complaint using a pseudonym.

BOEING is a Delaware corporation registered with the Illinois
Secretary of State as doing business in Illinois, with its
corporate headquarters and principal place of business located in
Chicago, Illinois.  BOEING designs, manufactures and markets
aircrafts, including the MAX airplanes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick M. Jones, Esq.
          Sarah M. Beaujour, Esq.
          PMJ PLLC
          100 South State Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 255-7976
          E-mail: pmj@patjonespllc.com
                  smb@patjonespllc.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Wheeler, Esq.
          IALPG PTY LTD (T/AS INTERNATIONAL AEROSPACE LAW
          & POLICY GROUP)
          ID, 7/139 Junction Road
          Clayfield, Queensland
          Australia 4011
          Telephone: +61 7 3040 1099
          E-mail: jwheeler@ialpg.com


BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH: Phillips Files Suit Over ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Allen Phillips, Kevin D. Murphy, Michael Egger, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; Board of Trustees of
the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; Scott Anderson,
Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; John
T. Fultz, Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension
Trust; Lawrence J. McManamon, Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith
National Pension Trust; Lyndal Turner, Trustee of the
Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; Mike Hidas, Trustee
of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust; Mark
Vandiver, Trustee of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension
Trust, Case No. 2:19-cv-02402 (D. Kan., July 17, 2019), alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover benefits due; declare their rights;
and remedy violations of the terms of the Boilermaker-Blacksmith
National Pension Trust and ERISA.  On behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants have violated and are violating the terms of the pension
plan and ERISA by, inter alia, purporting to define and limit the
right to retire and collect benefits under the Plan; imposing ad
hoc and de facto retroactive Plan rules and/or amendments that
purport to restrict the Plaintiffs' eligibility for retirement
benefits; violating multiple provisions of ERISA Title 1 and the
terms of the Plan governing disclosure, vesting and accrual of
benefits, fiduciary responsibility and administration and
enforcement; and failing to maintain and follow reasonable claims
procedures as required under ERISA.

Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust is a defined benefit
employee pension benefit plan within the meaning of Section 3(2) of
ERISA, which was established and maintained for the purpose of
providing retirement benefits for participants working as
Boilermakers, including the Plaintiffs and their beneficiaries.

Board of Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust is the
Administrator of the Plan and a fiduciary with respect to the Plan
within the meaning of the ERISA.  The Individual Defendants are
Trustees and administrators of the Plan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rik N. Siro, Esq.
          Athena M. Dickson, Esq.
          Raymond A. Dake, Esq.
          Ryan P. McEnaney, Esq.
          SIRO SMITH DICKSON PC
          1621 Baltimore Avenue
          Kansas City, MO, 64108
          Telephone: (816) 471-4881
          Facsimile: (816) 471-4883
          E-mail: rsiro@sirosmithdickson.com
                  esmith@sirosmithdickson.com
                  adickson@sirosmithdickson.com
                  rdake@sirosmithdickson.com
                  rmcenaney@sirosmithdickson.com

               - and -

          Susan Martin, Esq.
          Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
          Michael M. Licata, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
          4647 N. 32nd St., Suite 185
          Phoenix, AZ 85018
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
          E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com
                  jkroll@martinbonnett.com
                  mlicata@martinbonnett.com


BUCKEYE PARTNERS: McManus Suit Transferred to S.D Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as HEATHER MCMANUS, 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, MARTIN A. WHITE and BUCKEYE GP, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06000 (Filed June 26, 2019), was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for Southern District of Texas (Houston) on
July 19, 2019. The Southern District of Texas Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 4:19-cv-02644 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Lynn N Hughes.

The suit alleges that Defendants violated Section 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
proposed sale of the Partnership to IFM Investors through IFM's
wholly owned subsidiary IFM Global Infrastructure Fund.

On May 10, 2019, Buckeye entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with IFM, whereby IFM will acquire all outstanding units of
Buckeye for $41.50 per unit in an all-cash transaction valued at
approximately $10.3 billion (including assumed debt), the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Matthew C. Hettrich, Esq.
          LIFSHITZ & MILLER LLP
          821 Franklin Ave, Suite 209
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 493-9780

               - and -

          Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
          BULL & LIFSHITZ
          18 East 41st St, 11th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 213-6222

CAPITAL ONE: Pfahning Suit Moved to Eastern District of Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Robin Pfahning, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00263
(Filed May 6, 2019), was removed from the U.S. District Court for
the District of Rhode Island, to U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) on July 22, 2019. The
Eastern District of Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00950-LO-TCB to the proceeding. The suit demands $5 million
worth of damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge
Liam O'Grady.

The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, for damages and other relief arising from Capital
One's routine practice of charging interest on credit card accounts
for cash advances even after those cash advances are paid back in
full, the lawsuit says.

Capital One, like other major credit card companies, provides
consumers the ability to take cash advances on their credit cards,
including from an ATM.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq.
          DIMUROGINSBERG PC
          1101 King Street, Suite 610
          Alexandria, VA 22314-2956
          Telephone: (703) 684-4333
          Facsimile: (703) 548-3181
          E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com

               - and -

          Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
          1307 Chalkstone Avenue
          Providence, RI 02908
          Telephone: (401) 831-7730
          Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
          E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Andrew Soukup, Esq.
          Jessica Merry Samuels, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One City Center
          850 Tenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 778-5066
          E-mail: asoukup@cov.com
                  jsamuels@cov.com

               - and -

          Mary C. Dunn, Esq.
          BLISH & CAVANAGH, LLP
          30 Exchange Terrace
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: 831-8900
          Facsimile: 751-7542
          E-mail: mcd@blishcavlaw.com

CHINESE HOSPITAL: Matsui Seeks Unpaid Wages, Penalties
------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Matsui, individually, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHINESE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION,
INC., Defendant, Case No. CGC-19-577901 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., July 24, 2019) is a class action against the
Defendant to recover unpaid wages for (1) premiums for meal and
rest periods, (2) unpaid overtime, (3) unpaid minimum wages, (4)
waiting time penalties, (5) statutory penalties for failure to
provide accurate wage statements; and (6) all applicable civil
penalties, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant
to the California Labor Code, Industrial Wage Commission ("IWC")
Order, and California Business and Professions Code.

The complaint asserts that Defendant failed to include in Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees' wage statements all hours
of work and premium untimely, incomplete, and interrupted meal and
rest breaks which caused Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees' gross and net wages to be recorded inaccurately. The
Defendant also failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees upon termination or resignation from employment all wages
owed, including unpaid minimum wages, overtime, and premiums for
untimely, incomplete, and interrupted meal and rest breaks in
violation of California Labor Code, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a nurse in its
Same-Day-Surgery Department from February 10, 2017 to May 6, 2019.

CHINESE HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC. owns and operates a hospital
located at 845 Jackson Street in San Francisco, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexei Kuchinsky, Esq.
     William P. Klein, Esq.
     The Klein Law Group, P.C.
     50 California Street, Suite 1500
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 693-9107
     Fax: (415) 693-9222
     Email: Alexei@sfbizlaw.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Settlement in Gordon Suit Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TODD GORDON, MARC MERCER, KRISTEN MERCER, MICHELLE
FOWLER, GREG LAWSON, and JUDY CONARD, individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN
GRILL, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 17-cv-01415-CMA-SKC (D.
Colo.), Judge Christine M. Arguello of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado granted the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement and
Direction of Notice.

Solely for purposes of the Settlement, the Judge conditionally
certified the following class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) (Settlement Class): All persons residing
in the United States who used a payment card to make a purchase at
an affected Chipotle or Pizzeria Locale in-store point-of-sale
device during the Security Incident, which as described in the
definition of Security Incident, occurred during the time frames
and at the stores set forth in Exhibit F to the Settlement
Agreement and Appendix A to the Publication Notice.

She appointed (i) Plaintiffs Gordon, Marc Mercer, Kristen Mercer,
Fowler, Conard, and Lawson as the Class Representatives; (ii)
Benjamin F. Johns of Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith
LLP, Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, and Jean Sutton Martin
of Morgan & Morgan as the Class Counsel; and (iii) RG/2 Claims
Administration, LLC as the Claims Administrator.

The payments to the Claims Administrator will be made separate and
apart from the relief being made available to Settlement Class
Members under the Settlement.

The Judge appointed the Claims Referee proposed by the parties,
Bennett G. Picker of the law firm Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young,
LLP.  The Claims Referee will be responsible for deciding certain
claims that may be rejected by the Claims Administrator, upon
request of the Settlement Class Member submitting such Claims, as
described in the Settlement Agreement.

The Claims Administrator is directed to carry out the Notice Plan,
which will be completed in the manner set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.  No later than 30 days from the date of the Order
preliminarily approving the Settlement, the Claims Administrator
will initiate the Notice Plan, which will be completed in the
manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

All costs incurred in disseminating and otherwise in connection
with the Settlement Notice will be paid by the Defendant pursuant
to the Settlement Agreement.  The claim form attached to the
Settlement Agreement satisfies the requirements of due process and
of Rule 23(e) and thus is approved for dissemination to the
Settlement Class.  The claim form will be made available to the
Settlement Class as set forth on the Notice Plan and will be made
available to any potential Class Member that requests one.

The Settlement Class Members may opt-out or object up to 120 days
from the date on which the Notice Program commences.  Any member of
the Settlement Class that wishes to be excluded (opt out) from the
Settlement Class must send a written Request for Exclusion to the
Class Counsel and the Counsel for the Defendant to the designated
Post Office box established by the Claims Administrator by the
close of the Opt-Out and Objection Deadline.

Any person or entity who or which does not elect to be excluded
from the Settlement Class may object to the proposed Settlement.
The objection must also contain a detailed list of any other
objections by the Objector and/or by the attorney representing the
Objector to any class action settlement(s) submitted to any state
or federal court in the United States in the previous five years.

Objections, along with any notices of intent to appear and any
supporting documents, must be filed with the Clerk of the Court no
later than 120 days from the date on which the Notice Program
commences.  These documents must be filed with the Clerk of the
Court electronically or at the following address: U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado Office of the Clerk of Court
Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, Room A105 901 19th Street
Denver, CO 80294

The Judge preliminarily approved the plan for remuneration
described in Section 2.3 of the Settlement Agreement, and directed
that the Claims Administrator effectuate the distribution of
settlement consideration according to the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, should the Settlement be finally approved.  She further
ordered that Bank of America Merchant Services release all
information, including any payment card data needed, to the Claims
Administrator necessary for the Claims Administrator to assess and
determine the validity of claims.

A final fairness hearing is scheduled for the date set forth in the
schedule at the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado,
Courtroom A602, 901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado.

The Defendant will prepare and send, at the Defendant's expense,
all notices that are required by the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.

The Judge established the following deadlines:

     a. Defendant Provides CAFA Notice Within 10 days after the
filing of required by 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(b) Plaintiffs' Motion
for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement - 120 days
after Commencement of Claims Notice Program

     b. Defendant Provides Notice to Class - Within 10 days of
providing notice to the Counsel and the Court of Attorneys General
under CAFA Compliance with CAFA Requirements

     c. Class Notice Program Commences Within 30 days after entry
of the Preliminary Approval Order

     d. Compliance with CAFA Waiting Period - 90 days after the
Appropriate under 28 U.S.C. Section 1715(d) Governmental Officials
are Served with CAFA Notice

     e. Motion for Attorney's Fees - At least 14 days before the
Opt-Out Reimbursement of Costs and Expenses, and Service Award to
be Filed by Class Counsel Postmark

     f. Deadline for requests for Commencement of Exclusion
(Opt-Out) or Objections Postmark/Filing - 120 days after Objection
Deadline

     g. Deadline for Filing Motion for Final Approval to be Filed
At least 21 days before the Final Approval Hearing Class Counsel

     h. Final Approval Hearing - Dec. 12, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/kmfnX4 from Leagle.com.

Todd Gordon, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin F. Johns --
bfj@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith
LLP, Jessica L. Titler-Lingle -- jlt@chimicles.com -- Chimicles
Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Andrew William Ferich --
awf@chimicles.com -- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith
LLP, Jean Sutton Martin, Jean Sutton Martin, PLLC, Justin Daniel
Blum, Hannon Law Firm, LLC, Tina Wolfson, Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC &
Kevin Scott Hannon, Hannon Law Firm, LLC.

Marc Mercer, Kristen Mercer, Michelle Fowler, Greg Lawson & Judy
Conard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Jean Sutton, Jean Sutton
Martin, PLLC, Justin Daniel Blum, Hannon Law Firm, LLC, Benjamin F.
Johns, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP & Kevin
Scott Hannon, Hannon Law Firm, LLC.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ann
Yackshaw , Baker & Hostetler LLP, Carrie Dettmer Slye --
cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Paul Gregory
Karlsgodt -- pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Sam
Anthony Camardo -- scamardo@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP
& Xakema Henderson -- xakema.henderson@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP.


CLASSIC OILFIELD: Class of Truck Drivers Certified in Fulmer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Magistrate Judge Ronald C. Griffin approves the
Agreed Motion for Conditional Certification of Collective Action
and for Notice to Putative Class Members in the lawsuit entitled
RICHARD TODD FULMER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CLASSIC OILFIELD SERVICES, LP, and BEN
PINKSTON, Case No. 7:19-cv-00041-DC-RCG (E.D. Tex.).

The Court finds that conditional certification is appropriate and
certifies this class:

     All current and former truck drivers employed by Defendant
     who exclusively hauled cuttings within the state of Texas,
     and worked in excess of 40 hours in any workweek at any time
     during the three (3) years preceding the date this Order is
     entered.

On February 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed this suit as a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff seeks
unpaid overtime wages plus liquidated damages, attorney fees, and
costs.

Judge Griffin rules that nothing in the Agreed Motion for
Conditional Certification or in the Notice or Consent shall be
interpreted as limiting, waiving, or modifying any of the parties'
claims and/or defenses.  The Agreed Motion for Conditional
Certification is not an admission as to any underlying substantive
issue in this controversy.  Further, the Defendants are not waiving
their rights to later move for decertification of the class.

The parties agree that within 30 days of the Court approving this
stipulation, the Defendants shall provide to Plaintiff's counsel a
complete and accurate list of the names, last known addresses, and
e-mail addresses of the potential class members.  The parties
stipulate that within 10 days of the Plaintiff's receipt of the
information, the Plaintiff's counsel will mail the agreed Notice
and Consent forms to all potential plaintiffs.

It is further ordered that the potential plaintiffs shall have 60
days from the date of the initial mailing of the Notice to file
their Consent opting into this lawsuit as plaintiffs by returning a
completed Consent form to the Plaintiff's counsel.[CC]


COCA-COLA CO: Dismissal of Geffner False Advertising Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EVAN GEFFNER AND IVAN BABSIN, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES,
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-3548-cv (2d Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Oct. 31, 2018
judgment of the District Court dismissing all claims under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs-Appellants Geffner and Babsin, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, brought a purported class action
against Defendant-Appellee Coca-Cola, alleging that Coca-Cola
violated several provisions of New York State law through
misleading naming and marketing of its soft drink "Diet Coke."

On Oct. 16, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint,
alleging that Coca-Cola's naming and marketing of Diet Coke
violated several provisions of New York State law.  In particular,
they allege that the label "diet" misled Coca-Cola consumers by
promising that the soft drink would "assist in weight loss" or at
least, "not cause weight gain."  The Plaintiffs also allege that
Coca-Cola's marketing claims that Diet Coke "will not go to your
waist" and "is suitable for carbohydrate and calorie-reduced
diets," and its use of physically fit models in advertisements
reinforce this promise of weight loss.  Finally, they rely on
several studies to allege that aspartame (an artificial sweetener
contained in Diet Coke) is likely to cause weight gain and does not
help with weight loss.

The District Court dismissed all of the Plaintiffs' claims,
concluding that Diet Coke's marketing conveyed only an assertion of
reduced calories (rather than a promise of weight loss or weight
management) and that the Plaintiffs' cited studies do not show a
causal link between aspartame (contained in Diet Coke) and weight
gain.

The Plaintiffs timely appealed.

The Court concludes that, in the context of soft drink marketing,
the term "diet" carries a clear meaning.  First, the "diet" label
refers specifically to the drink's low caloric content; it does not
convey a more general weight loss promise.  This holding alone
precludes Plaintiffs' claims.  The Plaintiffs expressly concede
that Diet Coke does not contain calories.  The use of the label
"diet" in this context is therefore accurate and lawful.

Second, the Court concludes that, when applied to soft drinks, the
label "diet" carries a primarily relative (rather than absolute)
meaning.  In other words, it connotes simply that the "diet"
version of the drink is lower in calories than the "non-diet"
version of the drink. Here, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Diet
Coke is lower in calories than "regular" Coke.  Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs have failed plausibly to allege that the "diet" label is
misleading.

Because the Plaintiffs have failed plausibly to allege a misleading
statement, each of their proposed causes-of-action lacks a
necessary element.  Dismissal was therefore proper.

To summarize, the Court holds that when applied to soft drinks, the
label diet refers specifically to the drink's low caloric content.
It does not convey a general weight loss promise.  When applied to
soft drinks, the label diet carries a primarily relative (rather
than absolute) meaning.  In other words, it connotes simply that it
is lower in calories than the non-diet version of the same drink.
For the foregoing reasons, it affirmed the judgment of the
District Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/bCbs2C from Leagle.com.

JOHN K. WESTON -- jweston@sackslaw.com -- (Abraham Z. Melamed --
abe@dereksmithlaw.com -- Derek Smith Law Group, PLLC, New York, NY;
Jack Fitzgerald -- trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- Trevor M. Flynn,
Melanie Persinger, The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC, San
Diego, CA, on the brief) Sacks Weston Diamond LLC, Philadelphia,
PA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

JANE METCALF -- jmetcalf@pbwt.com -- (Steven A. Zalesin --
sazalesin@pbwt.com -- Catherine A. Williams -- cawilliams@pbwt.com
-- Michael Sochynsky -- msochynsky@pbwt.com -- on the brief),
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY, for
Defendant-Appellee.


COMENITY BANK: Wilson Sues over Repeated Robocalls
--------------------------------------------------
CARA WILSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COMENITY BANK, the Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-01767 (M.D. Fla., July 22, 2019), asserts Comenity
"robocalled" Plaintiff repeatedly in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
Invasion of Privacy.

According to the complaint, Comenity has a corporate policy of
repeatedly contacting family and friends of debtors to leave
supposedly "urgent messages" for the alleged debtor, using this as
a tool to humiliate and embarrass alleged debtors as well as to
intentionally cause aggravation and annoyance to their relatives
and friends.

Harassment of family members and friends is not a novel form of
debt collection abuse by any means, but Comenity adds a new twist
to this old tactic by using overseas call centers to do so,
presumably at an extremely low cost. It also uses autodialers to
further economize this mass harassment, the lawsuit says.

Comenity Bank is a major credit card company that has 91 credit
programs for many top U.S. retail stores.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

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

CONDUENT BUSINESS: Pisano Seeks Proper Regular Wages
----------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE PISANO, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. CONDUENT
BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 THROUGH 25, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19STCV24338 (Cal. Super., July 12, 2019),
alleges that Defendants failed to pay proper regular wages; failed
to provide meal breaks; failed to provide rest breaks; failed to
maintain accurate records; and failed to provide accurate itemized
statements pursuant to the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff has been employed with Defendant since November 16,
2009. Originally Plaintiff was a part-time employee working
approximately 24-28 hours per week as a Pharmacy Claims Auditor. In
or about June of 2012, the Plaintiff became a full-time employee.
The Plaintiff was initially paid an hourly rate of $21.25.
Effective June 5, 2017, the Defendant reclassified  Plaintiff's
position as a Medical Services Senior Specialist. With this
position, she was paid $47,476 and this was an exempt level
position according to Conduent.

Although the Defendant reclassified Plaintiff and considered her
position as exempt, she had exactly the same job responsibilities
that she did when her position was non-exempt.

The change of salary was simply a scheme by Conduent to avoid wage
and hour laws.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ophir J. Bitton, Esq.
          BITTON & ASSOCIATES
          7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Telephone: (310) 356-1006
          Facsimile: (818) 524-1224

CONGREGATION YETEV: $25K Abreu Labor Suit Settlement Has Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAMON ABREU, Plaintiff, v. CONGREGATION YETEV LEV
D'SATMAR MEATS & POULTRY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
17-CV-272(KAM)(LB) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved the
parties' settlement agreement but reduced the amount of fees
awarded to the Plaintiff's counsel.

On Jan. 18, 2017, Plaintiff Abreu commenced the action by filing a
complaint against Defendants Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar Meats
& Poultry, Inc., three John Doe Corporations, Moshe Brown, Berl
Friedman, and Moses Retek, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law, and title 12 of the New York
Codes, Rules and Regulations.

The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 12, 2017,
dismissing certain Defendants and adding Central Yetev Lev D'Satmar
Meat, Inc. as a Defendant.  Through stipulations of dismissal, all
the Defendants but Satmar Meat were dismissed from the action.

In his Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that
Defendant Satmar Meats employed him as a meat packer and delivery
worker from approximately August 2012 through September 2015.  He
further alleges that the Defendant required him to regularly work
in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing overtime
compensation as required under applicable law.  According to the
Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff typically worked a total of
approximately 60 hours per week.  His regular rate of pay was
approximately $9 per hour without any overtime compensation.

On Nov. 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Bloom issued an order approving
the parties' stipulation concerning a conditional collective action
certification, and approving the issuance of a collective action
notice.  However, it appears no additional Plaintiffs joined the
action.

On Aug. 20, 2018, the parties submitted a letter motion, seeking
approval of the parties' settlement agreement resolving the action.
The Settlement Agreement provides, in relevant part, that the
parties will settle the action for a total sum of $25,000, of which
$13,000 is payable to the Plaintiff's counsel.  The remaining
$12,000 is payable to the Plaintiff.  The approval motion indicates
that the amount payable to the Plaintiff's counsel represents
attorneys' fees and expenses.  Exhibit D to the Motion indicates
that the Plaintiff's counsel incurred expenses of $496, consisting
of a $400 filing fee, and a $96 fee for service of process.

The Settlement Agreement does not include a non-disparagement
clause that would limit the Plaintiff's communication rights under
the FLSA.  Its release provision applies only to "wage and hour
claims that were asserted or could have been asserted by the
Plaintiff against the Defendants in the Action including all claims
brought under the FLSA or New York's Labor Laws and all related
derivative benefit claims.

The Court now considers the motion for settlement approval,
requesting that the Court approves the parties' settlement
agreement and stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41.

Judge Matsumoto finds that neither the motion for approval of the
settlement nor the supplement provides information regarding the
experience or qualifications of legal paraprofessionals Jasmin
Perez and Luis Arnaud.  As noted, their requested hourly rate of
$125 is on the high end of fees typically awarded for
paraprofessionals in the district, but nothing in the record
suggests that a fee award at the high end is appropriate in the
action.  The Judge will therefore apply an hourly rate of $85 for
these timekeepers.

The Judge then finds that the 20 hours spent effecting the
ultimately unsuccessful, conditional collective action
certification, and the 4.3 hours spent amending the complaint, are
excessive and will reduce the hours attributable to these tasks by
25%, or 6.1 hours of work completed by a junior associate and 1.9
hours of work completed by a paralegal.  

Applying this reduction, after deducting 2.8 hours for the
certificate of default request, results in a total deduction of 8.9
hours of work completed by a junior associate, and 1.9 hours of
work completed by a paralegal.  The junior associate's work in the
case, for purposes of determining the lodestar, were billed at the
rate of $150 per hour, and the corresponding reduction to the
lodestar amount is $1,335.  Similarly, discounting 1.9 hours of the
paralegal's work in this case, billed at the rate of $85 per hour,
results in a corresponding reduction to the lodestar amount of
$162, or a total corresponding reduction of $1,497.  The Judge is
satisfied that the remaining hours billed are reasonable and will
not apply any reduction to those hours.

Applying the aforementioned hourly rates, the Judge arrives at a
lodestar amount of $10,570.  The $12,504 fee amount requested is
greater than the lodestar amount of $10,570, and accordingly, the
Judge concludes that the Plaintiff's counsel's fee request is
unreasonable.  She will reduce the award of attorneys' fees to
$10,570.

The Plaintiff's counsel has provided documentary support for $496
in claimed costs or expenses in the form of an itemized list of
expenses, including a $400 filing fee and $96 process server fee.
The Judge concludes that this support is sufficient and typical of
an action of this kind.  Further, the requested expense
reimbursement is reasonable.

Finally, the Plaintiff's proposed ultimate recovery of $12,000 is
approximately 47% of $25,362, which represents the maximum recovery
the Plaintiff's counsel estimates the Plaintiff could achieve
through the action.  This recovery is unreasonable despite the
risks of litigation given the lack of difficult legal issues in the
instant action.  The percentage reflects the counsel's unsuccessful
pursuit of collective-action certification in the action, amending
the complaint, and pursuing a certificate of default.  Reducing the
counsel's fees and expenses to $11,066, representing $10,972 in
fees and $496 in costs, from $13,000 accordingly increases the
Plaintiff's ultimate recovery to $13,934 or more than 54% of his
maximum estimated recovery.  The amount of $13,934 is reasonable.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Matsumoto approved the settlement
agreement but reduced the amount of fees awarded to the Plaintiff's
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/pUO67o from Leagle.com.

Ramon Abreu, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Seelig --
anne@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC, Clara Lam --
clara@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC & C.K. Lee --
cklee@leelitigation.com -- Lee Litigation Group, PLLC.

Central Yetev Lev D'Satmar Meat Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey M. Schlossberg -- Jeffrey.Schlossberg@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis PC & Douglas J. Klein --
Douglas.Klein@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP.


CREAM-O-LAND DAIRY: Court Flips Summary Judgment in Branch WHL Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELMER BRANCH, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREAM-O-LAND
DAIRY, Defendant-Respondent, Case No. A-1313-17T1 (N.J. Super. App.
Div.), Judge Stephanie Ann Mitterhoff of the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the trial court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.

Plaintiff Branch and the putative class of similarly situated truck
drivers appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor
of COL and dismissal of their class-action complaint alleging a
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law ("WHL").  The trial court determined that the
Defendant was entitled to the WHL's good-faith defense based on its
reliance on three determinations made by the New Jersey Department
of Labor and Workforce Development ("DOL") officials in response to
complaints brought by individual employees.

On Nov. 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in the Law Division against COL.  The class is defined to
include: "All individuals that performed truck driving functions in
the State of New Jersey for the Defendant from 2014 to present.

The Plaintiff alleged that the class members worked approximately
60 to 80 hours per week without being paid one-and-one-half times
their hourly rates for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week in violation of the WHL.  The Defendant answered the
complaint, denying the allegations and asserting, among other
defenses, the statutory good-faith defense.

After the parties exchanged some written discovery, on Aug. 4,
2017, the Defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that
it was immunized from liability under the good-faith defense.  At
the time of the motion, the discovery end date was scheduled to
elapse on Nov. 16, 2017, and the discovery end date had not been
previously extended.  In support of its entitlement to the
good-faith defense, the Defendant cited to three determinations
made by DOL officials in response to employee complaints involving
COL.  It also provided two certifications -- from Scott Stoner, the
vice president of operations for COL, and Michael P. McCarthy, an
employee of the DOL for thirty-seven years and the former Director
of the Division of Wage and Hour Compliance -- in support of its
motion for summary judgment.

The Plaintiff opposed the motion for summary judgment, primarily
contending that the three informal determinations relied on by COL
were insufficient to entitle it to the good-faith defense.  He also
argued that the Defendant's motion was premature because discovery
was outstanding and requested the opportunity to depose Stoner and
McCarthy regarding the veracity of their certifications.

On Sept. 7, 2017, following oral argument, the trial court granted
summary judgment in favor of COL and dismissed the complaint with
prejudice based on the good-faith defense.   The Plaintiff moved
for reconsideration, asserting that the class members were entitled
to "trucking industry overtime" at the rate of one-and-one-half
times the minimum wage even if the good-faith defense barred the
claim for regular overtime.

On Oct. 27, 2017, following oral argument, the trial court denied
reconsideration.  It reasoned that the class members were entitled
to one-and-one-half times the minimum wage for each hour worked and
that COL met this requirement by compensating the Plaintiff with a
flat rate of $180 per day.

Judge Mitterhoff holds that the three initial determinations relied
on by the Defendant are insufficient to support the good-faith
defense.  Although she concludes the 2006 opinion letter represents
"an administrative practice or enforcement policy," the Defendant
did not rely on this letter and therefore is not entitled to the
good-faith defense on the facts of the case.  Discrete
determinations or communications by DOL officials regarding
complaints by individual employees, which are subject to further
administrative appeal, do not constitute an "administrative
practice or enforcement policy" and are insufficient to invoke the
good-faith defense.  Accordingly, the trial court improvidently
granted summary judgment to the Defendant based on its reliance on
the three previous DOL determinations.

In addition, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable
to the Plaintiff, the Judge finds that issues of material fact
exist as to the exact hours that the Plaintiff worked and the exact
compensation the Plaintiff received.  

In light of these factual disputes, she remands for further
discovery on whether the Defendant meets the statutory definition
of a trucking industry employer and the actual hourly compensation
the Plaintiff received.  After determining whether the Defendant is
a trucking industry employer, the trial court may determine whether
the Plaintiff's actual compensation was sufficient to meet the
regular overtime or trucking industry overtime requirements.

JUdge Mitterhoof reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
The Court does not retain jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/Rh6FL4 from Leagle.com.

Ravi Sattiraju, argued the cause for appellant (The Sattiraju Law
Firm, PC, attorneys; Ravi Sattiraju, of counsel and on the briefs;
Anthony Santos Almeida, on the briefs).

Mark E. Tabakman -- mtabakman@foxrothschild.com -- argued the cause
for respondent (Fox Rothschild LLP, attorneys; Mark E. Tabakman, of
counsel and on the briefs; Ian Warren Siminoff --
isiminoff@foxrothschild.com -- on the briefs).

Caroline G. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for
amicus curiae State of New Jersey (Gurbir S. Grewa, Attorney
General, attorney; Donna Sue Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel; Caroline G. Jones, on the brief).


CRYSTAL BALL: Mendez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
CARLOS MENDEZ, EVELYN MATA DE TEMPERINO, on behalf of themselves,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class,  Plaintiffs, v. CRYSTAL
BALL GROUP INC., d/b/a TERRACE ON THE PARK, GEORGE MAKKOS, THOMAS
MAKKOS and DIMITRIOS KALOIDIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04267
(E.D. N.Y., July 24, 2019) is a Class and Collective Action
Complaint against Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law, seeking to recover from Defendants
unpaid wages due to time shaving, illegally retained gratuities,
unpaid spread of hours premium, unreimbursed uniform costs,
statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Plaintiffs and Class Members suffered from Defendants' policy of
time-shaving, including the improper rounding of their work hours
and the improper deduction of their meal break. As a result of
Defendants' time-shaving, on average, Plaintiffs, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and Class Members were not compensated for at least two
hours and fifteen minutes per week. The Defendants' violations were
willful and done intentionally to reduce employees' work hours so
that Defendants could avoid compensating employees for any overtime
hours worked. Defendants' policy was willful because when an
employee's work hours, after rounding down to the nearest quarter
and after deducting a half an hour meal break per day, neared 40
hours per week, the employee's remaining schedule for the week was
canceled, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants to work as bartenders.

Defendants collectively own and operate two businesses operating
inside Chelsea Market called "The Cull & Pistol", and "The Lobster
Place Seafood Market".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10011
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


CULTURAL CARE: Faces Mack Suit in District of Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cultural Care, Inc.
The lawsuit is styled as Amanda Mack, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Cultural Care,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11530-ADB (D. Mass., July 12,
2019). The suit demands $9.9 million worth of damages. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Allison D. Burroughs.

Cultural Care Inc was founded in 1998. The company's line of
business includes providing child care services for infants and
children.[BN]

Attorneys  for the Plaintiff are:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          Washington, DC 20036
          1828L. St. NW Suite 1000
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  kaizpuru@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Melissa S. Weiner, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suit 2150
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 389-0600
          E-mail: mweiner@pswlaw.com

DANZE INC: 7th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Duncan Place's WPLA Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DUNCAN PLACE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, on its own behalf and
as assignee of the Association Members, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
DANZE, INC., f/k/a GLOBE UNION AMERICA CORPORATION, and GLOBE UNION
GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-3474 (7th Cir.),
Judge Diane Schwerm Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit (i) affirmed the district court's dismissal of
Duncan Place's warranty and unjust-enrichment claims and (ii)
reversed the dismissal of Duncan Place's WPLA claim.

In 2009 faucets manufactured by Illinois-based Danze were installed
in all 63 units of a new condominium building in Seattle,
Washington.  In the years that followed, some of the faucets
failed, causing damage to the building and replacement costs.  The
condominium association, Duncan Place, filed a proposed
class-action suit against Danze raising multiple claims for relief,
including breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment,
negligence, and strict product liability.  The district judge
dismissed all but one of the claims.  That left only Duncan Place's
own claim for breach of express warranty.  The court eventually
entered summary judgment for Danze on that claim, setting up this
appeal

Duncan Place appeals, seeking reinstatement of the claims that were
dismissed on the pleadings.  Duncan Place does not challenge the
judge's summary judgment ruling.  The appeal focuses instead on the
claims that were dismissed on the pleadings -- namely, the claims
for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligence, and
product liability.  Waiver doctrine precludes the Court's
consideration of some of Duncan Place's arguments.  For what
remains, Judge Sykes' reviews of the judge's dismissal order is de
novo.

The Judge affirmed, with one narrow exception.  The Washington
Product Liability Act ("WPLA") subsumes all common-law product
liability claims, so she construes Duncan Place's negligence and
strict-liability claims as one cause of action under the Act.  In a
suit for damages caused by a defective product, Washington's
"independent duty doctrine" (formerly known as the "economic loss
doctrine") generally bars recovery in tort for direct and
consequential economic losses stemming from the product's failure
-- that is, damages associated with the "injury" to the product
itself.  But the doctrine does not bar recovery for damage to other
property caused by the defective product.  Duncan Place alleges in
general terms that the defective faucets caused damage to other
condominium property.  To that limited extent, the WPLA claim is
not blocked by the independent duty doctrine and should have been
allowed to proceed.

In addition, the Judge opines that Duncan Place's arguments for
reinstatement of its warranty and unjust-enrichment claims are new
on appeal.  Arguments not raised in the district court are waived,
so she affirms the dismissal of the warranty and unjust-enrichment
claims.

In sum, Judge Sykes affirmed the dismissal of Duncan Place's
warranty and unjust-enrichment claims, reversed the dismissal of
Duncan Place's WPLA claim, and remanded for further proceedings
consistent with her Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/rZE2Pe from Leagle.com.

Howard L. Lieber -- hlieber@ghlaw-llp.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Kyle Alan Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.


DAY & ZIMMERMANN: Waters Seeks OT Pay for Mechanical Supervisors
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN WATERS, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. DAY & ZIMMERMANN NPS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-11585 (D. Mass., July 22, 2019), alleges that Defendant
failed to provide Mr. John Waters and other workers like him,
overtime pay as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Instead, D&Z paid Waters and other workers like him, the same
hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40
in a workweek (or, "straight time for overtime").

D&Z is a full-service provider of power plant services. Mr. Waters
worked for D&Z as a Mechanical Supervisor. He was employed from the
beginning of January 2018 until the end of May 2018, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
          Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
          GORDON LAW GROUP, LLP
          585 Boylston St.
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: 617 536 1800
          Facsimile: 617 536 1802
          E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com
          khurley@gordonllp.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713-352-1100
          Facsimile: 713-352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  rschreiber@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 877-8788
          Facsimile: 713 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Settles Aequitas Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sol Dolor, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that five
professional services firms, including law firm Sidley Austin and
accounting firm Deloitte & Touche, have agreed to a proposed
US$220m settlement to end a class-action suit that claimed they
aided in the securities sales of defunct Aequitas Securities.

The plaintiffs do not allege any wrongdoing by any defendant, the
proposed settlement said. Rather, it is alleged that the defendants
are statutorily liable under Oregon law for aiding Aequitas'
management on the sale of securities. Aequitas was accused by the
US Securities and Exchange Commission of operating a "Ponzi-like"
scheme.

The other defendants that agreed to the proposed settlement are
accounting firm EisnerAmper, brokerage firm TD Ameritrade, and
consultancy firm Duff & Phelps. The plaintiffs, who previously
obtained preliminary approval of a US$12.9m settlement with law
firm Tonkon Torp, have reached settlement with all defendants in
the action. The plaintiffs have also filed for the approval of a
US$1.7m settlement with Integrity Bank & Trust.

If all settlements are approved, plaintiffs will have recovered
US$234.6m. The $220m settlement is believed to be the largest in a
securities case in Oregon history.

A Sidley spokesperson told Bloomberg Law that the settlement ends
"costly" and "burdensome" litigation.

"The plaintiffs did not allege that Sidley or the other six
defendants knew about or were involved in the alleged fraudulent
scheme perpetrated by Aequitas," the firm said. "Two senior
Aequitas executives pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate federal
law in operating the funds and admitted to intentionally misleading
investors and withholding information about the financial condition
and business activities of Aequitas from their outside accounting
and law firms."

Steve Berman of Hagens Berman in Seattle and Keith Ketterling and
Tim DeJong of Stoll Berne in Portland are lead counsel for the
investors. Sidley Austin was represented by Munger Tolles & Olson
and Markowitz Herbold. [GN]


DIAS & FRAGOSO: Settlement in Cuevas Suit Has Prelim Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROSALIE CUEVAS, ADOLFO GOMEZ-MORENO, REYNALDO TOLANO,
and AGUSTIN AMBRIZ, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DIAS & FRAGOSO, INC., a
California Corporation; D & F AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES, INC., a
California Corporation; GABRIEL M. DIAS; and JOHN L. FRAGOSO,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00357-BAM (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement.

The matter came on for hearing before the Court on June 7, 2019 on
the Plaintiffs' Preliminary Approval Motion.

The Action is provisionally certified as a class action, for the
purposes of settlement only, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23, for the California claims).  The Court previously conditionally
certified the collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et
seq., for the FLSA claim.

The Settlement Class is defined as all persons who are or were
employed in California by Defendants as non-exempt (i) mechanics,
(ii) maintenance workers, (iii) farm equipment operators, (iv)
truck drivers, and (v) weighers at any point during the Class
Period (March 10, 2013 to the date of the preliminary approval
order) and who do not properly and timely opt out of the Settlement
Class by having requested exclusion.

Magistrate Judge McAuliffe preliminarily approved the Settlement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate, entered into in good faith, free of
collusion, and within the range of possible judicial approval.
Further, as to the FLSA collective action, the Settlement is a fair
and reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.

She appointed the following attorneys as the Class Counsel: John E.
Hill, State Bar No. 45338 Enrique Martinez, State Bar No. 206884
Law Offices of John E. Hill 333 Hegenberger Road, Ste. 500 Oakland,
CA 94621 Telephone: (510) 588-1000 Facsimile: (510) 632-1445 Email:
enriquemartinez@hill-law-offices.com

She also appoints the named Plaintiffs—Rosalie Cuevas, Adolfo
Gomez-Moreno, Reynaldo Tolano, and Agustin Ambriz, as the class
representatives.

She further appointed CPT Group Class Action Administrators to
serve as the settlement administrator and to carry out all duties
and responsibilities of the Claims Administrator as specified in
the Settlement.

The Magistrate approved the method of disseminating notice to the
Settlement Class and members of the FLSA collective action in
Spanish and English, as set forth in the Settlement.

Not later than five days from the date of the Order, the
Defendants' counsel will provide to the Claims Administrator and
the Class Counsel a list of all members of the Settlement Class and
members who timely opted into the FLSA collective action, their
last known addresses, telephone numbers, and the last four digits
of their social security or individual taxpayer identification
numbers.  The Class Counsel will supplement this information with
any more recent contact information available for members of the
Settlement Class and the FLSA collective action.  

The Claims Administrator will be responsible for preparing,
printing, and mailing to members of the Settlement Class and the
FLSA collective action the Class Notice, the FLSA Notice (if
applicable), and Dispute Form.  A Spanish language translation
(prepared by the Claims Administrator) of all materials mailed to
members of the Settlement Class and the FLSA collective action by
the Claims Administrator will be included as a part of the same
mailing.

No later than 14 days from the date of the Order, the Claims
Administrator will send a copy of the Class Notice, the FLSA Notice
(if applicable), and Dispute Form to the members of the Settlement
Class and the FLSA collective action, using the most current
mailing address information available.  The date of the original
mailing will be the Notice Date.

For any Class Notice or FLSA Notice returned to the Claims
Administrator as non-deliverable within 45 days of the Notice Date,
the Claims Administrator will make prompt and reasonable efforts to
locate the person involved, using appropriate search methods.  If
new address information is obtained, the Claims Administrator will
promptly re-mail the Class Notice and Dispute Form, and FLSA Notice
(if applicable), to the addressee using the new address.

If the Claims Administrator is unable to obtain new address
information with regard to any Notice returned as non-deliverable
within 30 days following the Notice Date, or if a Notice is
returned as non-deliverable more than 45 days following the
original mailing date, the Claims Administrator will be deemed to
have satisfied its obligation to provide the Class Notice and the
FLSA Notice to the affected member of the Settlement Class and FLSA
collective action through the original mailing.

In the event the procedures are followed and the intended recipient
of the Class Notice does not receive the Class Notice, the intended
recipient will nevertheless remain a member of the Settlement Class
and will be bound by all the terms of this Settlement and the Order
and Final Judgment.

Those members of the Settlement Class who wish to opt out of the
settlement must send an opt-out letter (Request for Exclusion) to
the Claims Administrator.  Such letter must be received by the
Claims Administrator or postmarked no later than 60 days from the
Notice Date.

Those members of the Settlement Class who wish to object to the
Settlement must mail to the Claims Administrator a written
statement objecting to the Settlement.  Such written statement must
be mailed to the Claims Administrator no later than 60 days from
the Notice Date.

No member of the Settlement Class will be entitled to be heard at
the Settlement Fairness Hearing (whether individually or through
separate counsel) or to object to the Settlement, and no written
objections or briefs submitted by any member of the Settlement
Class will be received or considered by the Court at the Settlement
Fairness Hearing, unless the written statement objecting to the
Settlement is mailed to the Claims Administrator no later than 60
days from the Notice Date.

The Court will hold a final Fairness Hearing on Sept. 24, 2019 at
10:00 a.m.

The Parties will file any motions in support of final approval of
the Settlement no later than Sept. 4, 2019.  The Class Counsel will
file their fee application no later than Sept. 4, 2019.  The
Parties will file any responses to any Objectors, and any
supplemental papers in support of final approval or the Class
Counsel's fee application by no later than Sept. 11, 2019.

Pending the final determination of whether the Settlement should be
approved, all proceedings in the Action, except as may be necessary
to implement the Settlement or to comply with the terms of the
Settlement, are stayed.

The following chart summarizes the dates and deadlines set by the
Order:

     a. Last day for the Defendants to provide Claims Administrator
and Class Counsel with information pertaining to Members of the
Settlement Class and FLSA Collective Action -  No later than five
days of the date of Order

     b. Notice Date - No later than 14 days from the date of the
Order

     c. Deadline to opt-out/request exclusion - 60 days from Notice
Date

     d. Deadline to object - 60 days from Notice Date

     e. Deadline to dispute Settlement Payment - 60 days from
Notice Date

     f. Last Day for Parties to file any motions in support of
final approval of the Settlement, including the Class Counsel's
motion for attorney fees and costs, and class representative
service awards - Sept. 4, 2019

     g. Fairness hearing - Sept. 24, 2019

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/AbKRhR from Leagle.com.

Rosalie Cuevas & Agustin Ambriz, Plaintiffs, represented by Enrique
Martinez, Law Offices of John E. Hill & John Edward Hill --
johnhill@hill-law-offices.com -- Law Offices Of John E. Hill, A
Professional Corporation.

Adolfo Gomez-Moreno & Reynaldo Tolano, Plaintiffs, represented by
Enrique Martinez, Law Offices of John E. Hill.

Dias & Fragoso, INC., a California Corporation, D&F Agricultural
Enterprises, Inc., a California Corporation, Gabriel M. Dias & John
L. Fragoso, Defendants, represented by William M. Woolman, Sagaser,
Watkins & Wieland PC, Charles Paul Hamamjian, Sagaser Watkins
Wieland PC & Howard A. Sagaser, Sagaser, Watkins & Wie & land, PC.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Wage Underpayment Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Jason Pohl, writing for livewire, reports that Domino's has been
served with a class action lawsuit regarding wage underpayment.
Domino's believe their agreements are applicable and will defend
this in court. The materiality of the class action appears
overstated, and the evidence suggests to us Domino's compliance
systems may have contributed to the class action. However, this
does not present implications for the ongoing cost base and there
remains a significant opportunity ahead. It seems this class action
is a distraction, not a disaster.

What's happened?
A class action lawsuit has been launched by Phi Finney McDonald
(PFM), alleging Domino's underpaid delivery drivers and in-store
workers. Global litigation funding provider Therium Litigation
Finance is funding the lawsuit.

PFM is bringing the class action against Domino's on behalf of
employees employed between 24 June 2013 and 24 January 2018. PFM
alleges workers were employed under a series of employment
agreements that did not pay certain entitlements, including 25%
casual loading, additional penalty rates, and other allowances
under the award.

Domino's believe their agreements applied to its franchisees at all
relevant times and has stated they will defend this in court.
Domino's last approved enterprise bargaining agreement (EBA) was in
2009 with the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees' Association
(SDA).

Some background knowledge

Modern award and enterprise agreements

An EBA is a collective agreement made between an employer and their
employees regarding their employment relationship. These agreements
set the entitlements (whether monetary or other) for employees and
are usually negotiated by a representative union.

A modern award will not apply to an employee when an EBA applies to
them. If the agreement ceases to exist, the modern award will take
effect. Further, these agreements cannot provide entitlements that
are less than those provided by the modern award.

The Fair Work Commission must approve an EBA, and will usually
undergo extensive investigation prior to approving this. Once
approved, the commission is happy that the agreement legally meets
all standards and requirements.

Relevant legislation

On 1 July 2009, the bulk of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FWA) took
effect, becoming the main federal statute on employment conditions
and workplace relations -- replacing the prior Workplace Relations
Act (WRA).

Modern awards are generally inapplicable while an EBA remains in
force. Only if there are major inconsistencies, such as
entitlements falling below the minimum wage or employer misconduct,
then the EBA will not continue.

Any agreement must meet the National Employment Standards (NES)
which are minimum employment entitlements that must be provided to
all employees; and additionally, must pass the 'Better Off Overall
Test' (BOOT) where employees remain 'better off' under an agreement
compared to the relevant modern award.

In the franchise sector, the franchisor must make it clear to its
franchisees as to their obligations, and any failure on a systemic
level will fall under the responsibility of the franchisor (s558B
FWC). Moreover, Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL)
imposes this standard of conduct by saying they must not 'mislead
or deceive'.

The key issues
Basically, PFH wants Domino's to pay the 'saving', or the
difference between their EBA and the Modern Award. When the EBA
came into effect, it was estimated this would save ~$30m pa. So
around 4.5 years of underpayments amount to between $150–250m
(back of the envelope estimates) and in line with market
estimates.

When reviewing the class action documentation we found the
following (potential) issues as core to our analysis and continued
investment in Domino's:

1. Was the EBA in effect during 2013–2018? What is the total
saving under the EBA?
2. Could the EBA be void or terminated?
3. Were governance issues to blame?
4. What is the size of the claim and what number of stores are
involved?
5. What is the size of the class action? And, what is the impact on
the ongoing business?

Some points to consider
It's wrong to assume the EBA expired

The agreement had a nominal expiration date of 3 June 2013. While
no subsequent agreement was lodged when this nominal date passed,
the agreement continues beyond this date, unless steps are taken to
terminate the agreement (s219 FWA).

We highlight that the nominal date of expiry and the starting date
for the period of this class action both fell in June of 2013. This
is simply a coincidence, and not to be confused (or assumed) as the
expiration of the agreement. The claim begins in June 2013, and not
earlier, due to the six-year limitation period of bringing a claim
(s236 ACL).

Since the agreement continues alongside the modern award, and that
no party brought an application to terminate the agreement until
2017, the agreements were valid during the alleged period of
underpayment.

Were Domino's misleading or deceiving?
Basically, consumer law provides that Domino's 'must not, in trade
or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or
is likely to mislead or deceive'. Of course, the conduct by
Domino's (if found liable) may fall under this legislation as the
franchisees followed Domino's compliance systems.

Some media outlets have followed this language (misleading and
deceptive) and present management as being somewhat conniving. We
believe this is a sensationalised perspective rather than
statements of fact. We take this at face value, rather than
assuming an intent to deceive, albeit, much the same outcome in the
eyes of the law.

Other termination issues

The EBA appears to be applicable and enforceable, and we don't
believe a retrospective application of BOOT would occur. Further,
we assume Domino's acted accordingly when the agreement was drafted
given it was approved in 2013 under much assessment and scrutiny,
so this leads us to assume it comes down to the rules about which
franchisees fall under the agreements -- that is, the original
(defined) entities covered, but not newly added stores.

Were compliance systems the issue?
Domino's and its franchisees use electronic systems which we
believe to be at the heart of the presented issue. These include 1)
TANDA, which assists in employment matters such as rosters, time
and attendance etc; and 2) Domino's Bookkeeping Service, which
configures the EBA requirements for its store network to
implement.

Over the years we have recognised this industry-leading system and
infrastructure. This helps remove the risk that franchisees roster
and pay their employees per the relevant award or agreement
(assuming the input to the system is correct).

In the event that these agreements did not cover all franchises,
and that some were in fact (legally) supposed to be on the modern
award due to a technicality, then there may be validity to the
claim as franchisees followed the system.

While we may find comfort that Domino's integrity remains intact
(if the result is from a legal oversight), it may beg the question
-- 'are Domino's competent in executing on all areas of their
business?' This will take time to form a judgement.

So what's the technicality?
The issue lies in whether all entities were defined under the
initial agreement. The claim appears to focus on which 1)
franchises were nominated under the agreement (or lack of) and 2)
the legal interpretation of whether there has been a transfer of
business and whether the meanings of a transfer of business have
been satisfied or not (s311 FWA).

In their statement of claim, PFM note that the EBA is applicable
for corporate stores, stores listed in the initial agreement
(franchised stores prior to 2006), and franchisees that have
successfully transferred business title.

This means not the entire network were underpaid and it appears
that the EBA does not apply to:

1. Franchisees that commenced to operate in the period 26 March
2006 to 30 June 2009 when under the previous WRA; and
2. Franchisees that commenced after 1 July 2009, where there was no
'transfer of business' within s311 FWA.

This suggests the entities who didn't satisfy transfer of business
or who became a franchise were not specifically mentioned under the
EBA. So, this seems a portion of their franchise base could be
affected, but just how much and what's the potential cost?

Quantifying the potential cost
In 2013, the estimated savings of ~$30m pa, or approximately ~$51k
per store present the full potential downside risk. All things
being equal, this would mean that by 2018 this number may be closer
to ~$40m pa.

While it's impossible to determine the number of employees and
their respective hours worked, we acknowledge the claim does not
allege underpayment by all Domino's stores. Corporate stores are
excluded, and only the above-mentioned franchised stores.

Below shows our estimates for the yearly employment savings for
franchisees (underpayment liability cost) for each per cent of the
franchised group being affected:

In 2006, Domino's had ~300 franchised stores and by 2018 this had
grown to ~730 stores. Assuming the franchised stores opened within
this period fall under the class action, we estimate over 50% of
the (current) network may be at risk of liability.

Of course without all the information we cannot determine the
actual cost, however, with ~50% of the network affected (being
those franchises alleged to be on the modern award), the cost to
Domino's could be ~$70-$90m.

Further, we highlight that not all employees have made a claim. The
AFR suggests 1000 current and former workers had so far registered
for the class action which we believe would result in a far lower
(potential) claim from this action.

Our assessment
The market's reaction to the announcement seemed overstated. To put
this into perspective, the market cap fell by more than $250m on
the day, which reflects more than the possible net present value
impact from a class action based on our analysis.

We wait to hear from the courts and management regarding this
(potential) legal blunder, however, the impact from a financial
perspective is less worrisome for a long-term shareholder like us
who recognise the potential in their international operations.

While Domino's may pay out the action from cash reserves (or debt),
the ongoing predictability of earnings growth appears sustainable
as this action doesn't affect their ongoing cost base.

Despite the onerous requirements placed on domestic franchisors,
Domino's appear well positioned from a structural perspective to
manage their broader franchise network. We believe the offshore
growth far outweighs headwinds in their domestic business and
remains an attractive investment opportunity.

Future growth opportunity
It seems since the announcement, the apparent share price recovery
demonstrates the market is focused on the long-term growth
opportunity.

Below highlights the regional performance and illustrates our
expectations going forward. While the domestic business is
maturing, we expect the earnings mix to shift toward Europe as the
region becomes its core growth engine.

To date, the European business has been nothing short of
exceptional, as it's grown from a loss-making division in 2007 to
generating over $70m in 2018. Despite perceptions that this has
grown through acquisitions, we note the majority of growth is
through greenfield rollout. Acquisitions provide scale which
enables greater organic growth through time.

At ECP, we do not forecast acquisitions and our investment case is
predicated on conservative estimates which see the store network to
grow at a CAGR of ~6% over the next five years. At these numbers,
we expect significant investment performance going forward.

Time for management to execute
The underpayment of wages issue remains a concern for their
domestic business. At first whisper of this lawsuit, we
investigated accordingly as any funded class action generally has
merit to it. Our research suggests the claim may not be as large as
initially thought and is more likely a battle over the technicality
of the law.

We continue to assess the business, its operating environment, and
any other impacts that may affect the earnings profile going
forward. Domino's has tested our convictions and we continue to
assess management's conduct and any ESG failures that led to this
event. For now, the focus turns to their opportunity in their
international divisions.

The article has been prepared by ECP Asset Management Pty Ltd
(ECP). ECP is a funds management firm based in Sydney, Australia.

This material has been prepared for informational purposes only,
and is not intended to provide, and should not be relied on for
financial advice. ECP and the analyst own shares in Domino's Pizza
Enterprises Ltd. [GN]


DOUGLAS CREEK: Disbarred Lawyer Pleads Guilty to Fraud
------------------------------------------------------
Steve Buist, writing for The Hamilton Spectator, reports that
former Hamilton lawyer John Findlay pleaded guilty to fraud on July
15 for misappropriating $1.75 million from a class-action
settlement fund.

He will appear in a Hamilton court on Aug. 20 for sentencing.

The maximum penalty for a conviction of fraud over $5,000 is 14
years in prison. Because Findlay's fraud was greater than $1
million, he faces a minimum penalty of two years' imprisonment.

Findlay's guilty plea relates to his actions as the legal counsel
for a class-action lawsuit launched in 2006 on behalf of property
owners and businesses in Caledonia that suffered losses during an
Indigenous land claim dispute over the Douglas Creek Estates
housing development.

The tense standoff resulted in violence and blockades that closed
Argyle Street and Highway 6 -- two major routes in Caledonia.

The lawsuit against several parties, including the Ontario
government and the OPP, was settled in 2011 for $20 million.

The first signs of trouble with the class-action settlement funds
came to light when the Law Society of Ontario conducted a spot
audit of Findlay's law firm in June 2014. In May 2017, Findlay
reported to the law society that he had used up nearly $2 million
from the settlement fund's reserves and was "not able to replenish
the funds."

Various court orders governing the settlement's reserve funds
required Findlay to maintain a certain amount of money in reserve
and spelled out how the money was to be managed.

In April, Findlay's licence to practise law was revoked. He didn't
appear at his discipline hearing but provided a letter stating he
was prepared to accept whatever decision the Law Society Tribunal
made.

The tribunal found that the money started to go missing five years
before Findlay reported himself; that he had breached a court order
to keep $1.5 million in the reserve fund; that he failed to
disburse the funds as ordered by the court; and that he misled a
lawyer for Ontario's attorney general when he said the funds were
still being held in GIC funds, when in fact he had already
misappropriated the money.

The law society also noted that in addition to the misappropriated
money, Findlay and his law firm had already been paid $3.3 million
in fees and disbursements for their work as legal counsel for the
class-action lawsuit.

According to an agreed statement of facts read into the court
record on July 15, Findlay voluntarily provided a statement to
Hamilton police last August confessing that he had used the money
in the reserve fund to advance his personal business known as
Trefoil Marine.

Findlay also confessed he had moved money from a trust account and
line of credit account to Canadian and U.S. accounts connected to
Trefoil Marine.

He is still facing a criminal charge in connection with his role as
part of the management team of Havana Group Supplies Inc., a
construction-related company that was the subject of an extensive
Spectator investigation recently for its questionable business
practices.

Findlay, Havana Group's director of corporate affairs, is charged
with one count of fraud related to $220,000 in truck repair
payments that Havana Group was supposed to make to another company.
[GN]


EAST COAST EGG: Valdez Seeks Minimum & OT Pay for Delivery Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
PABLO VALDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. EAST COAST EGG FARMERS LLC (D/B/A EAST
COAST EGG FARMERS), RICHARD P. BLAS, MARIBEL BLAS, and ROMAN RUIZ,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-15630 (D.N.J., July 19, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendants. He was employed
as a truck driver at the egg distribution center. The Plaintiff
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for the hours
that he worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay Mr. Valdez appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Defendants own, operate, or control an egg distribution company,
located at 2300 83rd Street, North Bergen, New Jersey 07047 under
the name "East Coast Egg Farmers".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

EDDIE BAUER: Oct. 25 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------
If your financial institution issued one or more payment cards that
was identified as having been at risk as a result of the
cyber-attack that Eddie Bauer announced in 2016, it could get a
payment from a class action settlement.

A federal court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.

A settlement of a lawsuit against Eddie Bauer, LLC ("Eddie Bauer")
has been proposed in which Eddie Bauer has agreed to resolve
putative class claims brought by a financial institution, arising
from third-party criminal cyber-attacks of Eddie Bauer's
point-of-sale systems, involving malware targeting customers'
payment card information that Eddie Bauer reported in 2016 (the
"Cyber Attack"). If your financial institution ("you") qualifies,
you may send in a claim form to get benefits, or you can exclude
yourself from the Settlement, or object to it.

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
authorized this notice. Before any money is paid, the Court will
have a hearing to decide whether to approve the Settlement.

Who Is Included?
You are a member of the Settlement Class and affected by the
settlement if:
(1) You are a financial institution, bank, credit union, or other
entity in the United States (including its Territories and the
District of Columbia); and
(2) You issued one or more payment cards (including debit and
credit cards) that was identified as having been at risk as a
result of the Cyber Attack in an alert or similar document by Visa,
MasterCard, Discover, or JCB. (See the Settlement or Settlement
Website for more details as to the payment cards that are
included.)

What Is This Case About?
The lawsuit, Veridian Credit Union v. Eddie Bauer LLC, No.
2:17-cv-00356 (W.D. Wash.), was filed by a financial institution
and alleges that Eddie Bauer is legally responsible for the Cyber
Attack. The lawsuit asserts claims for negligence and violation of
RCW 19.255.020 and the Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW
19.86. The lawsuit seeks, among other relief, to recover damages
for the expense of payment card reissuance, amounts paid to cover
fraudulent payment card charges, and other costs allegedly incurred
responding to the Cyber Attack. Eddie Bauer denies any wrongdoing.

What Does the Settlement Provide?
Eddie Bauer has agreed to pay, on a claims-made basis, at least
$1,000,000, and up to $2,800,000, into an Escrow Account out of
which the Settlement Administrator will make payments to eligible
Settlement Class Members. A Settlement Class Member, who submits a
valid claim, will receive $2.00 for each eligible payment card it
issued, subject to a pro rata increase if the total value of
eligible claims submitted is less than $1,000,000. Eddie Bauer has
agreed to certain injunctive relief and to continue to maintain
compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards,
for which Eddie Bauer has expended, and expects to expend,
approximately $5,000,000. Eddie Bauer also has agreed to pay up to
an additional $2,000,000 to cover the Costs of Settlement
Administration, which may include any attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses and Service Award payments that are approved by the
Court.

How Do You Ask for a Payment?
A detailed notice and Claim Form package contains everything you
need. Just call the toll-free number or visit the website below to
get one. To qualify for a payment, you must send in a Claim Form,
which can be submitted electronically or by mail. Claim Forms must
be submitted electronically or, if mailed, postmarked by October
10, 2019.

What Are Your Other Options?
If you do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must
exclude yourself by September 10, 2019, or you will not be able to
sue, or continue to sue, Eddie Bauer, or any other Defendant's
Released Persons (as defined in the Settlement), for any of the
claims resolved by the Settlement. To exclude yourself, you must
provide all required information. If you exclude yourself, you
cannot get money from this Settlement. If you stay in the
Settlement Class, but wish to object, you must do so by October 4,
2019. Details for excluding yourself or objecting to the Settlement
can be found in the Settlement and on the Settlement Website.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case on October 25, 2019, to
consider whether to approve the Settlement. At the hearing, the
Court will also consider a request by the lawyers representing all
Settlement Class Members for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses
for investigating the facts, litigating the case, and negotiating
the Settlement, as well as for a Service Award to the Plaintiff for
its time participating in the case. You may ask to appear at the
hearing, but you do not have to.

Want More Information?
For more information, call toll free at 888-335-2947 or visit the
website at www.EddieBauerDataBreachSettlement.com. [GN]


EDGEWELL PERSONAL: Faces Class Action Over Razor "Pink Tax"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class action in St. Louis
County claims that Edgewell Personal Care Co. imposes a de facto
"pink tax" on women by charging them more for razors than it
charges men for "virtually identical" products.

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

         https://is.gd/BvFL6w


ENLOE MEDICAL: Lefevers Hits Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN LEFEVERS, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys
General Act; Plaintiff, v. ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER, a California
corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 19CV02194 (Cal. Super. Ct., Butte Cty., July 19, 2019)

The complaint alleges that Defendants hired Plaintiff and the other
class members and classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and
missed meal periods and/or rest breaks.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as hourly-paid or non-exempt
employee from approximately March 1994 to approximately June 2018
within the State of California, County of Butte.

Defendant ENLOE MEDICAL CENTER is a California corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
     LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
     410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Phone: (818) 265-1020
     Fax: (818) 265-1021


ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Reeves Seeks Overtime Wages for Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
DARRELL REEVES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP.,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02670 (S.D. Tex., July 19, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Enterprise Products
Partners, LP under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Reeves and the other workers like him
regularly worked for Enterprise in excess of 40 hours each week.
But these workers never received overtime for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Enterprise
improperly classified Reeves and those similarly situated workers
as exempt employees and paid them a daily rate with no overtime
compensation, the lawsuit says.

Reeves worked for Enterprise from April 2017 until December 2017 as
an inspector.

Enterprise is an oil and gas and construction staffing company.
Enterprise employs oilfield personnel to carry out its work.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 352-1100
          Facsimile: 713 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: 713 877-8788
          Facsimile: 713 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

FARMERS INSURANCE: Barnett Suit Moved to W.D. Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Mitchell Heath Barnett,
Individually and As representative of a class of similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Farmers Insurance Exchange; Farmers
Insurance Company Inc.; Foremost Insurance Company; and Farmers
Group Inc., the Defendants, Case No. CJ-19-00041, was removed from
the District Court of Jackson County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City) on July 22,
2019. The Western District of Oklahoma Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:19-cv-00660-PRW to the proceeding. The suit demands $5
million worth of damages. The case is assigned to the Hon. Patrick
R. Wyrick. The suit alleges Breach of Contract.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON LLP
          3600 N Capital of Texas Hwy
          Bldg B Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
          E-mail: bbeckworth@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          Carole L. Dulisse, Esq.
          MARR LAW FIRM
          4301 SW 3rd St., Suite 110
          Oklahoma City, OK 73108
          Telephone: (405) 236-8000
          Facsimile: (405) 236-8025
          E-mail: cdulisse@marrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Darrell E Latham, Esq.
          LATHAM NELSON & THOMAS
          P O Box 953
          1000 N Main St
          Altus, OK 73522
          Telephone: (580) 482-7134
          Facsimile: (580) 482-7154
          E-mail: khlaw@sbcglobal.net

               - and -

          J. Revell Parrish, Esq.
          WHITTEN BURRAGE
          512 N Broadway Ave., Suite 300
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 516-7800
          Facsimile: (405) 516-7859
          E-mail: rparrish@whittenburragelaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
          NIX PATTERSON LLP - AUSTIN
          3600 N Capital of Texas Hwy
          Bldg B Suite 350
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 328-5333
          Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
          E-mail: jangelovich@nixlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey D. Marr, Esq.
          MARR LAW FIRM
          4301 SW 3rd St., Suite 110
          Oklahoma City, OK 73108
          Telephone: (405) 236-8000
          Facsimile: (405) 236-8025
          E-mail: jeffdmarr@marrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael Burrage, Esq.
          Whitten Burrage, Esq.
          Reggie N. Whitten, Esq.
          512 N Broadway Ave., Suite 300
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 516-7800
          Facsimile: (405) 516-7859
          E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com
                  rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Jessica L. Dickerson, Esq.
          Mary Quinn-Cooper, Esq.
          Michael F. Smith, Esq.
          William S Leach, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT-TULSA
          Two West 2nd St., Suite 1100
          Williams Tower II
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 587-0000
          Facsimile: (918) 574-3190
          E-mail: jessica.dickerson@mcafeetaft.com
                  maryquinn.cooper@mcafeetaft.com
                  michael.smith@mcafeetaft.com
                  bill.leach@mcafeetaft.com

               - and -

          Samanthia S Marshall, Esq.
          ROSENSTEIN FIST & RINGOLD
          525 S Main St., 700
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 585-9211
          Facsimile: (918) 583-5617
          E-mail: samanthia.marshall@mcafeetaft.com

FYRE FESTIVAL: JA Rule, Margolin Free From Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Ja Rule and
Grant Margolin are free from a class action alleging they falsely
promoted the ill-fated Fyre Festival as a luxury music event on a
private island in the Bahamas, a federal court ruled July 10,
2019.

The plaintiffs didn't allege plausible fraud claims against
festival chief marketing officer Margolin or co-founder Ja Rule,
whose real name is Jeffrey Atkins, Judge P. Kevin Castel wrote for
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs allege Ja Rule and Margolin made false
representations on social media about the festival's
accommodations, luxury offerings, band performances, amenities,
cuisine, and site description. The organizers knew for months that
the festival wouldn't live up to their promises, they say.

But the complaint doesn't allege specifically when the statements
were made or what specific promises they contained that consumers
relied on, the court said.

"The subjective qualifiers of 'FOMO-inducing' and 'Coachella x
1000' are too exaggerated, blustering, and boasting for a
reasonable consumer to rely on," the court said, citing tweets by
Ja Rule.

The complaint also doesn't mention any statements were made
specifically by Margolin, the court said.

"Broad assertions of reliance on multiple misstatements covering at
least a four-month period of time are insufficient," the court
said.

The suit will proceed against Fyre Media and co-founder Billy
McFarland.

Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Geragos and Geragos APC, and Wilentz, Goldman
& Spitzer P.A. represented the consumers.

Kirsch & Niehaus PLLC and Ryan Hayden Smith in Raleigh, N.C.,
represented Ja Rule.  Margolin represented himself.

The case is In re Fyre Festival Litig., 2019 BL 254672, S.D.N.Y.,
No. 17-CV-3296, 7/10/19.[GN]


GOLDEN GATE: Court Remands Collins & Frank to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ETHAN COLLINS, Plaintiff, and MAURICE FRANK,
Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN GATE BELL, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-06442-NC, Related Case: 18-cv-06297-NC (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California granted the Plaintiffs'
motion to remand.

Collins filed his case in Santa Clara County Superior Court in
August 2018.  It was one of four similar cases filed in Northern
California, including a related case brought by Plaintiff Frank in
Alameda County Superior Court.

Defendant Golden Gate Bell removed the cases to the Court.  Collins
and Frank moved to remand back to the state court.  The central
issue is whether, under CAFA's home state and local controversy
exceptions, more than two-thirds of the proposed class members are
citizens of California.

The parties fully briefed the matter and the Court held a hearing.
The Court ordered jurisdictional discovery and supplemental
briefing specifically targeted at the question of the citizenship
of the members of the proposed class.  The parties submitted
supplemental briefing, including evidentiary objections.

In support of the motion to remand, the Plaintiffs requested and
the Court granted jurisdictional discovery from Golden Gate Bell.
Golden Gate Bell produced a data set containing identifying
information for the putative class members, including those
individuals' names, addresses, employment dates, U.S. citizenship
status, driver's license or other identification (such as municipal
or school ID cards) information.  The data set included records for
11,626 people.  About 11,613 (99.98%) of the employees in the data
set provided California addresses; 13 (0.11%) provided addresses in
another state.  The Employees provided identification documentation
to Golden Gate Bell via their I-9 forms.  The data set indicates
that 9,656 of the 11,626 employees (83%) are U.S. citizens and
1,970 (17%) are not U.S. citizens.

The Defendant does not dispute that its I-9 hiring process resulted
in recording the numbers above, but in support of its opposition to
the motion to remand provided a declaration from an econometric
analyst to interpret the data set.  The expert's declaration
suggests that inaccuracies in the I-9 verification system,
E-Verify, result in Golden Gate Bell's hiring of many non-U.S.
citizens who are unauthorized to work in the country.  Forrester
includes with his declaration his curriculum vitae and a report
from July 2012 about the accuracy of E-Verify.

Magistrate Judge Cousins finds that, by preponderance of the
evidence, the Plaintiffs have proven that more than two-thirds of
the putative class members are California citizens.  As such, both
the local controversy and home state exceptions to CAFA apply to
these cases.  Therefore, the motion to remand is granted and the
Court declines jurisdiction over these cases.  The Clerk of Court
is ordered to remand these cases promptly, Collins to the Santa
Clara County Superior Court, and Frank to the Alameda County
Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/6z8U38 from Leagle.com.

Maurice Frank, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory E. Mauro --
greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- James Hawkins APLC, James Ross Hawkins
-- james@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- James Hawkins APLC & Michael J.S.
Calvo -- michael@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- JAMES HAWKINS APLC.

Golden Gate Bell, LLC, Defendant, represented by Richard Charles
Rybicki -- rrybicki@rybickiassociates.com -- Rybicki & Associates,
P.C., David Lee Suddendorf -- dave@davidsuddendorf.com -- Law
Offices of David L. Suddendorf & Jacqueline Kramer Loveless --
jacquelineloveless@att.net -- Rybicki and Associates P.C..


GREENE CTY, MO: Lewis Seeks OT Pay for Correctional Officers
------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS VOORHIS and REGINALD LEWIS, individually, and on behalf of a
Class of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GREENE
COUNTY, the Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-03257-SRB (W.D. Mo., July
19, 2019), alleges that Greene County did not properly compensate
correctional officers for all hours worked in an effort to
deliberately deny them their earned wages and overtime compensation
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri
Minimum Wage Law.

Specifically, until early 2019, Greene County automatically
deducted a 50-minute meal break from the recorded time of every
non-exempt correctional officer below the rank of sergeant at the
Greene County Jail for every shift worked. These deductions were
made without regard to whether said employee was actually allowed
to take such a lunch break.

Indeed, correctional officers were never fully released from their
duties over their lunch break being forbidden to leave the jail or
deactivate their radios. Rather, corrections officers were subject
to responding to all calls that may come over the radio and were
rarely, if ever, actually given an uninterrupted meal break at all,
much less the 50-minutes that were deducted from the jail
employees' time records.

Finally, jail employees were sometimes required to perform
additional work waiting to be relieved at their assigned post,
completing reports, and performing drug tests outside of regular
working hours. In each instance, said time was typically not
recorded.

The Plaintiffs worked as correctional officers at the Greene County
Jail in Springfield, Missouri.

Greene County is located in the U.S. state of Missouri. As of the
2010 census, the population was 275,174, making it the fourth-most
populous county in Missouri. Its county seat and most populous city
is Springfield.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Todd C. Werts, Esq.
          Bradford B. Lear, Esq.
          LEAR WERTS LLP
          2003 W. Broadway, Ste. 107
          Columbia, MO 65203
          Telephone: 573-875-1991
          Facsimile: 573-875-1985
          E-mail: lear@learwerts.com
                  werts@learwerts.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Curran, Esq.
          CURRAN LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          3516 S. National Avenue
          Springfield, MO 65807
          Telephone: 417-823-7500
          Facsimile: 417-823-7510
          E-mail: rob@curranlawfirm.com

H.D. SMITH: Hestrup Sues Over Increase in Insurance Premiums
------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC HESTRUP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. H.D. SMITH, LLC, and SMITH MEDICAL
PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2019L008162 (Circuit Ct., Cook
Cty., Ill., July 24, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint against
Defendants seeking redress for Defendants' alleged illegal acts
that have caused Plaintiff's health insurance premiums to
increase.

The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") originally approved opioid
treatment for short-term post-surgical or trauma-related pain, and
for palliative (end-of-life) care. Later, the labels were extended
to reach treatment of patients with "chronic pain," or pain lasting
more than three months. Following the label extension, the
companies who manufactured and sold this class of drugs in the
United States experienced a boom in their business. However, with
this boom came a scourge which infected the country in the form of
a public health epidemic caused by widespread addiction to opioids
like OxyContin, as well as generic forms of oxycodone and
hydrocodone. The scourge is now commonly known as the "opioid
epidemic." More of a modern plague, the opioid epidemic continues
to mushroom, despite widespread media attention, many states taking
action, and a national government response.

During the creation of this epidemic, Smith knew of the dangerous
addictive qualities and high rates of loss and misappropriation
("diversion rates") of the opioids it shipped. Smith's role in the
opioid epidemic has created a public health crisis in Illinois.
Smith's failure to halt and report suspicious orders created an
oversupply of prescription opioids and has provided a source for
the illicit use or sale of opioids, which has created a population
of addicted and dependent patients in Illinois. When those patients
can no longer afford or legitimately obtain opioids, they often
turn to the street to buy prescription opioids or even heroin. In
addition to the societal impact of deaths, overdoses, and rampant
addiction, Smith's conduct has created higher demand--and thus
higher prices--for opioids, as well as the need for expensive
medical treatment for a number of covered health conditions,
resulting in increased insurance costs for Illinois residents.

This behavior by Smith has allowed massive amounts of opioids to be
diverted from legitimate channels of distribution into the illicit
black market, fueling the opioid epidemic. Smith created an
environment in which drug diversion can flourish. For years, Smith
has had the ability to substantially reduce the death toll and
adverse economic consequences of opioid diversion, but has instead
opted to pursue corporate revenues. Smith's misconduct has fueled
opioid addiction, opioid-related deaths, and emergency medical
treatments, all while generating huge sales of opioids at inflated
prices, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Eric Hestrup is a natural person and resident and citizen
of the State of Illinois.

Defendant H.D. Smith, LLC f/k/a H. D. Smith Wholesale Drug Co. is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Illinois. H. D. Smith Wholesale Drug Co. was a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business located in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ashley Keller, Esq.
     Seth Meyer, Esq.
     KELLER LENKNER LLC
     150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: 312.741.5220
     Email: ack@kellerlenkner.com
            sam@kellerlenkner.com

          - and -

     William S. Consovoy, Esq.
     J. Michael Connolly, Esq.
     CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
     1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700
     Arlington, VA 22201
     Phone: 703.243.9423
     Email: will@consovoymccarthy.com
            mike@consovoymccarthy.com

          - and -

     James Young, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     76 South Laura Street, Suite 1100
     Jacksonville, FL 32202
     Phone: 904.398.2722
     Email: jyoung@ForThePeople.com

          - and –

     Juan Martinez, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: (813) 223-5505
     Email: juanmartinez@ForThePeople.com


HELIUS MEDICAL: Sept. 9 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on July 10 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Helius Medical Technologies, Inc.
("Helius" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: HSDT) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired the securities of Helius between
November 9, 2017 and April 10, 2019, 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 that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the clinical study on the use of PoNS did not
produce statistically significant results regarding the
effectiveness of the treatment; (2) that, as a result, the clinical
study did not support the Company's application for regulatory
clearance; (3) that, as a result, the Company was unlikely to
receive regulatory approval of PoNS; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On January 25, 2019, the Company announced that it had received a
request for additional data and information from the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (the "FDA") related to the Company's request
for de novo classification and 510(k) clearance of its Portable
Neuromodulation Stimulator (PoNS™) device.  On this news, shares
of Helius fell $0.48, or nearly 6%, to close at $7.13 per share on
January 25, 2019, thereby injuring investors.

Then, on April 10, 2019, Helius announced that the FDA denied
510(k) clearance of the PoNS device because the Company had not
provided sufficient clinical data to show the device was effective.
On this news, shares of Helius fell $4.11, or more than 66%, to
close at $2.10 per share on April 10, 2019, thereby injuring
investors further.

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.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm [GN]


HONDA MOTOR: Class Suit Over Faulty Acura RDX Vehicles Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
Owners of 2019 and 2020 Acura RDX vehicles in mid-July 2019 filed a
class-action lawsuit against Honda alleging the automaker knowingly
sold vehicles equipped with defective infotainment systems which it
refuses to fix, according to Hagens Berman.

The lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California states the defect renders many of the
infotainment system features – including safety-related systems
such as the backup camera – inoperable and frequently freezes or
crashes entirely. Owners also report regular failure of the car's
Bluetooth connection to Android and Apple phones. The defect has
manifested in the vehicles almost immediately after consumers leave
the dealership in their new RDX, and owners have vocally taken to
online forums and reported the defect to the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA).

If you purchased or leased a 2019 or 2020 Acura RDX vehicle, find
out more about the lawsuit and your rights.

"This poses a safety risk because when the system malfunctions,
unexpected audio or video errors can cause the driver to become
distracted," the suit states.

"Honda and its dealers fail to take responsibility for a clearly
broken technology component in the affected Acura RDX vehicles,"
said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman and attorney
representing Acura owners in the class action. "We intend to hold
Honda fully accountable for ignoring this serious defect and for
failing to deliver on its promises to consumers."

Attorneys say that Honda knew about the defect through various
sources including pre-release design, manufacturing and testing
data; warranty claims data; consumer complaints made directly to
Honda and those collected by the National Highway Transportation
Safety Administration, and/or posted on public online forums;
testing done in response to those complaints and aggregate data;
and complaints from authorized dealers.

Acura RDX owners have voiced frustration concerning the defective
infotainment system:

"Enjoyed it while I had it, but after driving less than 25 miles
and owning for under 3 hours, the Infotainment center flashed
between the home screen and ‘touchpad is not available.'"
"I regard this as a safety and driver distraction issue that can
lead to collisions."

"Almost EVERY single day I have an issue with this infotainment
system. Radio unavailable. Tuner not found, Messages shriek.
Yesterday it was ‘Device not connected' which I have had
before."

"The whole screen freezes on a regular basis... It's very
distracting as its totally unexpected. I usually try to play with
it trying to get it to work again...NOT SAFE."

The lawsuit against Honda seeks both monetary reimbursement for
those who purchased or leased an affected Acura RDX, and seeks
action from the court barring Honda from continuing to sell
vehicles with the defective infotainment system.

The affected Acura models were also slated to include Android Auto
and Apple CarPlay connectivity as standard features. Honda released
promotional materials to dealers touting the features, yet when
sales began in 2018 only Apple CarPlay was available. After a year
of empty promises from the automaker, owners and lessees are still
waiting to receive the feature Honda promised, according to the
lawsuit.

The suit's named plaintiffs from 12 states report the infotainment
system sporadically freezing, shutting off and becoming inoperative
while driving. Plaintiffs with Android phones are left with
glitch-riddled workarounds just to listen to music in their
vehicles: ". . . Defendant's promise to release Android Auto 'soon'
was an important consideration for him in choosing to purchase the
Vehicle. It has been 10 months since Plaintiff Banh purchased the
Vehicle and still no software update has been released containing
Android Auto. Plaintiff Banh has been forced to use an adaptor, USB
stick, and MP3 player to listen to music. But the Vehicle's
infotainment system often has trouble identifying these sources
during start up, which causes the screen to display 'initializing .
. . not found.' The problem can sometimes be resolved by unplugging
and then re-plugging the source. But even then, the system's
Bluetooth connection frequently drops during telephone calls."

The plaintiffs in the case state that had they been aware of the
faulty infotainment system and lack of Android Auto software in the
affected Acura models they purchased, they either would not have
paid as much for them, or would not have bought them at all.

Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against Honda on
behalf of Acura RDX owners.

Contact:

    Steve Berman,Esq.
    Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
    Website: www.hbsslaw.com
    Email:  steve@hbsslaw.com [GN]


HYATT HOTELS: Customers File Class Action Over "Resort Fees"
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action claims
that Hyatt Hotels defrauded customers by hiding so-called "resort
fees" in its advertised prices, costing its customers "hundreds of
millions of dollars."

A copy of the Complaint is available at:

         https://is.gd/TpsLQg


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Fails to Pay for Emissions Warranties, Boyd Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUEBEN BOYD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 19CECG02596 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., July 17,
2019), arises out of Hyundai's alleged failure to properly identify
and pay for all of the parts and labor that should correctly be
covered under California Code of Regulations, regarding emissions
warranties for Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles, and under Hyundai's
Hybrid System emissions warranty.

The Plaintiff's claims apply to all 2011-2020 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid
vehicles, to all 2016-2020 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid PHEV vehicles, and
to all other Hyundai Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles with
California emissions warranties that are the same or similar to the
identified Sonata vehicles.

Hyundai is a California corporation, doing business in the state of
California.  Hyundai sells Partial Zero Emissions Vehicles and
Hybrid Vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, in the state of
California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Ari Y. Basser, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 432-8492
          E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com
                  abasser@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert L. Starr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
          23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 225-9040
          E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com


ICEBREAKER NATURE CLOTHING: Reid Sues over ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Icebreaker Nature
Clothing, Inc. for alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The case is captioned Valentin
Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. Icebreaker Nature Clothing, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06545-GBD (S.D.N.Y., July 15, 2019). This civil
rights-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge George B.
Daniels.

Headquartered in Auckland, New Zealand, Icebreaker is a merino wool
outdoor and natural performance outdoor clothing brand. In 2018, it
was purchased by VF Corporation, a NYSE-listed business entity. The
company also sells its products online through its website,
https://www.icebreaker.com/ [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Paul Force, Esq.
     STEIN SAKS, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Telephone: (201) 282-6500
     E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

INSIGHT GLOBAL: Prather Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS PRATHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-00849-DSC (W.D.
Pa., July 17, 2019), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Insight Global, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability corporation
doing business throughout the United States, including in
Pennsylvania.  Insight Global maintains a corporate office in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Insight Global is an employment and staffing company operating
throughout the United States and internationally, including in
Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


INTER-LOCAL PENSION FUND: Judge Shuts Down Class Suit vs Teamsters
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Cook County Record, reports that former
union members have lost their claim that the trustees of a
retirement fund failed in their fiduciary duty regarding an
employee benefits plan.

The members, who were attempting to initiate a class action against
an arm of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, did not
manage to state a proper claim, according to Judge John Tharp of
the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois.

In an action that turned on claims that trustees of the Inter-Local
Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications Conference violated
provisions of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) in collecting contributions to the pension fund from
multiple union organizations.

In an opinion issued June 26, Tharp agreed the plaintiffs had
standing to sue under the federal law, as they were alleging the
union failed to enforce contributions to the fund,causing some
members to have paid less into the pot, harming the retirement fund
members.

But on the merits of the actual claim, the judge said the terms of
the agreement under which the fund was organized allowed "different
preapproved segments or groups within a union to contribute to the
Fund at different levels."

"The trustees cannot have breached their fiduciary duties merely by
failing to require different segments within Local 458M to
contribute at the same rate," Tharp concluded.

The case relates to Local 458M, which included Bell Litho employees
as members. It dates back to 2008 when the union local voted to
increase the weekly contribution rate to the retirement fund from 6
to 8 percent. Under the benefits plan, employers made no
contribution, and members were paid a certain monthly amount at and
after retirement.

A dispute arose when the contract expired in 2016. Questions were
raised over how much was being held in the fund, and how many
members were paying the full 8 percent. The union, for instance,
admitted certain members who had come into the union as the result
of the merger were not paying into the fund, despite contractual
rules seeming to require all union members to pay into the fund
through payroll deductions.

The plaintiffs and co-workers agreed to renew the old contract
terms "excepting the language regarding fund contribution rates."

Local 458M replied by stating that members were required to pay
contributions or be expelled from the union. The plaintiffs alleged
the local and fund was unable to answer questions over how many
members paid the full amount. [GN]


JACKSON MEMORIAL: Portales Seeks Overtime Pay for Nurses
--------------------------------------------------------
JOSE R. PORTALES SANCHEZ, and similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiffs, vs. PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI DADE COUNTY, d/b/a
JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL a Florida Public Health Trust, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:19-cv-61820-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 20, 2019 ),
seeks to recover unpaid back wages, and an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, Portales and similarly situated
individuals were paid on an hourly basis. The Defendant deducted at
least 4 hours per week from his hourly pay for lunch breaks.
However, Portales was rarely able to take lunch breaks because of
requirements of his job.

Portales complained about not being paid for these breaks and was
fired as a result. Portales often worked more than 40 hours per
week but were not paid time and half for those hours worked over 40
hours per week.

Mr. Portales was an employee of Jackson memorial from in or about
2016 through May 14, 2018. He worked as a registered nurse for the
Defendant.

Jackson memorial is a Florida public health trust created pursuant
to Florida Statutes section 154.07.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Gary A. Costales, Esq.
          GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
          1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1440
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 375-9510
          Facsimile: (305) 375-9511

JARROW FORMULAS: Shanks Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as COLLIN SHANKS, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the
Plaintiff, vs. JARROW FORMULAS, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:18-cv-09437-PA-AFM (C.D. Cal.), the plaintiff will move the Court
for an Order on August 26, 2019, to certify a class of:

   "all persons who, since November 6, 2014, purchased in the
   United States (or alternatively in California, if the Court
   does not certify a nationwide class), for personal or
   household use, and not for resale or distribution, any 16 oz.
   or 32 oz. Jarrow Organic Extra Virgin or Jarrow Regular
   Coconut Oil whose label did not bear a disclosure statement
   of the type required by 21 C.F.R. 101.13(h)."[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
          4125 W. Pt. Loma Blvd. No. 309
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 767-0356
          Facsimile: (619) 331-2943
          E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

JOHN HEATH: Illinois Court Denies Motion to Compel Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
John S. Yi, Esq. -- john.yi@dbr.com -- and Michael P. Daly, Esq. --
michael.daly@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that the Northern
District of Illinois recently denied a motion to compel arbitration
in a putative class action, and in doing so found that the
defendants failed to show that the plaintiff had agreed to
arbitrate the dispute when navigating through one of the
defendants' websites. See Anand v. Heath, et al., No. 19-0016, 2019
WL 2716213 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2019).

The Defendants include Fluent, Inc., John C Heath, Lexington Law
Firm, Progrexion Marketing, Inc., Reward Zone USA, LLC

The plaintiff in Anand registered and completed a survey for a gift
card on a website owned and operated by a subsidiary of one of the
defendants. As part of her registration, she submitted her contact
information, including her telephone number. After she received
allegedly unsolicited telemarketing calls, the plaintiff filed a
putative class action and two of the defendants moved to compel
arbitration pursuant to the website's terms and conditions.

The Website
When the plaintiff navigated through the website at issue, she
encountered a "Continue" button directly below the words "I
understand and agree to the Terms & Conditions which includes
mandatory arbitration and Privacy Policy." The terms and conditions
and the privacy policy were hyperlinked on the screen as shown in
the image below:

Although the defendants presented no evidence that the plaintiff
clicked on the "Terms and Conditions" hyperlink, they argued that
the plaintiff had nevertheless accepted that agreement by virtue of
clicking on the "Continue" button.

The Decision
In denying the motion to compel arbitration, the court found that
the plaintiff "was not placed on reasonable notice that she was
manifesting assent to the terms and conditions by clicking the
'Continue' button." The court began by noting that the agreement at
issue here was a variation of a hybrid-wrap agreement—that is, a
type of agreement that presents a user with a hyperlink to the
terms and conditions and a prompt to manifest acceptance of those
terms. It explained that courts generally enforce these types of
agreements so long as "the button required to perform the action
manifesting assent … is located directly next to a hyperlink to
the terms and a notice informing the user that, by clicking the
button, the user is agreeing to those terms." But this case was
different, it reasoned, because the website did not include
language explaining that clicking on the "Continue" button meant
accepting the terms and conditions. It also found that the
proximity of the hyperlink to the button in and of itself was not
sufficient to show that the plaintiff knew that she was accepting
the terms of the conditions.

The Takeaway
The court's ruling reinforces that businesses should carefully
consider how hyperlinks to terms and conditions and the language
used to manifest assent to these terms are presented on their
websites. Indeed, notwithstanding that a reasonable consumer would
most likely understand the implication of clicking "Continue" here,
it appears that a few extra words—for example, adding "By
clicking Continue" before "I understand and agree to the Terms &
Conditions which includes mandatory arbitration and Privacy Policy"
-- would have changed the outcome under this court's analysis.
Language stating in no uncertain terms that continued navigation
through a website is conditioned upon acceptance of linked terms
and conditions can be critical for some courts in determining
whether a hybrid-wrap agreement is enforceable. [GN]


JP MORGAN: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Blake Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER BLAKE; JAMES ORKIS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellants, v. JP MORGAN
CHASE BANK NA; CHASE BANK USA NA; JP MORGAN CHASE & CO; CROSS
COUNTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 18-2368 (3d Cir.), Judge
Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the Plaintiffs'
Complaint.

Before banks will enter into a home mortgage, they usually expect a
20% down payment. But many home buyers cannot pay that much up
front.  Banks are willing to lend to these buyers on a condition:
that they buy mortgage insurance to protect against default.  The
mortgage insurers, in turn, often reinsure these mortgages.
Typically, they assign part of the risk to a reinsurer in exchange
for giving up part of the insurance premiums.  Ideally, reinsurance
thus spreads risk and lets people buy homes who otherwise could
not.

But Blake and Orkis allege that this system was rife with abuse.
Each bought a home and took out a mortgage from JP Morgan.  Because
they paid less than 20% up front, they had to buy mortgage
insurance.  JP Morgan referred each of them to specific mortgage
insurers, who then reinsured with Cross Country Insurance.

But Cross Country is a subsidiary of JP Morgan.  So according to
Blake and Orkis, this was a classic kickback scheme: JP Morgan
referred home buyers to mortgage insurers in exchange for
kickbacks, funneled through its subsidiary as insurance premiums.
Any reinsurance, they claim, was just a cover for the kickback
scheme.

Blake and Orkis claim that the kickbacks violate 12 U.S.C. Section
2607 of the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act ("RESPA").
This section of the Act has a one-year statute of limitations.  And
that limitations period runs from the date of the occurrence of the
violation.  The case turns in part on defining the violation that
triggers the statute of limitations.

Blake and Orkis were not the first to make these claims.  In 2011,
a group of plaintiffs filed a class-action suit against JP Morgan
in California, bringing the same claims as Blake and Orkis -- Samp
v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.  Though Blake and Orkis were not
named plaintiffs, they belonged to Samp's putative class of all
those who took out mortgages from JP Morgan in or after 2004.  But
the District Court in California dismissed that case as untimely in
May 2013.  The Samp plaintiffs appealed.

In November 2013, several of the Samp plaintiffs' lawyers changed
their litigation strategy.  They filed a new class action, with
Blake and Orkis as the named plaintiffs, in federal district court
in Pennsylvania.  The very next day, they asked the Ninth Circuit
to dismiss their Samp appeal.  Two days after that, the court
granted that motion and put an end to Samp.

Blake and Orkis picked up where Samp left off.  They too sought to
represent a class of those who took out mortgages from JP Morgan in
or after 2004.  But they themselves had taken out their mortgages
in 2005 and 2006, at least seven years before they filed their
complaint in 2013.  So JP Morgan moved to dismiss their suit as
barred by the Act's one-year statute of limitations.  Blake and
Orkis had to bridge at least a seven-year gap.

They tried to bridge it in two ways.  First, they claimed that the
Act makes each kickback a violation with its own limitations period
-- a separately accruing wrong.  And they claimed that their
mortgage insurers paid a kickback to JP Morgan (through Cross
Country) each time they paid an insurance premium.  They continued
to pay these premiums for years after their mortgages closed.  So
under that theory, their suit would be timely up to one year after
the last kickback.

But Blake and Orkis concede that they had paid no premiums in the
year before their complaint.  The statute of limitations would thus
have expired in the year or two before they filed their own suit in
2013.

Blake and Orkis's lawyers, however, filed Samp in December 2011.
So second, Blake and Orkis argued that the filing of Samp tolled
the limitations period for their claims.  They reasoned that they
were members of Samp's putative class and were bringing the same
claims as in Samp.  And because Samp continued until November 2013,
they claimed that American Pipe tolling would extend their
limitations period until then and make their suit timely.

In other words, Blake and Orkis needed both theories to make their
suit timely.  They needed the separate-accrual rule to justify
starting the limitations period for some kickbacks at the end of
2010. And they needed American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah
tolling to span the period from 2011 to 2013, when they filed their
own suit.

The District Court agreed with the first theory, but not the
second.  It held that each kickback is a separately accruing wrong
with its own limitations period.  But it also held that American
Pipe tolling does not apply to a second class action filed before
the end of the first one.  So the District Court held that the suit
was untimely and dismissed it.

Blake and Orkis appealed.

Judge Bibas explains that statutes of limitations can be tricky.
What events trigger them may present thorny questions. And when
courts may toll them can involve judgment calls.  Because of the
way that Blake and Orkis have brought their class action, the case
presents both kinds of issues.  And they need to win on both to
make their suit timely.

He finds that in 2005 and 2006, Blake and Orkis took out mortgages
from JP Morgan to buy homes.  Then in 2013, they filed a class
action against JP Morgan under the Real Estate Settlement and
Procedures Act, alleging a scheme to refer homeowners to mortgage
insurers in exchange for streams of kickbacks.  But the Act has a
one-year statute of limitations that runs from the date of the
violation.  So Blake and Orkis need to bridge the gap from when
they closed their mortgages in 2005 and 2006 to when they sued in
2013.

They raise two theories, each of which bridges only half the gap.
First, Blake and Orkis argue that each kickback separately violates
the Act and has its own limitations period.  In other words, they
argue that the Act follows the separate-accrual rule.  JP Morgan
disagrees, arguing that the Act's statute of limitations runs only
from the mortgage closing, not from each later kickback.  But the
Act's plain text makes each kickback a violation, so the
limitations period accrues separately from the date of each
kickback.

That theory gets them only halfway there.  The kickbacks ended more
than a year before they sued, so the Act's one-year limitations
period would still bar their claims.  To make their 2013 suit
timely, Blake and Orkis next try to piggyback on a different class
action filed in 2011 that raised the same claims against JP Morgan.
As members of that putative class, they say that the Court should
toll the limitations period under American Pipe & Construction Co.
v. Utah.  But in China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, the Supreme Court
reasoned that a timely class action should never toll other class
actions under American Pipe.  Blake and Orkis try but fail to
distinguish China Agritech.  So they are not entitled to American
Pipe tolling, and their suit is untimely.  

Judge Bibas thus affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/T8kJZP from Leagle.com.

Natalie Lesser -- nlesser@ktmc.com -- Donna Siegel Moffa --
dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Terence S. Ziegler -- tziegler@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA
19087, Counsel for Appellant.

Jonathan S. Massey -- jmassey@masseygail.com -- Massey & Gail, 1000
Maine Avenue, S.W., Suite 450, Washington, DC 20024, Matthew P.
Previn, Buckley, 1133 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 3100, New York,
NY 10036, Counsel for Appellee.

Brian T. Burgess -- bburgess@goodwinlaw.com -- Thomas M. Heffernon
-- thefferon@goodwinlaw.com -- David L. Permut --
dpermut@goodwinlaw.com -- Matthew S. Sheldon --
msheldon@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Proctor, 901 New York Avenue,
N.W., Suite 900 East, Washington, DC 20001, Counsel for Amicus
Appellee.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Grant Suit Asserts ERISA Breach
-----------------------------------------------
Larry M. Grant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Defendant, Case No.
8:19-cv-01808-WFJ-SPF (13th Judicial Circuit Ct., Hillsborough
Cty., Fla.., July 24, 2019) is a complaint for monetary damages
brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA").

Defendant is a foreign corporation with its headquarters in New
York, but is registered to do business in the State of Florida.
Plaintiff Larry M. Grant worked for Defendant for almost six years
as a Merchant Services Specialist and was also a participant in
Defendant's health plan.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the ERISA, as
amended by the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1985 ("COBRA"), by failing to provide Named Plaintiff and the
putative class members he seeks to represent, with a COBRA notice
that complies with the law. Despite having knowledge of and access
to the Department of Labor's Model COBRA form, Defendant chose not
use the model form.

Plaintiff suffered a tangible injury in the form of economic loss,
specifically the loss of insurance coverage and incurred medical
bills, due to Defendant's deficient COBRA election notice. And, not
only did Plaintiff lose his insurance coverage, after Plaintiff
lost his insurance he incurred medical bills resulting in further
economic injury. The defendant's deficient COBRA notice also caused
Plaintiff an informational injury when Defendant failed to provide
them with information to which they were entitled to by statute,
namely a compliant COBRA election notice containing all information
required, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     LUIS A. CABASSA
     BRANDON J. HILL, ESQ.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Main No: 813-224-0431
     Direct Dial: 813-337-7992
     Facsimile: 813-229-8712
     Email: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
            bhill@wfclaw.com
            jcornell@wfclaw.com
            recooke@wfclaw.com
            twells@wfclaw.com

          - and -

     Chad Andrew Justice, Esq.
     JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC
     1205 N Franklin St, Suite 326
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: 813-566-0550
     Facsimile: 813-566-0770
     Email: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com


KELLER WILLIAMS: St. John & Penuela Sue over Unwanted Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANNA ST JOHN and LUIS PENUELA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. KELLER WILLIAMS
REALTY, INC., a Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
6:19-cv-01347 (M.D. Fla., July 22, 2019), contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In response to these calls, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief
requiring Defendant to cease directing its realtors to violate
and/or  ratifying its realtors’ violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by placing unsolicited calls to consumers'
cellular telephone numbers using prerecorded messages and an
automatic telephone dialing system and otherwise calling telephone
numbers registered on the DNC, as well as an award of statutory
damages to the members of the Classes and costs, the lawsuit says.

Keller Williams is one of the largest real estate franchises in the
world.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the putative Classes are:

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

               - and -

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

LAND HOME: Faces Lopez Suit in California Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Land Home Financial
Services Inc. The case is captioned as Lopez, Maria, On behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated and on
behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys
General Act, the Plaintiffs, vs Does 1-100 and Land Home Financial
Services Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 34-2019-00260479-CU-OE-GDS
(Cal. Super., July 12, 2019). The suit alleges employment-related
violation.

Land Home offers diversified funding options to homebuyers,
mortgage brokers, builders, manufactured/modular home and real
estate agents.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Douglas Han,Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3069
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com

LEX 1751: Villegas Seeks Minimum & OT Wages for Laundromat Workers
------------------------------------------------------------------
ERNESTA VILLEGAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LEX 1751 INC (D/B/A A1 LAUNDROMAT),
FORTUNE ONE, INC. (D/B/A AAA LAUNDROMAT), NEKASA, INC. (D/B/A AAA
LAUNDROMAT), AAA LAUNDRY SERVICES, INC. (D/B/A AAA LAUNDROMAT),
KLEENER KING GROUP INC. (D/B/A AAA LAUNDROMAT), FAROOQ IMRAN, ABIDA
IMRAN, and NEIL KAPRE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06782
(S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed as a clothes washer, ironer and folder
at the Laundromat. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that she worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping
of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium, the lawsuit says.

Defendants own, operate, or control three laundromats, located at
1751 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10029 under the name "A1
Laundromat".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

LG ELECTRONICS: Class Suit Over Faulty Fridges Expands to Utah
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Gephardt, writing for KUTV 2News, reports that LG
refrigerators have been failing "en masse." That's the allegation
in a lawsuit filed against the appliance giant.

A class action lawsuit claims there is a "latent defect" with LG
linear compressors which causes them to prematurely fail.

"Despite its knowledge of the compressor defect, LG sold and
continues to sell the LG refrigerators without alerting purchasers
to the problem."

Simon S. Grille, Esq. -- sgrille@girardsharp.com -- is a lawyer
with California based Girard Sharp, the law firm bringing the suit.
He told Get Gephardt that it's a "nationwide case ... which
includes a Utah subclass."

LG declined to comment on the new legal challenge except to say,
"it would be inaccurate to describe this as nationwide." LG
declined to elaborate.

LG has previously told Get Gephardt that LG fridges fail due to
"various factors."

"The good news is that LG refrigerators come with a five-year labor
and 10-year limited warranty on the linear compressor," its
spokesperson previously said.

Over the past year, Get Gephardt has been reporting on consumers in
Utah whose relatively new LG fridges stopped working. Worse, they
have struggled to get their fridges repaired under warranty in a
timely manner

LG has previously told Get Gephardt that LG fridges fail due to
"various factors."

"The good news is that LG refrigerators come with a five-year labor
and 10-year limited warranty on the linear compressor," its
spokesperson previously said.

Get Gephardt reported in April how the compressor on Dave Pickle's
three-year-old LG refrigerator stopped working. It was eventually
repaired under warranty, but between trying to find available parts
and a serviceman available to do the job, Pickle says it took too
long.

"It was like a full month and it was ridiculous," he said.

Last December, Sherry Knight told Get Gephardt her nine-month-old
fridge stopped working. She says repairmen told her repairs could
take several months.

"The more appliance places I call, the more I realize that this is
a bigger issue than just my fridge," she said.

Get Gephardt has also reported on the messy break up between Utah
appliance repair company Appliance Service by Paul and LG.

Owner Paul Dodge said his company was struggling to keep up with
the plethora of LG fridge service calls leading him to make the
decision to sever ties with LG.

LG declined to comment on the break up for the original broadcast
story but, after it aired, claimed LG initiated the break up. [GN]


LOBSTER PLACE: Lopez Seeks Unpaid Overtime Premium
--------------------------------------------------
INES LOPEZ, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
the Class, Plaintiff, v. THE LOBSTER PLACE INC. d/b/a THE CULL &
PISTOL MANHATTAN LOBSTER PLACE, LLC d/b/a THE LOBSTER PLACE SEAFOOD
MARKET and IAN MACGREGOR, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06880 (S.D.
N.Y., July 24, 2019) is a Class and Collective Action Complaint
against Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff seeks to recover from Defendants
unpaid wages due to time shaving, unpaid overtime wages, unpaid
accrued vacation time, unpaid spread of hours premium, improperly
deducted meal credits, statutory penalties, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

From the start of Plaintiff INES LOPEZ's employment with Defendants
through December 2013, she was regularly scheduled to work 40 hours
per week for five days a week. From January 2014 through December
2015, Plaintiff was regularly scheduled to work 50 hours per week
for five days a week. The Defendants knowingly and willfully
operated their business with a policy of failing to pay Plaintiff,
FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members for all hours worked
due to a policy of time shaving. The Defendants unlawfully failed
to compensate Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class
members their proper overtime at one and a half the regular rate
for all hours worked, resulting in unpaid overtime premium, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff INES LOPEZ was hired by Defendants to work as a food
preparer in April 2013. Plaintiff was promoted to a line cook in
January 2014. Plaintiff was promoted to sous chef in January 2016.
On April 9, 2019, Plaintiff resigned.

Defendants collectively own and operate two businesses operating
inside Chelsea Market, named "The Cull & Pistol", and "The Lobster
Place Seafood Market".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10011
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss Briggs Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Deshawn Briggs, et al., Plaintiffs, v. William
Montgomery, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-18-02684-PHX-EJM (D.
Ariz.), Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona denied (i) Defendants Maricopa
County and Maricopa County Attorney William Montgomery's Motion to
Dismiss; and (ii) Defendant Treatment Assessment Screening Center,
Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs filed their first amended class action complaint
("FAC") on Oct. 12, 2018.  They allege civil rights claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments
of the United States Constitution and seek monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs are four named individuals who represent themselves
and a class of similarly situated people.  Their allegations
concern a marijuana deferred prosecution program ("MDPP") operated
by the Maricopa County Attorney's Office ("MCAO") and Treatment
Assessment Screening Center ("TASC").  The Plaintiffs also allege
Defendant Montgomery, the elected County Attorney ("CA") for
Maricopa County, is liable in his official capacity for his role in
operating and administering the diversion program, and that
Montgomery is the final policymaker for Maricopa County on matters
relating to diversion programs.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants jointly operate a possession
of marijuana diversion program that penalizes the poor because of
their poverty.  They state five claims for relief: 1) wealth-based
discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by
Plaintiffs Briggs and Pascale and others similarly situated against
all Defendants for monetary damages; 2) wealth-based discrimination
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by Plaintiff Stephens and
others similarly situated against all Defendants for injunctive
relief, and by Plaintiff Collier on her own behalf against
Defendant TASC for injunctive relief; 3) wealth-based
discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by
Plaintiff Collier against all Defendants for damages and against
Defendant TASC for injunctive relief; 4) unreasonable search and
seizure in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by
Plaintiffs Briggs and Pascale and others similarly situated against
all Defendants for damages; and 5) unreasonable search and seizure
in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by Plaintiff
Stephens and others similarly situated against all the Defendants
for injunctive relief, and by Plaintiff Collier on her own behalf
against Defendant TASC for injunctive relief.

On Nov. 20, 2018, Defendant TASC filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. 36).  It alleges that: "(1) TASC
cannot be liable for any of the harm the Plaintiffs allege; (2)
even if TASC could be liable to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs'
substantive claims (alleging violations of the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments) fail as a matter of law; and (3) even if the
Plaintiffs had a substantive claim for relief, Plaintiff Briggs'
claims are time-barred.  TASC further states that at a minimum, the
Plaintiffs should be required to amend their complaint to clarify
their claims and eliminate immaterial allegations in compliance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.

Also on Nov. 20, 2018, the County Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  They
allege that dismissal is warranted for the following reasons:

     (1) Because the County Attorney acts as a State official, not
a County official, when he establishes and implements a marijuana
deferred prosecution program, the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 Monell
liability claims/requests for relief against the County and County
Attorney must be dismissed [Counts 1-5];

     (2) 11th Amendment sovereign immunity bars Section 1983
damages claims against the County Attorney in his capacity as a
State official; further, the County Attorney in his capacity as a
State official is not a person for purposes of Section 1983.  The
Plaintiffs' Section 1983 damages claims against him thus must be
dismissed [Counts 1, 3 and 4];

     (3) Because the County Attorney's policies and practices in
establishing and implementing a marijuana deferred prosecution
program are prosecutorial functions, absolute prosecutorial
immunity bars the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 damages claims against
the County Attorney [Counts 1, 3 and 4], requiring concomitant
dismissal of the Plaintiffs' redundant Section 1983 damages claims
asserted against the County;

     (4) Plaintiff Briggs' claims [Counts 1 and 4] are statutorily
time-barred; and

     (5) For the reasons set forth in Part IV of TASC's Motion to
Dismiss, he Plaintiffs fail to state claims for relief for alleged
wealth discrimination under the 14th Amendment's Due Process and
Equal Protection Clauses or for alleged unreasonable search and
seizure under the 4th Amendment, as a matter of law [Counts 1-5].

The County Defendants join in parts IV and V of Defendant TASC's
motion to dismiss.

Judge Markovich holds that accepting the Plaintiffs' allegations as
true, as the Court must on a motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs have
sufficiently pled a Section 1983 claim for entity liability against
TASC based on the three challenged policies.  First, Plaintiffs
have sufficiently pled that TASC acted under color of state law via
its agreement with MCAO to operate the MDPP.  Second, the FAC
alleges both formal and informal policies.  Finally, the Plaintiffs
do not challenge the establishment of the program generally -- they
challenge the three specific policies, and the Plaintiffs have pled
that none of these policies were set by state law -- they were
jointly enacted by the CA/MCAO and TASC.

Next, the Judge holds that the FAC states claims against TASC as a
private entity, not individual TASC employees, making qualified
immunity inapplicable.  TASC's main argument in its motion is that
none of the three policies that Plaintiffs challenge exist, and if
they do, the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the CA.  But
there is no evidence before the Court at this time suggesting that
the CA closely supervises TASC in its day to day operations, such
as meeting with program participants, collecting payments, or
administering urine screens.  Further, the principles that
supported an extension of qualified immunity in Filarsky v. Delia
and Young v. Cty. of Hawaii are not present in the case.

Based on TASC's lack of argument on the issue, and because the case
is still in the early stages and discovery may reveal evidence
sufficient to warrant a punitive damages award, the Judge declines
to dismiss the Plaintiff's punitive damages claim at this time.  

The Judge also finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled a
claim under the Fourth Amendment sufficient to survive the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  Discovery will reveal evidence that
will enable the finder of fact to determine whether the
government's interest does outweigh the Plaintiffs' privacy
interests, whether the special needs exception applies, and whether
the Plaintiffs' consent to the urine screens as part of the MDPP's
terms made the searches permissible.

Finally, the Judge concludes that (i) CA acts as a local
policymaker for purposes of the challenged conduct in the suit;
(ii) the FAC has adequately pled policymaking authority by the
county sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss; and (iii)
Plaintiff Briggs' claims are not barred by the statute of
limitations.
Judge Markovich concludes that complaints under the Civil Rights
Act are to be liberally construed.  He cannot say with certainty at
this early stage in the litigation that the Plaintiffs can prove no
set of facts which would entitle them to relief.  Accordingly, he
denied the motions to dismiss.  The efendants will file their
responsive pleadings within 14 days of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/fzG5WW from Leagle.com.

Deshawn Briggs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Mark Pascale, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Taja Collier & McKenna Stephens, Plaintiffs,
represented by Akeeb Dami Animashaun, Civil Rights Corps, Joshua
David R. Bendor -- jbendor@omlaw.com -- Osborn Maledon PA,
Katherine Chamblee-Ryan, Civil Rights Corps & Timothy Joel Eckstein
-- teckstein@omlaw.com -- Osborn Maledon PA.

William Montgomery, in his official capacity as County Attorney of
Maricopa County & County of Maricopa, Defendants, represented by
Ann Thompson Uglietta, Maricopa County Attorneys Office - Civil
Services Division, Jennifer Gail Lockerby, Maricopa County
Attorneys Office - Civil Services Division & Joseph James Branco,
Maricopa County Attorneys Office.

Treatment Assessment Screening Center Incorporated, Defendant,
represented by Kelly Ann Kszywienski -- kkszywienski@swlaw.com --
Snell & Wilmer LLP & Robert Arthur Henry -- bhenry@swlaw.com --
Snell & Wilmer LLP.


MATCHESFASHION INC: Reid Sues over Civil Rights Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Matchesfashion,
Inc. for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990. The case is captioned Valentin Reid, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Matchesfashion,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-06548-PAE-KHP (S.D.N.Y., July 15,
2019). This civil rights-related lawsuit is assigned to Hon. Judge
Paul A. Engelmayer.

Matchesfashion describes itself as a modern luxury shopping
destination for the confident global fashion customer. The company
sells clothing, bags and accessories from over 450 established and
innovative designers, including Prada, Gucci and Balenciaga to
Saint Laurent, Halpern and Wales Bonner. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Paul Force, Esq.
     STEIN SAKS, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Telephone: (201) 282-6500
     E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com

MATTERPORT INC: Kenner Sues over False Advertising
--------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Matterport, Inc.
for alleged violations of the Seller Assisted Marketing Plan (SAMP)
Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False
Advertising Law in connection with its false enticement of a
lucrative business opportunity. The case is captioned GEORGE
KENNER, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. MATTERPORT, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 19CV350887
(Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., July 15, 2019).

Plaintiff brings this proposed class action pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and corresponding California
Rules of Court governing class actions on behalf of all California
purchasers of Matterport's 3D scanner equipment at any time from
four years prior to the commencement of this action until the
commencement of trial. While Matterport has engaged in business as
a SAMP entity for several years, it never complied with any aspect
of the SAMP Act, did not provide required disclosures, did not
honor any geographic limitations, saturated an ill-defined and
non-lucrative market, and did not register with the California
Office of Attorney General.

Headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, Matterport is engaged in
business throughout California and engages in soliciting contracts
for SAMP related to its 3D Camera products and Cloud Storage
services through what is referred to by the company as the
Matterport Service Partner program. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
     Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
     J. Jason Hill, Esq.
     COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
     605 "C" Street, Suite 200
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 595-3001
     Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
     E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
             ikhoury@ckslaw.com
             jhill@ckslaw.com

MDL 2433: Bid to Apply Tort Reform Act to Swartz's Claims Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8
PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION. This document relates to: Angela and
Teddy Swartz v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, et al., Case
No. 2:18-cv-136, Civil Action No. 2:13-md-2433 (S.D. Ohio), Judge
Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, denied the Defendant's Motion
to Apply the Ohio Tort Reform Act or, in the Alternative, for
Certification to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Defendant E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.'s release of C-8 into
the environment, the resulting Leach class action, and Leach
Settlement Agreement are well-documented on the Court's docket.
DuPont began releasing C-8 into the environment around the
Washington Works plant in the 1950s and contaminated the water
supply in several water districts in Ohio and West Virginia.

Mrs. Swartz and her husband filed the first Post-Settlement Case
scheduled for trial in the multidistrict litigation.  Mrs. Swartz
alleges that she is a member of the Leach class (i.e., for at least
one year prior to Dec. 4, 2004, she consumed drinking water
containing .05 ppb or greater of C-8 attributable to releases from
Washington Works), and that she suffered from kidney cancer, which
is a Probable Link Disease, (i.e., for Mrs. Swartz it is more
likely than not that there is a link between her exposure to C-8
and her kidney cancer).

DuPont moves for the Court to apply the Ohio Tort Reform Act to the
Swartz's claims.  It raises three issues related to the Ohio Tort
Reform Act in its motion: (1) Application of the Ohio Tort Reform
Act to the Swartz's claims, (2) Whether an Exception for
Catastrophic Injury Applies, and (3) Certification of the Issues to
the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Plaintiffs argue that, in the event the Tort Reform Act applies
to Mrs. Swartz's claims, an exception to the Act applies to her.
DuPont argues that where it is clear that the statutory exceptions
are inapplicable, courts have not hesitated to decide the issue
prior to trial.  The Plaintiffs, however, contend that they have at
a minimum provided sufficient evidence to the Court to raise a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Mrs. Swartz's injuries
resulted in permanent and substantial physical injury.  Judge
Sargus agrees.  Courts have found this type of evidence sufficient
for submission to a jury to determine whether it constitutes
permanent and substantial physical injury.

The Defendants ask that if the Court is "disinclined to reach the
result" for which they move, the Court should certify the question
of whether the Ohio Tort Reform applies to Mrs. Swartz's claim.

Judge Sargus holds that in the instant action, the Court can
resolve the issue with the available research materials at hand.
Indeed, the Court has addressed this issue at length several times,
finding Ohio law supports the conclusions it has reached.  Thus,
certification would entail more delay and expense than is
acceptable in the action.  Accordingly, the Judge declines to
certify the Tort Reform issue to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Based on the foregoing, the Judge denied the Defendant's Motion to
Apply the Ohio Tort Reform Act or, in the Alternative, for
Certification to the Ohio Supreme Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3HUhpK from Leagle.com.

Thomas Yakubik, Ronald Bachtel, Cheryl Durst, Robert Durst, Larry
Turley, Linda Turley, Sharon Arnott, Kathy Willis & Troy Willis,
Plaintiffs, represented by David G. Utley, Collins, Roche, Utley &
Garner, LLC, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio
44145, Jon C. Conlin, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, Michael A.
London, Douglas & London, PC, 59 Maiden Ln, 6th Floor, New York,
NY
10038, pro hac vice, Ethan T. Vessels, Fields, Dehmlow & Vessels
LLC, 309 2nd St., Marietta, OH 45750-2921 & Gregory Harold
Collins,
Collins, Roche, Utley & Garner, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500,
Cleveland, Ohio 44145

Betty Bragg, Lotie Cline, Linda Davis, Crystal Forshey, Vicky
Lightfritz, Willard Lightfritz, Kathy Lowe, Kit McPeek-Stalnaker,
Thomas Eugene Molden, Jack Offenberger, Kay Sheridan, Herbert
Short, John Wright & Amber Wriston, Plaintiffs, represented by
Debra Anne Nelson dnelson@debranelsonlaw.com -- The Nelson Law
Firm, LLC, Jon C. Conlin, Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, 875
Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio 44145, Michael A.
London, Douglas & London, PC, pro hac vice, Nina M. Towle, Cory
Watson Attorneys, pro hac vice & Richard A. Wright, Cory Watson
Attorneys, 875 Westpoint Parkway, Suite 500, Cleveland, Ohio
44145,
pro hac vice.

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Defendant, represented by
Damond R. Mace -- damond.mace@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP, Aaron Todd Brogdon -- aaron.brogdon@squirepb.com --
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Aneca E. Lasley --
aneca.lasley@squirepb.com -- Squire Sanders (US) LLP, C. Craig
Woods -- craig.woods@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US)LLP,
Clifford F. Kinney, Jr. -- ckinney@spilman.com -- Spilman Thomas &
Battle, PLLC, pro hac vice, D. Patrick Long --
patrick.long@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,David J.
Millstone, pro hac vice, John K. Sherk -- jsherk@shb.com -- SHOOK,
HARDY & BACON LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin T. Van Wart --
kevin.vanwart@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, pro hac vice.


MDL 2741: Munkres v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terrill J. Munkres, Individually and as Anticipated Executor of the
Estate of Billy G. Munkres, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and
JOHN DOES 1-50, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv- 1174 (Filed May 3, 2019) was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on July 22, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-04161-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-8111
          Facsimile: 314-241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone (516) 723-4631
          Facsimile (516) 723-4731
          E-mail: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com

MDL 2741: Smith v. Monsanto over Roundup Sales Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
IRENE M. SMITH and DAVID B. SMITH, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, a Delaware Corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-1175 (Filed May 3, 2019) was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco) on July 22, 2019. The Northern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:19-cv-04164-VC to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 North Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: 314-241-8111
          Facsimile: 314-241-5554
          E-mail: eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone (516) 723-4631
          Facsimile (516) 723-4731
          E-mail: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com

MILFORD NISSAN: Pepper Seeks Overtime Wages for Sales Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, THOMAS PEPPER, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MILFORD NISSAN CORP.
and JEFFREY BATTA, the Defendants, Case No. 19-2007 (Mass. Super.,
July 12, 2019), alleges that Defendants failed to pay overtime
wages and Sunday Premium Pay, as required by state law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and putative class
members are former and current employees of the Defendants engaged
in the sale of automobiles and related products. They work on
Sundays and in excess of 40 hours per week, but are not paid
overtime for their overtime hours nor Sunday Premium Pay for their
work on Sundays in violation of Massachusetts law.

Milford Nissan is a company operating a car dealership and selling
vehicles in Massachusetts.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Stephanie C. Ozahowski, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          99 High Street, Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com
                  nfo@mass-legal.com
                  sco@mass-legal.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Hitchens Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMOND HITCHENS, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02119 (E.D. Mo., July 23, 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. The
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:

          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: Jones-Basler et al Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CAITLIN JONES-BASLER, JOHNNY QUINONEZ, VANESSA MOORE,
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00953 (Filed on May 24, 2019), was transferred
from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California to the United States District Court for 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-03536-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.

With a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto
Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation
that is regarded as the world's leading producer of glyphosate.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gerald Singleton, Esq.
     Mark F. Fleming, Esq.
     John C. Lemon, Esq.
     Erika L. Vasquez, Esq.
     SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC
     450 A Street, 5th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 771-3473
     Facsimile: (619) 255-1515
     E-mail: gerald@slffirm.com
             mark@slffirm.com
             john@slffirm.com
             erika@slffirm.com

             - and -

     Timothy A. Scott, Esq.
     Nicolas O. Jimenez, Esq.
     SCOTT TRIAL LAWYERS, APC
     1350 Columbia Street, Suite 600
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 794-0451
     Facsimile: (619) 652-9964
     E-mail: tas@scotttriallawyers.com
             noj@scotttriallawyers.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Mason Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
The case, ELIZABETH MASON, Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-01421 (Filed on May 24, 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-03548-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.

With a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto
Company 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: Noe Estate Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM NOE, through Personal
Representative, TERESA NOE, Individually, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:19-cv-00135 (Filed on May 31, 2019),
was transferred from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky 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-03538-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.

With a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto
Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation
that is regarded as the world's leading producer of glyphosate.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jillian M. Scheyer, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF JILLIAN M. SCHEYER
     2656 Crescent Springs Rd.
     Crescent Springs, KY 41017
     Telephone: (859) 803-7949
     E-mail: jill@jmslaw.org

             - and -

     Jason Edward Ochs, Esq.
     OCHS LAW FIRM, PC
     690 US 89, Ste. 206
     PO Box 10944
     Jackson Hole, WY 83001
     Telephone: (307) 234.3239
     E-mail: jason@ochslawfirm.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Osborne Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES OSBORNE, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02127 (E.D. Mo., July 23, 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. The
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:

          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: Ponzini Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, LARRY PONZINI, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY CORPORATION
and BAYER U.S., LLC. Defendants, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00747
(Filed on May 16, 2019), was transferred from the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alamaba 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-03535-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.

With a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto
Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation
that is regarded as the world's leading producer of glyphosate.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
     MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
     301 Washington Street, Suite 302
     Huntsville, AL 35801
     Telephone: (256) 532-2222
     Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
     E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com


MONSANTO COMPANY: Prinses' Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case, CURTIS A. PRINS, and ALTHEA A. PRINS, Plaintiffs, v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00648 (Filed on May
16, 2019), was transferred from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Alabama 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-03568-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.

With a principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, Monsanto
Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation
that is regarded as the world's leading producer of glyphosate.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Willard J. Moody, Jr., Esq.
     Jonathan A. Hogins, Esq.
     THE MOODY LAW FIRM
     500 Crawford Street, Suite 200
     Portsmouth, VA 23704
     Telephone: (757) 393-6020
     Facsimile: (757) 399-3019
     E-mail: will@moodyrrlaw.com
             jhogins@moodyrrlaw.com

              - and -                        

     Jennifer A. Moore, Esq.
     Ashton Rose Smith, 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
             ashton@moorelawgroup.com

MOON RIDGE: Morris Moves for Class Certification Under WARN Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DAWN MORRIS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. MOON RIDGE FOODS, LLC,
and HERITAGE FOODS HOLDINGS, LLC, and VERO FOODS, LLC, Case No.
6:18-cv-03219-SRB (W.D. Mo.), moves the Court for an order
certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the specific statutory provision contemplating
class treatment of claims under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification (WARN) Act.

The proposed class is comprised of:

     all former employees who worked at or reported to the
     facility located at 5305 Highway H Pleasant Hope, MO 65725
     (the "Facility") until they were allegedly laid off,
     furloughed and/or terminated, without cause on their part,
     on or about January 11, 2018, within thirty days of that
     date or thereafter, as part of, or as the reasonably
     expected consequence of, the mass layoff and/or plant
     closing occurring on or about January 11, 2018, or
     thereafter, and who do not file a timely request to opt-out
     of the class ("Class").

Ms. Morris also asks the Court to appoint her as Class
Representative, to appoint The Gardner Firm, P.C., Lankenau &
Miller, LLP and Rouse, Frets, White, Goss, Gentile, Rhodes, P.C. as
Class Counsel and to approve the form and manner of Notice to the
Class.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
          M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
          THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
          182 St. Francis Street, Suite 103
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433-8100
          Facsimile: (251) 433-8181
          E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com
                  vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com

               - and -

          Randall L. Rhodes, Esq.
          Christopher L. Kurtz, Esq.
          ROUSE FRETS WHITE GOSS GENTILE RHODES, P.C.
          5250 W. 116th Place, Suite 400
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 387-1600
          Facsimile: (913) 928-6739
          E-mail: rrhodes@rousepc.com
                  ckurtz@rousepc.com

               - and -

          Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
          LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
          132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 581-5005
          Facsimile: (212) 581-2122
          E-mail: sjm@lankmill.com


NAVIGANT CYMETRIX: Chicas Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as Amaris Chicas, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Navigant
Cymetrix Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, the, Defendant, Case No. 19STCV19239, was removed
from the  Los Angeles Superior Court, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles) on July 12, 2019. The Central District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06021-JFW-PLA to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John F. Walter.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Navigant Healthcar, a comprehensive revenue cycle management
company, provides healthcare organizations and hospital-affiliated
physician practices with custom revenue cycle solutions and
consulting services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Alexandra Rochelle McIntosh, Esq.
          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          William Matthew Pao, Esq.
          STEAREH LAW GROUP
          315 South Beverly Drive Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: alex@setarehlaw.com
                  shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  william@setarehlaw.com

Attorneys for Navigant Cymetrix Corporation are:

          Thomas E. Hill, Esq.
          Christina Theresa Tellado, Esq.
          Samuel J Stone, Esq.
          HOLLAND AND KNIGHT LLP
          400 South Hope Street 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 896-2400
          Facsimile: (213) 896-2450
          E-mail: thomas.hill@hklaw.com
                  christina.tellado@hklaw.com
                  samuel.stone@hklaw.com

NETFLIX, INC: Securities Statements Misleading, Wallerstein Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHAN WALLERSTEIN, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NETFLIX, INC., REED
HASTINGS, AND SPENCER NEUMANN, the Defendants, Case No.
5:19-cv-04195-LHK (N.D. Cal., July 22, 2019), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' alleged violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
Netflix between April 17, 2019 and July 17, 2019, both dates
inclusive.

On April 16, 2019, after market hours, Netflix published its letter
to shareholders which reported on the first quarter of 2019. The
letter to shareholders included forecasts for the second quarter of
2019.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Netflix would not be able to
gain its expected target number of new subscribers in the second
quarter of 2019; (2) Netflix would also lose subscribers from the
United States in the second quarter of 2019; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On July 17, 2019, after the market closed, Netflix released a
letter to shareholders which revealed that Netflix missed its
expected target for number of new subscribers. On this news, shares
of Netflix plummeted $47.34 per share, or over 13%, from over the
next two trading days to close at $315.10 per share on July 19,
2019, damaging investors.

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

Netflix, Inc. is an American media-services provider and production
company headquartered in Los Gatos, California, founded in 1997 by
Reed Hastings and Marc Randolph in Scotts Valley, California.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Certification of Involuntary Detainees Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JOHN DOE, CHARLES COE, JANE
ROE, and DEBORAH A. TAYLOR AS GUARDIAN OF SCOTT STEPHEN JOHNSTONE,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. JEFFREY A. MEYERS, Commissioner of the New Hampshire
Department of Health and Human Services, in his official capacity,
and SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE MEDICAL CENTER, CONCORD HOSPITAL, ST.
JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, and MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, and DAVID D. KING,
Administrative Judge of the New Hampshire Circuit Court, in his
official capacity, Necessary Third-Party Pursuant to Rule 19(a),
Case No. 1:18-cv-01039-JD (D.N.H.), ask the Court to:

   (1) certify the proposed class of:

       all person "who are currently being, have been, or will be
       involuntarily detained in a non-DRF hospital under RSA
       135-C:27–33 without having been given a probable cause
       hearing by the State of New Hampshire within three days
       (not including Sundays and holidays) of the completion of
       an involuntary emergency admission certificate";

   (2) approve Plaintiffs John Doe, Charles Coe, Jane Roe, and
       Deborah A. Taylor as class representatives; and

   (3) appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class.

There is a systemic pattern and practice in New Hampshire where
people who may be experiencing mental health crises are
involuntarily detained in hospital emergency rooms without the
State providing them with any due process, appointed counsel, or
opportunity to contest their detention. This practice is known as
"psychiatric boarding," the Plaintiffs allege.  As of October 31,
2018, approximately 46 adults and 4 children were being
involuntarily "boarded" in emergency rooms under RSA 135-C:27–33
while awaiting admission to a Designated Receiving Facility
("DRF"), the Plaintiff say.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq.
          Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
          18 Low Avenue Concord, NH 03301
          Telephone: (603) 224-5591
          E-mail: gilles@aclu-nh.org
                  henry@aclu-nh.org

               - and -

          Theodore E. Tsekerides, Esq.
          Lara E. Veblen Trager, Esq.
          Aaron J. Curtis, Esq.
          Aaron J. Shaddy, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
          E-mail: theodore.tsekerides@weil.com
                  lara.trager@weil.com
                  aaron.curtis@weil.com
                  aaron.shaddy@weil.com


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Caluda Class Certification Bid, Complaint Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT J. CALUDA, APLC, ET
AL., the Plaintiffs. vs. THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-02497-SM-JCW (E.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge Susie Morgan entered an order on July 19, 2019:

   1. granting motion to dismiss, filed by Defendants
      Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, L.L.P. and United
      Governmental Services of Louisiana, Inc. pursuant to Rule
      12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

   2. dismissing with prejudice Plaintiffs' claims against
      Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, L.L.P. and United
      Governmental Services of Louisiana, Inc.; and

   3. denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification.

The Plaintiffs brought the claim against Linebarger and UGSL
seeking money they paid to the City, and the City subsequently paid
to Linebarger and UGSL. The Plaintiffs argued Linebarger and UGSL
were not authorized by law to engage in collection activities
because they did not register as debt collectors with the
state.[CC]

NEW YORK: Sued Over Religious Exemption Vaccination Law
-------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Keyser and Ben Sales, writing for Jerusalem Post, report
that the first of multiple foreseeable lawsuits attempting to
reverse a recent bill passed throughout the state of New York that
eliminates religious exemptions from school vaccination rules was
filed in Albany, New York.

In April, the city declared a public health emergency over a
measles outbreak, mandating people in four Williamsburg zip codes
to vaccinate. The city also announced it would be closing schools
in Williamsburg that allow unvaccinated students to attend. Nine of
the 10 schools closed thus far are in Williamsburg. The 10th is in
the borough of Queens.

“Religious rights are fundamental. It is unconstitutional for the
state to deprive people of such important rights when religious
animus has played a key role," said one of the lawyers representing
the case, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., also chairman of the
anti-vaccination nonprofit Children's Health Defense group.

The lawsuit, filed by fifty-five families, is attempting to seek
class-action status, claiming the law is "unconstitutional and
violates religious freedom."

Lawyers include Michael Sussman, most notable for representing a
group of parents who sued Rockland County for excluding their
unvaccinated children from New York schools, and Kennedy, notably
the chairman of an anti-vaccination group, as stated earlier.

Sussman and Kennedy are seeking a "temporary restraining order"
against the recently passed bill -- naming the state of New York,
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York Attorney General Letitia
James as defendants. [GN]


NUDGE LLC: Court Dismisses Just Us RICO Suit Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUST US REALTORS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NUDGE, LLC, BUYPD, LLC,
INCOME PROPERTY USA, LLC, INSIDER'S CASH, LLC, RYAN POELMAN,
GUARDIAN LAW, LLC, AMERICAN LEGAL & ESCROW, LLC, INVICTUS LAW, LLC,
and BLAIR R. JACKSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00128-TC-CMR (D.
Utah), Judge Tena Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah, Central Division, granted the Defendants' four
motions to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), but allowed Just Us Realtors to file a motion to amend
with a proposed amended complaint to cure the pleading
deficiencies.

Plaintiff Just Us Realtors filed the case, a putative class action,
against a number of individuals and limited liability corporations
that sold and financed real estate through investor training
seminars.  Just Us Realtors, which bought a house through the
seminars, alleges that the Defendants misrepresented the ownership
and value of the real estate it offered for sale and fraudulently
induced it and other investors to overpay for property. It brings
claims under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO") and state law.

The Defendants in the case fall into one of three categories
depending on their role in the alleged scheme to sell real estate:
(1) the "Property Defendants": Nudge, LLC; Buy PD, LLC; Income
Property USA, LLC; and Ryan Poelman; (2) the "Cash Defendant":
Insider's Cash, LLC; and (3) the "Attorney Defendants": Blair R.
Jackson and three law firms he allegedly controls or
represents—Invictus Law, LLC; Guardian Law, LLC; and American
Legal & Escrow, LLC.

According to the complaint, the Property Defendants canvassed the
United States for sellers of distressed real estate.  Rather than
buy the real estate outright, the Property Defendants entered into
contingency agreements to buy the real estate themselves only after
securing customers who would buy the same real estate at a
significant markup.  And to recruit their customers, the Property
Defendants organized real estate investment training seminars
sponsored by Scott and Amie Yancey from the television show
"Flipping Las Vegas."  At the initial free training seminars, the
Property Defendants offered attendees the chance to pay for
additional seminars that culminated with the "Buying Summit" -- an
event in Las Vegas at which the Property Defendants would offer
"exclusive access" to buy the distressed properties, which they
called "turnkey" "performing assets."

Just Us Realtors filed the case as a class action, alleging
violations of RICO as well as state law claims of civil conspiracy,
breach of fiduciary duty (and aiding and abetting the breach), and
fraud against each Defendant.

The Defendants have arranged themselves into four groups for the
purpose of defending the lawsuit: (1) American Legal & Escrow,
Invictus Law, and Mr. Jackson ("Jackson Defendants"); (2) Insider's
Cash; (3) Nudge, BuyPD, Income Property USA, and Mr. Poelman
("Poelman Defendants"); and (4) Guardian Law.  Each group has filed
a motion to dismiss pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).  The Defendant groups all raise essentially the same
arguments concerning the sufficiency of Just Us Realtors' Complaint
-- that Just Us Realtors has not pled sufficient facts to support
RICO or state law claims, and has not pled the alleged fraud with
particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).

Judge Campbell finds that Just Us Realtors has adequately pled the
existence of an enterprise composed of every Defendant but Invictus
Law.  According to the facts alleged in the complaint, the
Defendants worked together as "strategic partners" for the purpose
of selling and financing real estate.  BuyPD and Income Property
USA -- both controlled by Mr. Poelman -- advertised and offered the
real estate for sale, Insider's Cash financed the sales, and
Guardian Law and American Legal & Escrow -- both controlled by Mr.
Jackson -- facilitated the closing process.  Tgether, these
Defendants formed an enterprise distinct from each person and
company.

The Judge then finds that Just Us Realtors has failed to allege
that Invictus Law participated in the enterprise.  Just Us Realtors
claims that Invictus Law helped conceal the Defendants' allegedly
fraudulent scheme when its attorney, Bill Knowlton, sent Just Us
Realtors and other Buying Summit attendees the 2016 email on behalf
of BuyPD in which it sought to address growing concerns about the
Summit.  The allegations  suggest only after-the-fact legal
representation, not that Invictus Law participated in the operation
of the larger enterprise to sell real estate at the Buying Summit.
For this reason, the RICO claim against Invictus Law must be
dismissed.

As to pattern of racketeering activity claim, the Judge finds that
the complaint does contain some concrete allegations of wire use.
Ms. Hoard received two emails in April of 2015 -- one from American
Legal & Escrow, and another from Mr. Payne, who represented BuyPD.
But, even assuming that Just Us Realtors had adequately pled the
existence of a fraudulent scheme, these communications would amount
to just one predicate act committed by each of these Defendants.
Just Us Realtors has not adequately alleged that any of the
individual Defendants committed at least two RICO predicate acts,
whether mail, wire, or travel fraud.  As a consequence, its RICO
claims must be dismissed.

Just Us Realtors has also adequately alleged injury to its
business, as well as causation.  It spent tens of thousands of
dollars to purchase the St. Louis house at an inflated price.
Because of the Defendants' misrepresentations about the value of
the house, it took out a balloon-payment bridge loan that it could
not refinance.  As for causation, Just Us Realtors alleges -- and
facts support -- that had Ms. Hoard and/or Mr. Foster known the
truth about the house, they would not have permitted Defendants to
consummate the real estate transaction.  While Just Us Realtors'
RICO claims are deficient in other respects, it has adequately pled
damages and causation.

Because Just Us Realtors has failed to plead RICO claims against
the Defendants, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over
the case.  

The Judge further finds that Just Us Realtors has not pled
sufficient facts to infer damages in excess of $75,000.  She
cannot, at this time, infer amounts in controversy that warrant
diversity jurisdiction or CAFA jurisdiction.  Since Just Us
Realtors has not pled a basis for original or supplemental
jurisdiction over any of the state law claims, the Judge must
dismiss the entire complaint.

Just Us Realtors requested leave to amend its complaint in its
opposition brief, but the Court's local rules prohibit motions from
being made in a response or reply memorandum. DUCivR 7-1(b)(1)(A).
Instead, Just Us Realtors may file a separate motion for leave to
amend its complaint within 28 days of the date of the Order, and
include with its motion a proposed amended complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Campbell granted the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss, and Just Us Realtors' complaint is dismissed
without prejudice.  Just Us Realtors may file a motion to amend its
complaint, along with a proposed amended complaint, within 28 days
of the date of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Order and Memorandum
Decision is available at https://is.gd/96ev1j from Leagle.com.

Just Us Realtors, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Hutton, HUTTON LAW
GROUP, Jon V. Harper -- jharper@jonharperlaw.com -- HARPER LAW PLC
& M. Denise Dalton, HARPER LAW PLC.

Nudge LLC, BuyPD, Income Property USA & Ryan Poelman, Defendants,
represented by Graden P. Jackson -- gjackson@strongandhanni.com --
STRONG & HANNI & H. Scott Jacobson, Jr. --
sjacobson@strongandhanni.com -- STRONG & HANNI.

Insiders Cash, Defendant, represented by Matthew C. Barneck --
matthew-barneck@rbmn.com -- RICHARDS BRANDT MILLER NELSON & John
Edward Keiter, Jr., RICHARDS BRANDT MILLER NELSON.

Guardian Law, Defendant, represented by G. James Christiansen --
jchristiansen@goodwin.com -- GUARDIAN LAW.

American Legal & Escrow, Invictus Law & Blair R. Jackson,
Defendants, represented by Adam M. Pace -- amp@scmlaw.com -- SNOW
CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU & Keith A. Call -- kcall@scmlaw.com --
SNOW
CHRISTENSEN & MARTINEAU.


OCWEN LOAN: Stromberg Renews Bid for Approval of $575,000 Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled BONNIE LYNNE STROMBERG, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, MORGAN STANLEY PRIVATE BANK, N.A., RBS CITIZENS,
N.A., and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-55, Case No. 3:15-cv-04719-JST (N.D.
Cal.), renews her motion for an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of the Stipulation and
      Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the parties proposed
      to settle this action on a class wide basis;

   2. finding that final approval of the proposed Settlement
      under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
      and certification of the class for purposes of judgment on
      the proposed Settlement is likely;

   3. directing Notice to the Settlement Class in the form and
      manner set forth in the Settlement Agreement or in such
      other form and manner determined by the Court to be
      appropriate pursuant to Rules 23(c)(2) and (e)(1); and

   4. scheduling a fairness hearing consistent with the time
      frame and process set forth in the Settlement Agreement and
      this Motion.

As renegotiated, the settlement is a common fund settlement in the
amount of $575,000 that would resolve the entirety of the class
claims asserted in this case (there were originally "Doe"
defendants also named and the putative class claims against them
were dismissed).  It is a direct-pay settlement; in other words,
there are no claims forms to be filled out--if the Settlement is
ultimately approved, the 867 Settlement Class Members will get
directly paid by check.  There is also no reversion: any funds that
ultimately might remain (due, for example, to uncashed settlement
checks) will (if approved) get paid to a cy pres recipient,
Self-help Enterprises, a non-profit agency that provides
counseling, among other services, to homeowners and potential
homeowners in California, an appropriate cy pres recipient inasmuch
as the claims in this case relate to homeownership and mortgages in
California and inasmuch as none of the parties have any
relationship with Self-help Enterprises.

Assuming that the entirety of the requested attorneys' expenses and
fee request is approved, as is the named Plaintiff case
contribution award, the 867 borrowers in the Settlement Class will
each receive approximately $334 per loan, or 67% of the full
recovery of the $500 maximum to which they would be entitled if the
Plaintiff were to prevail at trial.  In the event that the Court
does not approve the entirety of the fee and cost request or the
case contribution award, the unapproved amounts will be included in
the distribution to the Settlement Class members.  Additionally,
the costs of claims administration are estimated to be under
$10,000, which is an exceedingly small amount for a class
settlement administration, much less for a settlement of over half
a million dollars.

The amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by
the Court, up to a maximum of $275,000, and the amount of any case
contribution award to the Plaintiff approved by the Court, up to a
maximum of $5,000.

The Court will commence a hearing on September 11, 2019, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
          Mark T. Johnson, Esq.
          Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
                  mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com
                  kbates@schneiderwallace.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Collins, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
                  elechtzin@bm.net

               - and -

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com

               - and -

          Charles Delbaum, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 617-542-8010
          Facsimile: 617-542-8033
          E-mail: cdelbaum@nclc.org


PETERSON'S HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Sued over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SCHAMY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. PETERSON'S HARLEY-DAVIDSON SOUTH, LLC,
a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-23015-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 19, 2019), contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a Harley Davidson motorcycle dealership. To
promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process. The Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s illegal conduct, which has
resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff
also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of
the class, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          19495 Biscayne Blvd. No. 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: 305-975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                  utanski@edelsberglaw.com

PFIZER INC: Judge Refuses to Certify Class in Robitussin Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge declined to
certify a class, but denied Pfizer summary judgment on claims it
charged more for Maximum Strength Robitussin cough syrup than for
Regular Strength Robitussin, when the former had a lower
concentration of active ingredients than the latter.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at:

         https://is.gd/ZzkH6Y


PLAN B WELLNESS: Arneaud Suit Asserts TCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------------
BRANDON ARNEAUD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PLAN B WELLNESS CENTER LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 0:19-cv-61880-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July 25, 2019) is a putative
class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

In efforts to drum-up business, Defendant would often send
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 TCPA, notes the complaint. These messages were sent
using mass-automated technology through a third-party company hired
by Defendant to send marketing text messages on Defendant's behalf
en masse. Accordingly, Defendant knowingly and willfully violated
the TCPA, causing injuries to Plaintiff and members of the putative
class, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance,
intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Broward County,
Florida.

Defendant owns and operates a medical marijuana dispensary business
in Detroit, Michigan, that sells and markets products both on-line,
as well as in-person.[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
     Phone: 954-907-1136
     Fax: 855-529-9540
     Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
            tom@jibraellaw.com



PORT RESOURCES: 1st Cir. Affirms Treble Damages Award to Giguere
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, DAVID GIGUERE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
KELLON ALEXIS; SYLVIA OUELLETTE; LINDA PERRY; LEE SOUTHWICK;
KIMBERLY FARRELL; MARY FEELEY; LINDSAY GAGNE; JERRY GARCIA; CRYSTAL
JACKMAN; RYAN JARRELL; RENEE JORDAN; CHRISTINE POORE; BRIE GAIA
REED; NEVERLY RUDA; ZU-CHYUN SPEAKER; RENOVAT BARAGENGANA; ROBERT
BISSELL; THERESA BISSELL; LONG CAO; DARREN CHEVRIER; KENNETH COLE;
CYNTHIA COOKINGHAM; SUSAN DESJARDINS; JOHN FARRELL; ROBERT BROGDEN;
DEBRA DOW; PAIGE HARRIS; SUSAN MacDONALD; ERIC NKURUNZIZA; EULADE
NKURUNZIZA, Plaintiffs, v. PORT RESOURCES INC., Defendant,
Appellant/Cross-Appellee, Case Nos. 18-2073, 18-2163 (1st Cir.),
Judge Sandra Lynch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit affirmed the district court's award of treble damages to
Plaintiff Giguere as a remedy for Port Resources' Wages Act
violation.

The Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") sets federal minimum-wage,
maximum-hour, and overtime guarantees.  When an employer fails to
meet these requirements, the FLSA gives employees a private right
of action to recover their due.  Giguere, a former Port Resources
employee, sued Port Resources, alleging that its sleep-time policy
violated the FLSA; the Maine Wages and Medium of Payment Act; and
the Maine Minimum Wage Law.

The district court conditionally granted collective action status
for the FLSA claim, and 30 individual employees besides Giguere
opted in.  Giguere brought his Maine claims only on his own
behalf.

Both parties moved for summary judgment.  Port Resources, disputes
that such wages are owed.  Under its sleep-time policy, Port
Resources did not pay employees like Plaintiff Giguere for eight
hours each night, even though the employees were on duty during
that time.

The district court found that this policy was unlawful, Giguere v.
Port Res., Inc. (Giguere I),  and so awarded back wages to the
collective-action Plaintiffs and treble damages to Giguere, Giguere
v. Port Res., Inc. (Giguere II).

Both parties appealed.

Finding no error in the district court's carefully reasoned
opinions, Judge Lynch affirmed.  She finds that Section 785.23
advances that purpose by carefully distinguishing between "live-in"
employees, who are essentially at home on the employer's premises,
and nonresidential employees, who are not.  And DOL's
interpretation of that regulation, as the Court has construed it,
provides a useful frame of reference -- the workweek -- to analyze
that distinction.  Applying that interpretation, the Judge holds
that Port Resources has not carried the burden necessary to invoke
section 785.23.  She affirmed the district court's finding that
Port Resources' sleep-time policy violated the FLSA.

The Judge also finds that district court properly awarded Giguere
treble damages as a remedy for Port Resources' Wages Act violation.
The Wages Act provides a remedy for unpaid work, while the Minimum
Wage Law provides a remedy for underpaid work.  And because this is
the case, Port Resources' superfluity argument is meritless.

Costs are awarded to Giguere.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/klu22B from Leagle.com.


PRO TREE: $78,500 Settlement Reached in Hernandez Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known
and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. PRO TREE SERVICE, INC., and JOHN
ANDREW BAIO, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04503
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:

   1. granting motion for preliminary approval of the
      stipulation of settlement;

   2. approving class certification and collective action
      certification of the class of:

      "all hourly employees employed by Defendants between June
      28, 2015 and June 28, 2018";

   3. approving notice of class action, proposed settlement
      and hearing;

   4. authorizing notice to the class;

   5. setting a date for the fairness hearing; and

   6. entering proposed order of preliminary approval.

The Defendant has agreed to fund a Total Settlement Amount of
$78,500.

The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees at time and a half their regular rate
for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work
weeks.[CC]

Attorney for the Plaintiff is:

          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          NATIONAL LEGAL ADVOCACY NETWORK
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1224
          Chicago, IL 60604

PUTNAM COUNTY, TN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Rich Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
TERRY RICH, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. PUTNAM COUNTY, TENNESSEE, Case No.
2:19-cv-00056 (M.D. Tenn., July 17, 2019), is brought as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
because of the Defendant's alleged unlawful deprivation of the
Plaintiff's rights to overtime compensation.

Mr. Rich is an employee of the Putnam County Emergency Medical
Services Department.  He seeks a declaratory judgment under 28
U.S.C. Section 2201 and compensation, damages, equitable relief,
and other relief available under the FLSA.

Putnam County is a political subdivision organized under the laws
of the state of Tennessee, with the power to sue and be sued in its
own name.  The Defendant has been a "public agency" and "employer"
within the meaning of the FLSA.

The Defendant operates an EMS Department, which is distinct and
separate from the Fire and Police Departments.  The Defendant's EMS
Department provides emergency medical services to the citizens,
residents and visitors of Putnam County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          N. Chase Teeples, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC
          2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250-2000
          Facsimile: (615) 250-2020
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
                  teeples@yezbaklaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
          Hillary D. LeBeau, Esq.
          McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
          E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
                  hdl@mselaborlaw.com


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Lowinger  Files Suit Over UTC Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT LOWINGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY, THOMAS A. KENNEDY, TRACY
A. ATKINSON, ROBERT E. BEAUCHAMP, ADRIANE M. BROWN, STEPHEN J.
HADLEY, LETITIA A. LONG, GEORGE R. OLIVER, DINESH C. PALIWAL, ELLEN
M. PAWLIKOWSKI, WILLIAM R. SPIVEY, MARTA R. STEWART, JAMES A.
WINNEFELD, JR., and ROBERT O. WORK, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01376-UNA (D. Del., July 24, 2019) is an action brought as
a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the other
public holders of the common stock of Raytheon against the Company
and the members of the Company's board of directors for violations
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed sale of
Raytheon.

On June 9, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with Light Merger Sub Corp. ("Merger
Sub"), a wholly- owned subsidiary of United Technologies
Corporation ("UTC"). Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Raytheon shareholders will receive 2.3348 fully paid and
nonassessable shares of UTC common stock (and, if applicable, cash
in lieu of fractional shares). The consummation of the Proposed
Merger is subject to certain closing conditions, including the
approval of the stockholders of Raytheon. The Company expects the
Proposed Merger to close in the first half of 2020.

On July 17, 2019, in order to convince Raytheon's shareholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the
filing of a joint registration statement, which was filed with the
SEC, by UTC, on Form S-4. The Registration Statement is materially
incomplete and misleading, in violation of the Exchange Act. While
Defendants, in the S-4, tout the fairness of the Merger
Consideration to the Company's stockholders, they have failed to
disclose material information that is necessary for Raytheon's
stockholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the S-4 incomplete
and misleading. It is imperative that the material information that
has been omitted from the S-4 is disclosed to the Company's
stockholders prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they
can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights. For these
reasons, Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for violations
of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the stockholder
vote on the Proposed Merger and taking any steps to consummate the
Proposed Merger unless and until the material information is
disclosed to Raytheon's stockholders sufficiently in advance of the
vote on the Proposed Merger or, in the event the Proposed Merger is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times has been, a Raytheon
stockholder.

Raytheon develops technologically advanced and integrated products,
services and solutions in its core markets: integrated air and
missile defense; electronic warfare; command, control,
communications, computers, cyber, intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance; space systems; effects; and cyber.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
     Michael J. Klein, Esq.
     ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
     One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
     New York, NY 10119
     Phone: (212) 279-5050
     Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
     Email: jabraham@aflaw.com
            mklein@aflaw.com


REDDY BUILDERS: Santana Seeks OT Wages for Construction Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
HERNANDEZ SANTANA ODILON, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. REDDY BUILDERS INC. (D/B/A
REDDY BUILDERS), MADHU CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION (D/B/A MADHU
CONSTRUCTION), and SEKHAR REDDY, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04185 (E.D.N.Y., July 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938, the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Mr. Santana is a former employee of the Defendants. He was employed
as a painter and a sheet rock installer at the construction
corporations. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked.

Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate record-keeping
of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for
any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium.

Furthermore, the Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff
Santana wages on a timely basis. Defendants' conduct extended
beyond Plaintiff Santana to all other similarly situated employees,
the lawsuit says.

The Defendants own, operate, or control two construction companies,
located at 90-28 209th Street, Queens Village, New York 11428 under
the names "Reddy Builders" and "Madhu Construction".[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

REVENUE FRONTIER: Court Certifies Class in Clough TCPA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Robert W. Clough, II on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated v. Revenue Frontier, LLC et al, Case No.
17-cv-411-PB (D. N.H.), Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Hampshire granted Clough's motion for
class certification.

Robert W. Clough, II, filed the action on behalf of himself and
similarly situated individuals under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), against Revenue Frontier, LLC, Supreme
Data Connections, LLC, and William Adomanis.  The complaint alleges
that the Defendants violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited text
messages advertising the services of National Tax Experts, Inc., to
Clough and other recipients using an automatic telephone dialing
system ("ATDS").

On June 14, 2017, Clough received a text message on his cellular
telephone.  He learned that the text message was a solicitation for
National Tax Experts, Inc. ("NTE").  NTE, however, did not send the
text message itself.  Instead, it hired a company called Airtime
Media, LLC to promote NTE's tax relief services and generate
inbound customer calls.  Airtime Media, in turn, hired Revenue
Frontier as a lead generator for the NTE campaign.  Revenue
Frontier then engaged W4, LLC to promote NTE's services on behalf
of Revenue Frontier.  W4 is an affiliate network that has
agreements with independent contractors known as "affiliates" or
"publishers" who use various methods to promote products and
services and to encourage customers to visit websites or call
telephone numbers to purchase products or services.

In the case, W4 arranged for its affiliate, U.E.G. Inc., to promote
NTE's services via text messages.  U.E.G. then hired Supreme Data
Connections, LLC to send text messages for the NTE campaign.
Defendant Adomanis is Supreme Data's manager and registered agent.

During the discovery process, Supreme Data produced a list of text
messages it sent for the NTE campaign.  Clough's expert witness
Anya Verkhovskaya analyzed the list and concluded that 18,937
wireless numbers received 18,971 texts messages.  Another expert
witness, Randall Snyder, has opined that the platform utilized to
send the texts (the SDC Messaging Application employing the
Sendroid software) qualifies as an ATDS.

Clough alleges that he did not consent to the receipt of any text
message promoting tax debt relief services.  The Defendants have
yet to produce any evidence that calls Clough's allegation into
question.  Nor have the Fefendants identified any evidence that the
other recipients of the 18,971 text messages consented to receive
them.

Clough has moved to certify a Plaintiff class and appoint his
attorneys as the class counsel.  Clough proposes to certify the
class of (1) all persons in the United States who are the users or
subscribers of the approximately 18,937 cellular telephones
identified in Anya Verkovshkaya's report (2) to which cellular
telephone numbers a text message was sent (3) using the SDC
Messaging Application, employing the Sendroid software (4) within
four years of the filing of the complaint.

The Defendants object, arguing that Clough lacks Article III
standing and cannot meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

Judge Barbadoro concludes that Clough has standing to sue and the
proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23.  Accordingly,
he granted lough's motion for class certification.  Clough is
appointed as the Lead Plaintiff and his counsel as the lead
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/ZlgoNq from Leagle.com.

Robert W. Clough, II, Plaintiff, represented by Alex M. Washkowitz
-- alex@cwlawgrouppc.com -- CW Law Group, PC, pro hac vice, Edward
A. Broderick -- ted@broderick-law.com -- Broderick & Paronich, PC,
pro hac vice, Jeremy A. Cohen -- Jeremy@cwlawgrouppc.com -- CW Law
Group, PC, pro hac vice, Matthew P. McCue --
mmccue@massattorneys.net -- Matthew P. McCue, PC, pro hac vice &
Roger B. Phillips -- roger@phillipslawoffice.com -- Phillips Law
Office.

Revenue Frontier, LLC, Defendant, represented by Ari N. Rothman --
anrothman@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Daniel S. Blynn --
dsblynn@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac vice, Justin B.
Nemeroff -- jbnemeroff@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro hac vice,
Shahin O. Rothermel -- sorothermel@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, pro
hac vice, Arnold Rosenblatt -- a.rosenblatt@clrm.com -- Cook Little
Rosenblatt & Manson PLLC & Kathleen M. Mahan -- k.mahan@clrm.com --
Cook Little Rosenblatt & Manson PLLC.

Supreme Data Connections, LLC, Defendant, pro se.

William Adomanis, Defendant, pro se.

Revenue Frontier, LLC, Cross Claimant, represented by Ari N.
Rothman, Venable LLP, Daniel S. Blynn, Venable LLP, Justin B.
Nemeroff, Venable LLP, Shahin O. Rothermel, Venable LLP & Arnold
Rosenblatt, Cook Little Rosenblatt & Manson PLLC.

Robert W. Clough, II, Cross Defendant, represented by Alex M.
Washkowitz, CW Law Group, PC, Edward A. Broderick, Broderick &
Paronich, PC, Jeremy A. Cohen, CW Law Group, PC, Matthew P. McCue,
Matthew P. McCue, PC, pro hac vice & Roger B. Phillips, Phillips
Law Office.

Revenue Frontier, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Ari N.
Rothman, Venable LLP, Daniel S. Blynn, Venable LLP, Justin B.
Nemeroff, Venable LLP, Shahin O. Rothermel, Venable LLP & Arnold
Rosenblatt, Cook Little Rosenblatt & Manson PLLC.

Robert W. Clough, II, Counter Defendant, represented by Alex M.
Washkowitz, CW Law Group, PC, Edward A. Broderick, Broderick &
Paronich, PC, Jeremy A. Cohen, CW Law Group, PC, Matthew P. McCue,
Matthew P. McCue, PC, pro hac vice & Roger B. Phillips, Phillips
Law Office.


ROSEMARY HOSPITALITY: Florez Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE FLOREZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. THE ROSEMARY
HOSPITALITY, INC., a California Corporation, DARREL THOMAS ADAMS,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV25067
(Cal. Super., July 19, 2019), alleges the Defendants violated
numerous wage and hour laws.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have misclassified the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated as independent contractors
and, in doing so, have violated the California Labor Code by:

(1) failing to pay for all hours worked, including overtime hours
worked;

(2) failing to timely provide and/or authorize meal breaks;

(3) failing to timely provide and/or authorize rest breaks;

(4) failing to pay earned wages upon discharge incurring waiting
time penalties;

(5) failing to provide timely, accurate wage statements and payroll
records;

(6) failing to comply with California Sick Pay requirements; and

(7) unlawful and unfair business practices.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and all putative class members are:

          Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
          KOUL LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 761-5484
          Facsimile: (818) 561-3938
          E-mail: nazo@koullaw.com

SAMARCO MINERACAO: Court Dismisses Banco Safra Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BANCO SAFRA S.A. - CAYMAN ISLANDS BRANCH, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
SAMARCO MINERACAO S.A., BHP BILLITON LIMITED, BHP BILLITON PLC, BHP
BILLITON BRASIL LTDA., and VALE S.A., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ.
8800 (RMB) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Richard M. Berman of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted with
prejudice the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Third
Complaint.

The Decision & Order resolves the motion of the Defendants to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Third Complaint, dated March 21, 2018.  The
Third Complaint -- as were the Plaintiff's first and second
complaints -- was filed as a class action by Banco Safra.

The Plaintiff is an offshore branch of Banco Safra S.A., a
Brazilian bank, and was established under the laws of the Cayman
Islands.  Samarco is a Brazilian mining company that owns and
operates iron ore mines and pellet processing facilities in the
Brazilian states of Minas Gerais and Espirito Santo.  It is a
private company that is co-owned by BHP Brasil and Vale, all three
of which are headquartered in Brazil.

Banco Safra purports to bring the action on behalf of all
purchasers of debt securities issued by Samarco [Samarco Bonds]
during the Class Period [Oct. 31, 2012 to Nov. 30, 2015], who
purchased such securities in domestic U.S. transactions.  The
Samarco Bonds purchased by Banco Safra were initially offered only
outside the United States and Banco Safra acquired the overwhelming
majority of bonds in the secondary market.

Banco Safra alleges that the Defendants violated U.S. federal
securities laws, particularly Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  It also brings state claims
against the Defendants for common law fraud, aiding and abetting
fraud, and negligent misrepresentations under New York State law.

Banco Safra alleges that thes class action arises out of what is
widely regarded as the worst environmental disaster in Brazil's
history, which occurred on Nov. 5, 2015 when Samarco's Fundao
"tailings" clam burst, "releasing more than 16,000 Olympic swimming
pools' worth of wastewater generated by Samarco's mining operations
in Minas Gerais.  Banco Safra claims that during the Class Period,
the Defendants misled investors about the safety of the Samarco's
mining operations, including the Funclao dam and the tailings
deposited at the dam, Samarco's iron ore production and related
matters.

In sum, the case is a case by a Brazilian/Cayman Island Plaintiff
against Brazilian Defendants regarding Brazilian bonds and claims
which relate to a Brazilian catastrophe.  The bonds were never
listed on a U.S. exchange and were principally offered and sold
outside the United States.  It is difficult to perceive a domestic
transaction under Morrison and its Second Circuit progeny.

The instant complaint is the Plaintiff's third attempt sufficiently
to plead a domestic U.S. transaction.  Banca Safra filed its first
complaint on Nov. 14, 2016.  On March 6, 2017, Banco Safra on its
own initiative filed its second complaint which amended its First
Complaint by adding "Exhibit A."  Exhibit A purports to "bolster"
the Plaintiff's pleading of a domestic transaction by listing
purchases and sales of Samarco Bonds, and including for each listed
transaction the name and address of the U.S.
Counterparty/Broker-dealer, the trade date, and the purchase or
sale price in U.S. dollars.  The Second Complaint states that a set
forth in Exhibit A, the Lead Plaintiff purchased Samarco bonds in
domestic (U.S.) transactions during the Class Period and was
damaged thereby.

On June 26, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure arguing, principally, that the Plaintiff has not
adequately alleged a U.S. domestic securities transaction, and thus
its federal securities claims must be dismissed under Morrison v.
Nat'l Australia Bank.  On Aug. 1, 2017, Banco Safra filed its
opposition to the Defendants' motion.  On Aug. 31, 2017, tge
Defendants filed a reply.

On March 7, 2018, the Court denied without prejudice the
Defendants' motion to dismiss and directed the Plaintiff to "submit
a final amended complaint" by March 21, 2019.  The Plaintiff filed
its Third Complaint on March 21, 2018.  With respect to the
Defendants' challenge over domesticity, the Plaintiff included in
the Third Complaint the allegations which had been set forth in the
Morpurgo Declaration.

On May 21, 2018, the Defendants jointly moved to dismiss the Third
Complaint, arguing that the Plaintiff's various changes (additions)
to their earlier complaints still fail to satisfy the domestic
transaction criteria of Morrison.  On June 18, 2018, the Plaintiff
filed its opposition.  On July 3, 2018, the Defendants submitted
their reply memorandum.

Helpful oral argument was held on Oct. 5, 2018.

Judge Berman holds that the Plaintiff fails to allege a domestic
U.S. securities transaction.  He has found no case -- and the
Plaintiff has not cited any which holds that reporting to TRACE is
sufficient to allege that irrevocable liability was incurred or
title transferred in the United States.  As the Defendants
correctly point out, nothing in the TRACE regulations states that
non-U.S. transactions cannot be reported, or that Banco Safra was
precluded from reporting its purchases and sales of Samarco Bonds
to TRACE even if they were not domestic transactions.

The Defendants argue persuasively that the Plaintiff's Federal
claims should all be dismissed with prejudice because the
Plaintiff's third attempt to plead federal securities claims does
not cure the numerous deficiencies in their prior filings.  The
changes in the Third Complaint are a failed effort to plead a
domestic securities transaction.  The Judge holds that the
Plaintiff's "repeated failures to cure" preclude further amendment.
The Plaintiff has had two opportunities to amend its First
Complaint.  And the Plaintiff was on notice from the Court that its
Third Complaint was its last opportunity sufficiently to allege a
domestic transaction.

For the reasons stated, Judge Berman granted with prejudice the
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Plaintiff's state claims are
dismissed without prejudice to their being filed in state court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Decision and Order is
available at https://is.gd/JGqz4M from Leagle.com.

Banco Safra S.A. Cayman Islands Branch, Lead Plaintiff, represented
by Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP
& Emma Gilmore, Pomerantz LLP.

Banco Safra S.A. - Cayman Islands Branch, Plaintiff, represented by
Adam G. Kurtz, Emma Gilmore , Pomerantz LLP, Joseph Alexander Hood,
II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP.

Samarco Mineracao S.A., Defendant, represented by Mark Stewart
Cohen -- mcohen@cohengresser.com -- Cohen & Gresser, LLP &
Nathaniel P.T. Read -- nread@cohengresser.com -- Cohen & Gresser,
LLP.

BHP Billiton Limited, BHP Billiton PLC & BHP Billiton Brasil Ltda.,
Defendants, represented by Brendan Peter Cullen, Sullivan &
Cromwell & Kate Linsley Doniger, Sullivan & Cromwell.

Vale S.A., Defendant, represented by Christopher Michael Joralemon,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Mark Adam Kirsch, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP & Randy M. Mastro, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.


SARBANAND FARMS: CSI Visa Needs License to Supply Farmworkers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Don Jenkins, writing for Capital Press, reports that the Washington
State Department of Labor and Industries has sided with blueberry
pickers on July 11 in a federal lawsuit against Sarbanand Farms and
a Mexican company that helped the workers get visas.

L&I argues in a court brief that CSI Visa Processing of Durango,
Mexico, should have obtained a Washington license to supply
farmworkers.

If L&I's position holds, CSI, Sarbanand and the farm's parent
company, Munger Brothers of California, potentially face more than
$1 million in damages for violating the state's Farm Labor
Contractor Act.

The act is intended to protect transitory farmworkers from being
abused or unpaid.

According to court records, an L&I official told the company more
than once that it didn't need a license. A higher-level department
official, in a court deposition, said that was bad advice.

L&I now joins Columbia Legal Services in asking U.S. District Judge
John Coughenour to let the state Supreme Court decide whether CSI
violated the law, even if workers were initially sent to work in
California, not Washington.

Washington's high court has ruled against agricultural employers in
several recent cases, including ones that originated as federal
class-action lawsuits.

In this case, Sarbanand allegedly threatened and intimidated
workers, and illegally fired about 70 who staged a one-day strike
in 2017. Sarbanand and Munger deny the allegations.

Workers walked out after a colleague was taken from the farm in an
ambulance. He later died at a hospital. L&I ruled the death was not
workplace-related, but the farm came under scrutiny.

L&I fined Sarbanand for late meals and missed rest breaks. Two
workers claimed violations of federal anti-trafficking laws.
Coughenour approved making their claim a class-action suit
involving about 600 workers.

L&I's filing was the latest in the run-up to a trial set for next
year on the core allegation of mistreatment.

In a pre-trial ruling in June, Coughenour decided CSI should have
had a farm labor contractor's license for 103 workers it helped go
directly from Mexico to Washington.

However, he dismissed claims based on the 553 workers who first
went to a Munger farm or cold storage facility in California and
transferred later in the season to Washington.

Coughenour's ruling reduced the potential penalties against the
defendants for violating the Farm Labor Contractors Act to roughly
$250,000 from $1.5 million.

Columbia Legal Services and Seattle law firm Schroeter Goldmark and
Bender have moved for Coughenour to either reconsider his decision
or let the Supreme Court decide. That's the position L&I supports.

L&I "sees the potential for farm labor contractors to circumvent
Washington law by first sending workers to other states before they
work in Washington," the department's brief states.

CSI calls itself the largest H-2A processing company in Mexico. It
argues it doesn't do what farm labor contractors do, including
recruiting workers, and that its work stops at the border.

Munger picked most of the workers, while 67 applied through CSI's
website, according to court records. The link to apply was
mentioned on CSI's Facebook page.

CSI's compliance officer, Roxana Marcias, declared in court
documents that she checked with an L&I agricultural employment
standards specialist in 2014 or 2015 and again in 2017.

Both times the L&I official said CSI didn't need and couldn't get a
license because it was a foreign company operating outside the
U.S., according to Marcias. [GN]


SEE'S CANDIES: Judge Refuses to Certify Workers' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a California state judge declined to certify a
proposed class action accusing chocolatier See's Candies of
effectively denying workers their meal and rest breaks by making
them run stores solo. [GN]


SKY BLUE EXPRESS: Kumar Seeks Unpaid Wages for Employees
--------------------------------------------------------
VINOD KUMAR, on behalf of himself and other employees, and on
behalf of the State of California and the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency, the Plaintiffs, vs. SKY BLUE EXPRESS, INC, a
California Corporation, JAMES LIU, an individual, and DOES 1
through 100, INCLUSIVE, the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV25060 (Cal.
Super., July 19, 2019), seeks unpaid wages, injunctive,
declaratory, and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully and improperly
classified and treated Plaintiff and other current and former
employees as independent contractors when they should properly have
been classified and treated as employees.

Sky Blue is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business from Rowland Heights,
California.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805)270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Elanar Levine, Esq.
          Brian Levine, Esq.
          LEVINE LAW GROUP, APC
          15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 900
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: 818 990 3400
          Facsimile: 818 855 8040

SMITH-PALLUCK: Renteria Sues over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RENTERIA, indvidually and on behalf of all and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff. vs. SMITH-PALLUCK ASSOCIATES
CORP. d/b/a LAS VEGAS ATHLETIC CLUBS, the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-01261 (D. Nev., July 22, 2019), contends that the Defendant
promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited telephone calls to wireless phone users, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Beginning on or about May of 2019, the Plaintiff received multiple
calls from the Defendant on his cellular phone. LVAC made these
calls in the hopes of contacting an individual named "Ruben
Hernandez," who is not Plaintiff; nor is someone who Plaintiff
knows.

The Plaintiff never provided consent to be contacted by LVAC on his
cell phone (or any other number for that matter). After being
contacted by LVAC he informed LVAC that they had the wrong number,
and that he was not Ruben Hernandez. However, LVAC continued to
contact and dial the Plaintiff’s cell phone, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Krieger, Esq.
          George Haines, Esq.
          Shawn Miller, Esq.
          HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC
          8985 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 350
          Henderson, NE 89123
          Telephone: (702) 880-5554
          Facsimile: (702) 9385-5518
          E-mail: dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com

               - and -

          Matthew I. Knepper, Esq.
          Miles N. Clark, Esq.
          KNEPPER & CLARK LLC
          10040 W. Cheyenne Ave., Suite 170-109
          Las Vegas, NV 89129
          Telephone: (702) 825-6060
          Facsimile: (702) 447-8048
          E-mail: matthew.knepper@knepperclark.com
                  miles.clark@knepperclark.com

SONOS, INC: Removes Steiner Suit to Central Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sonos, Inc. removed the case captioned as MATTHEW STEINER,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. SONOS, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 19STCV21795 (Filed May 30, 2019), from the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, to U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on July 21, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-06289.

Mr. Steiner alleged that Sonos intentionally caused thousands of
its CR100 controllers to fail by implementing a software update on
those controllers in 2018 in violation of the Unfair Business
Practices Act, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Neal Ross Marder, Esq.
          Joshua A. Rubin, Esq.
          Hyongsoon Kim, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6022
          Telephone: 310.229.1000
          Facsimile: 310.229.1001

SPA NAIL: Li Suit Transferred to Northern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as WEIDONG LI, on his own behalf
and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SPA
NAIL 9, INC. d/b/a Spa Nail 9; DI YANG a/k/a Peter Yang, AMY YANG,
and ANDY DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06118 (June  30,
2019), Was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York (Albany) on July 19, 2019. The
Northern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-00873-TJM-CFH to the proceeding. The suit is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Thomas J. McAvoy.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have willfully and
intentionally committed widespread violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by engaging in pattern and
practice of failing to pay its employees, including Plaintiff,
minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek.

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

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd No. 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: 1 718 762 1324

SQUARETRADE, INC: Bid to Certify Class under Advisement
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DAVID M. SWINTON, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
SQUARETRADE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00144-SMR-SBJ
(S.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Stephanie M. Rose entered an order on
July 22, 2019, taking under advisement Plaintiff's motion to
certify class and motion for attorney's fees and incentive award.

The parties should submit the materials requested in this Order by
no later than August 21, 2019. The parties may submit one or, if
they wish to divide the issues amongst themselves, separate briefs,
Judge Rose says.[CC]

SUMMER HILL, NY: Court Dismisses Cayuga County from Ward Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York granted Cayuga County's motion to dismiss the
case, MATTHEW WARD, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated parties, Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF SUMMER HILL, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-1053 (GLS/ATB) (N.D. N.Y.).

Ward, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated
parties, commenced the putative class action against Defendants
Town of Summer Hill and the County, bringing claims under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act ("CERCLA"), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
("RCRA"), and New York common law.  Ward's allegations concern
groundwater and property contamination from the Summer Hill
Landfill.

Ward is the owner and resident of real property at 6053 Filmore
Road in Sempronius, New York, and the Landfill is located on
approximately 23 acres of land in or near Summer Hill, New York.
Ward's groundwater and property are contaminated with hazardous
substances from the Landfill, including but not limited to arsenic,
benzene, chromium, lead, and napthalene.  These contaminants were
discovered in soil and water samples.

Ward alleges the following.  The Town and the County have owned,
operated, maintained, and otherwise controlled the Landfill for
approximately 20 years.  The Landfill operations are reported to
have begun in approximately 1963 and are reported to have ended in
approximately 1982.  A portion of the Landfill was originally
operated as a municipal solid waste landfill or a sanitary waste
landfill.  Other portions received other forms of waste, both
hazardous and non-hazardous, including household, commercial,
generator, and industrial solid wastes.  Landfill waste remains
visible, exposed, and disturbed; outbreaks of water that has
percolated through waste solids and extracted soluble and insoluble
matter from such waste have been observed.

Ward filed his complaint on Sept. 4, 2018.  He brings claims under
(1) CERCLA, and (2) RCRA, as well as New York common law claims for
(3) negligence, (4) private nuisance, (5) trespass, and (6) willful
and wanton misconduct.  

The Town filed an answer and counterclaim on Nov. 2, 2018.  Pending
is the County's motion to dismiss.  

The County argues that Ward's allegations are insufficient to state
a CERCLA claim.  Specifically, it contends that Ward has failed to
sufficiently allege that it is a responsible party under CERCLA
such that it is subject to liability.

Judge Sharpe agrees with the County that Ward has failed to set
forth a prima facie case under CERCLA.   Ward argues that he can
demonstrate that the County exercised sufficient control over the
Landfill to trigger liability under CERCLA because of the extensive
management and control exerted by the County during the periods of
the Landfill's operation.  But Ward's complaint contains no such
allegations.  Even if the Judge were to assume that Ward's exhibits
are public records and consider them, they do not save his CERCLA
claim.  It is unclear if the meeting minutes that comprise the
first exhibit are even referring to the Landfill.

Next, County argues that Ward merely mimics without any specificity
the statutory definitions of liable persons under RCRA without
alleging how the County or its actions falls within one of the
definitions for liable persons.  The Judge agrees with the County.
Ward's "operator" argument is rejected for the reasons explained.
Again, even assuming the court can properly consider Ward's
exhibits, Ward fails to explain what information is gleaned or how
such information shows that the County is liable under RCRA.  For
all of these reasons, the County is correct that Ward's conclusory
allegations do not state a RCRA claim.

For the reasons argued by the County, the Judge agrees that Ward
has failed to state a claim under New York common law for
negligence, private nuisance, trespass, or willful and wanton
misconduct.  That is, these claims are based on the same bald,
conclusory allegations upon which Ward based his CERCLA and RCRA
claims.

Perhaps also in recognition of his complaint's deficiencies, Ward
respectfully requests the ability to amend his complaint to
sufficiently advise the Defendants of the grounds for their
liability in the instant action.  Ward ignored the applicable
rules.  He failed to file a cross-motion pursuant to N.D.N.Y. L.R.
7.1(c), and he also failed to comply with 7.1(a)(4).  Moreover, the
Court is not required to grant leave to amend if amendment would be
futile.  Ward's one-sentence request to amend in his response is
thus denied.

The County makes additional arguments regarding the Burford
abstention doctrine.  As adequate grounds exist on which to grant
its motion to dismiss, the Judge need not and does not reach these
abstention arguments.

Finally, Ryan L. McCarthy filed Ward's response to the County's
motion to dismiss, as well as a supporting affirmation.  McCarthy
has not filed a notice of appearance in the case as required by
N.D.N.Y. L.R. 83.2(a).  McCarthy is ordered to do so.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Sharpe granted the County's motion
to dismiss.  Ward's claims against the County are dismissed with
prejudice ICE.  The Clerk terminate the County from the action.

Pursuant to N.D.N.Y. L.R. 83.2(a), Ryan L. McCarthy file a notice
of appearance in the case.  The parties will contact Magistrate
Judge Andrew T. Baxter to schedule further proceedings in
accordance with the Memorandum-Decision and Order.  The Clerk
provide a copy of the Memorandum-Decision and Order to the
parties.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/SteXdY from Leagle.com.

Matthew Ward, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated parties, Plaintiff, represented by Melody Domenica
Westfall -- scalfone@scalfonelaw.com -- Scalfone Law PLLC.

Town of Summer Hill, Defendant, represented by Thomas R. Smith --
smithtr@bsk.com -- Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC & Suzanne O. Galbato
-- sgalbato@bsk.com -- Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC.

Town of Summer Hill, Counter Claimant, represented by Thomas R.
Smith , Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC & Suzanne O. Galbato , Bond
Schoeneck & King, PLLC.

Matthew Ward, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated parties, Counter Defendant, represented by Melody Domenica
Westfall, Scalfone Law PLLC.


SUN HAVEN: Website not Accessible to Blind, Dominguez Says
----------------------------------------------------------
YOVANNY DOMINGUEZ AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. SUN HAVEN MOTEL CORP., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-06732 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2019), asserts claims
under the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), New York State
Human Rights Law,  and New York City Human Rights Law against
Defendant.

Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and
in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the ADA.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Some blind people who meet their definition have limited vision.
Others have no vision.  Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report,
approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually
impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the
American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately
400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is being deterred from
patronizing the Defendant's physical location due to Defendant's
discrimination by failing to maintain access to the Website for
visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff intends to return to
Defendant's Website and hotel location once Defendant ceases its
on-going discriminatory practices, the lawsuit says.

Because Defendant's Website WWW.OCEANVISTARESORT.COM is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers because it
violates the ADA and fails to identify and describe accessible
features in the hotel and guest rooms offered through its
reservations service on its Website in enough detail to reasonably
permit individuals with disabilities such as the Plaintiff to
assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his
or her accessibility needs, it violates the provisions of the
ADA.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Bradly G. Marks, Esq.
          THE MARKS LAW FIRM, PC
          175 Varick St., 3 rd Floor
          New York, NY 10014
          Telephone: (646) 770-3775
          Facsimile: (646) 867-2639
          E-mail: brad@markslawpc.com

               - and -

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

T-MOBILE CENTRAL: City of Springfield's Suit Remanded to State Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Henry Edward Autrey of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, remanded the case,
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. T-MOBILE
CENTRAL LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:18cv2015 HEA (E.D.
Mo.), to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.

The Plaintiff brought the action in Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri against the Defendants for delinquent taxes and
other relief.  The Plaintiffs are the Cities which impose municipal
business license taxes on telephone companies doing business in the
Plaintiff Cities.  The Defendants are telephone companies which do
business in the Cities and are allegedly required to pay the
Cities' license taxes.  They previously entered into a class action
settlement agreement with the Cities of Grandview, Lee's Summit,
and Webster Groves.  The settlement agreement was approved by the
Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, Missouri.  The Settlement
Agreement requires the Defendants to pay the Cities' license taxes.
The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants have not done so.

The Petition contains the following 19 counts: Counts I-IV seek
delinquent local taxes, interest, and penalties.  Counts V-VIII
seek rulings that the Defendants have violated Missouri State
statutes and subjected the Cities to undue and unreasonable
prejudice and disadvantage.  Counts IX-XII seek declaratory
judgments regarding the Defendants' obligations to pay local
license taxes and the enforcement of those taxes.  Counts XIII-XVI
seek an accounting of the Defendants' gross receipts to determine
the extent of Defendants' alleged underpayment of taxes.  Counts
XVII-XIX allege breach of contract claims for the Defendants'
alleged violations of the class action settlement agreement.

The Settlement Agreement contains a forum selection clause wherein
the parties agreed that the Circuit Court of the County of St.
Louis Missouri will retain jurisdiction, after entry of the Order
and Judgment of Dismissal with respect to enforcement of the terms
of this Settlement, and all Parties and Class Members submit to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the enforcement
of the Settlement and any dispute with respect thereto.  Further,
the settlement agreement defined "Court" as the Circuit Court of
the Count of St. Louis, Missouri.

The Plaintiffs filed the action on Nov. 2, 2018 in the Circuit
Court of the County of St. Louis.  The Defendants removed based on
the Court's diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.  The Plaintiffs
move to remand based on the forum selection clause contained in the
settlement agreement.  The Defendants oppose remand arguing that
the forum selection clause is insufficient to waive their removal
rights.

Judg Autrey is particularly mindful that to arrive at the position
advocated by the Defendants would be to render the express terms of
the Agreement essentially meaningless.  the Such a result would be
unjust to Plaintiffs and not in keeping with the clear expectations
of the parties.  Stated another way, it is not reasonable to
conclude that contract language making the Circuit Court of St.
Louis County the "exclusive" venue for disputes relating to the
Agreement means no more than the exclusive venue until the case is
removed to federal court.  The Judge will not unnecessarily strain
the plain language of the Agreement to reach that interpretation.

Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records and proceedings,
the Settlement Agreement sets out the parties' clear and
unequivocal intent to litigate all claims and issues in the Circuit
Court of St. Louis County, Missouri.  The motion to remand is well
taken.

Accordingly, Judg Autrey granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.
The Clerk of Court is directed to furnish a certified copy of the
Order to the clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Opinion, Memorandum
and Order is available at https://is.gd/osJBtPs from Leagle.com.

City of Springfield, Missouri, City of Grandview, Missouri, City of
Lee's Summit, Missouri & City of Webster Groves, Missouri,
Plaintiffs, represented by David Alvin Streubel --
dave@municipalfirm.com -- CUNNINGHAM AND VOGEL & Margaret Claire
Eveker -- maggie@municipalfirm.com -- CUNNINGHAM AND VOGEL.

T-Mobile Central, LLC, T-Mobile US, Inc. & T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Jonathan B. Potts --
jonathan.potts@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Lindsay Erin Wuller
-- lindsay.wuller@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP & Mark B. Leadlove
-- mbleadlove@bclplaw.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP.


TENCENT AMERICA: Kizak Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
HEIDI KIZAK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TENCENT AMERICA, LLC, a California company,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-04249 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2019) seeks
to stop Tencent from violating the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all
persons injured by Tencent's conduct.

The complaint asserts that the Defendant sent autodialed text
messages to consumers (including those who have registered their
phone numbers on the national Do Not Call registry ("DNC")) after
they have expressly requested that Tencent stop contacting them.

Tencent is a technology company that owns and operates the app
WeChat. WeChat is an all-in-one messaging, social media, gaming,
and mobile payment app used by millions worldwide. Plaintiff Kizak
is a resident of Mercer County, Pennsylvania.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

     Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
     Rachel Kaufman, Esq.
     Kaufman P.A.
     400 NW 26th Street
     Miami, FL 33127
     Phone: (305) 469-5881
     Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
     rachel@kaufmanpa.com


TJX COMPANIES: Removes Schuchard Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
THE TJX Companies et al., removed the case styled as VLADIMIR
SCHUCHARD, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
HOMEGOODS, INC., a Delaware corporation; T.J. MAXX OF CA, LLC, a
Virginia limited liability company; MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC, a
Virginia limited liability company; MARSHALLS OF MA, INC., a
Massachusetts corporation; SIERRA TRADING POST, INC., a Wyoming
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 19STCV14308
(Filed April 25, 2019), from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on July 22, 2019. The Central District of California Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06299 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Pamela Q. Devata, Esq.
          John W. Drury, Esq.
          Eric Suits, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: pdevata@seyfarth.com
                  drury@seyfarth.com
                  esuits@seyfarth.com

TRISH MCEVOY: L. Tatum-Rios Files ADA Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
Trish McEvoy Ltd. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Lynette Tatum-Rios, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Trish McEvoy Ltd., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-06869 (S.D. N.Y., July 23, 2019).

Trish McEvoy Ltd. is engaged in beauty products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
   Lipsky Lowe LLP
   630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 392-4772
   Fax: (212) 444-1030
   Email: doug@lipskylowe.com


TROPICANA PRODUCTS: Bid to Certify Advertising Suit Classes Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: TROPICANA ORANGE JUICE MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION MDL 2353 This Document Relates To: ALL CASES,
Civ. No. 2:11-07382 (D. N.J.), Judge William J. Martini of the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the
Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of Modified Class, Appointment
of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel.

The case is about orange juice.  Defendant Tropicana is a
manufacturer of products derived from citrus, including a category
of products of pasteurized, not-from-concentrate orange juice
marketed as Tropicana Pure Premium ("TPP").  Plaintiff Angelena
Lewis is a purchaser of at least one TPP product.

The Plaintiff alleges that Tropicana deceptively markets TPP as
"100% pure and natural orange juice," "100% pure orange juice,"
"100% orange juice," "pasteurized orange juice," "pasteurized,"
"pure," "natural," "fresh," and "grove to glass," when, in fact, it
is none of those things.  Instead, she alleges that the Defendant
removes solids and oils from the extracted juice, treats the
mixture, and then adds oils, colors, or flavoring in violation of
FDA standards and consumer protection laws.

Based on these allegations, Lewis, now proceeding as the sole named
Plaintiff, asserts claims under New York and California law on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated.

Before the Court is the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion.  The Renewed
Motion is the Plaintiff's third attempt to move for class
certification.  On Jan. 22, 2018, the Court denied certification in
a written opinion.  It found that the then-named Plaintiffs had met
the Rule 23(a) requirements for certification but failed to meet
the requirements set forth under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3).

Five months later, the Plaintiff filed the Renewed Motion.
Although the Defendant contested briefing the Renewed Motion prior
to summary judgment, on Dec. 28, 2019, Court issued a written
opinion finding that the Plaintiff should be permitted to pursue
class certification first.  

In the Renewed Motion, Lewis seeks certification under Rule
23(b)(3) of two classes that she argues correct the deficiencies
found in the Opinion Denying Certification.  Lewis, a California
resident who purchased TPP at least once at a Costco Wholesale
Store in California, sets forth the two modified classes as
follows:

     a. All consumers who were or are members of a Costco Wholesale
Store in the State of California and who purchased Tropicana Pure
Premium Orange Juice at a Costco Wholesale store in the State of
California between Jan. 1, 2008 and the present ("California
Class").

     b. All consumers who were or are members of a Costco Wholesale
Store in the State of New York and who purchased Tropicana Pure
Premium Orange Juice at a Costco Wholesale store in the State of
New York between Jan. 1, 2008 and the present ("New York Class").

Lewis seeks to represent both classes in four claims against the
Defendant: (i) violation of New York General Business Law ("NYGBL")
§Section 349; (ii) violation of NYGBL Section 350; (iii) violation
of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); and (iv) violation of
the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") California Business &
Professional Code Sections 17200 et seq.

In her brief, the Plaintiff principally argues that the proposed
new classes cured the deficiencies the Court previously noted in
the Opinion Denying Class Certification, and thus the Court
implicitly "already found" that Rule 23(a) and 23(b) are satisfied
for the new classes.

There was no oral argument.

Judge Martini concludes that the Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for
Class Certification must denied.  First, the Plaintiff is not an
adequate representative of the New York Class.  Second, the
Plaintiff's claims based on the phrases "100% pure and natural
orange juice," "100% pure," "100% natural," "100% juice" "fresh,"
"grove to glass," "squeezed from fresh oranges,"
"straight-from-the-orange," and the Orange/Straw Image do not
satisfy predominance or ascertainability.  Third, while the claims
based on the "pasteurized" or "pasteurized orange juice" labels
satisfy ascertainability and predominance as to uniformity, those
claims fail predominance as to materiality.  Fourth, the
Plaintiff's damages model does not match her theory of liability as
to any of the challenged labels.  Accordingly, the new proposed
classes cannot be certified, and the Plaintiff's Motion for
Certification of Modified Class, Appointment of Class
Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel, is denied.  An
appropriate order follows.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 18, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/PV50MA from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL MARTINUCCI & ANGELENA LEWIS, on Behalf of Themselves and
all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, represented by ANTONIO
VOZZOLO, VOZZOLO LLC, DONALD A. ECKLUND --
DEcklund@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C., LINDSEY H. TAYLOR -- LTaylor@carellabyrne.com --
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, YITZCHAK KOPEL --
ykopel@bursor.com -- BURSOR & FISHER PA & JAMES E. CECCHI --
JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C.

Bernadette Salerno, Aleksander Simic, Yxia Olivares & Dezzi Rae
Marshall, Plaintiffs, represented by DONALD A. ECKLUND, CARELLA,
BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., YITZCHAK KOPEL,
BURSOR & FISHER PA & JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.

John Albert Veal, Jr, Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW S. HERRING,
DAVIS & NORRIS LLP & YITZCHAK KOPEL, BURSOR & FISHER PA.

TROPICANA PRODUCTS, INC., a division of PepsiCo, Inc., Defendant,
represented by LIZA M. WALSH -- lwalsh@walsh.law -- WALSH PIZZI
O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, CHRISTINE INTROMASSO GANNON --
cgannon@walsh.law -- WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, JOSEPH L.
LINARES -- jlinares@walsh.law -- WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP &
LUCAS CODY TOWNSEND -- ltownsend@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN &
CRUTCHER LLP.

PEPSICO, INC., Defendant, represented by LIZA M. WALSH, WALSH PIZZI
O'REILLY FALANGA LLP.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can't Compel Arbitration in Text Messaging Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE UBER TEXT MESSAGING, Case No. 18-cv-02931-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied Uber's motion
to compel arbitration and stay the action.

Plaintiffs Wanda Rogers and Christopher Ziers brought the putative
class action against Defendant Uber, alleging that it violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") when it sent them
unsolicited text messages.  Lucius Manning originally brought the
putative class action against Uber in May 2018, claiming that it
sent him unauthorized and unwanted text messages.  Manning's case
was eventually consolidated with two other similar cases; Manning
and two of the other original Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
their claims, leaving only Rogers and Ziers as the Plaintiffs.

Rogers alleged that she has never used the Uber app and has never
driven for Uber.  Nevertheless, she claimed that Uber sent numerous
unsolicited text messages to her cell phone, even after she asked
Uber to stop.  Ziers alleged that he has never used the Uber app
and has never driven for Uber but that Uber sent him numerous
unsolicited text messages, even after he attempted to opt out.

The Plaintiffs asserted that Uber's actions violated the TCPA
(entitling them to statutory damages of $500 per violation), as
well as California's Unfair Competition Law.  The Plaintiffs
brought their claims on behalf of two putative nationwide classes:
the "Autodialed No Consent Class" and the "Replied Stop Class."

On Dec. 17, 2018, Uber moved to compel Ziers to arbitrate his
claims, arguing that he was contractually obligated to do so.  In
addition, it asked the Court to stay the entire action to conserve
judicial resources, avoid inconsistent outcomes, and to inform the
Court's subsequent disposition of the claims.

Uber proffered that its records showed that Ziers registered for an
Uber account on June 23, 2016, using a smartphone with an Android
operating system.  According to Uber, because Ziers completed the
Uber registration process, he necessarily agreed to Uber's terms
and conditions.  The terms and conditions in force at the time
required arbitration of all disputes and prohibited class actions.

The Court held a hearing on the motion to compel arbitration and
stay the action on March 14, 2019 after which it took the motion
under submission.    

Uber moved to compel Ziers to arbitrate his TCPA claims, as it
contends was required by the terms and conditions to which Ziers
agreed when he completed the Uber registration process.  Judge
Gilliam will proceed in three steps: first, he will review the
admissibility of the proffered evidence; second, he will determine
whether it or an arbitrator should adjudicate Ziers' challenge to
contract formation; and third, he will decide whether Uber has
proven that an agreement was formed.

The Judge finds that, based on the record before him, the documents
labeled UBER0000001-06 have not been authenticated.  Snippets from
a database, reproduced without any context, explanation, or
supporting testimony, are not properly authenticated evidence.
However, because hefinds that, even if Uber had authenticated these
documents, they would not dispel the genuine dispute of material
fact, he will continue to reference them in the Order.

Next, he finds that Uber is correct that Ziers does not contest the
enforceability of the delegation clause.  Rather, Ziers is
challenging Uber's assertion that he entered into a contract in the
first place.  This threshold question -- whether an agreement
existed -- is one properly for the Court, without reference to any
delegation provision.  Moreover, Ninth Circuit precedent is clear:
"challenges to the very existence of the contract are properly
directed to the court."  Accordingly, it is the Court's duty, not
an arbitrator's, to determine whether an agreement was formed.

Finally, the Judge finds that Uber's motion to compel necessarily
fails because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether an agreement was formed.  Though Uber's original evidence
may have been sufficient to compel arbitration, it is not the only
evidence before the Court.  Because Uber bears the burden of
proving the existence of the agreement to arbitrate, and all
inferences must be drawn in Ziers' favor, the Judge cannot grant
the motion to compel based on the present record.  At bottom, Uber
says its documents confirm that Ziers completed the registration
process, while Ziers avers that he did not.  This genuine dispute
of fact over whether an agreement to arbitrate was formed requires
the Court to deny the motion to compel arbitration.

Though the Judge denies Uber's motion to compel at this juncture,
he does so without prejudice to its refiling.  Uber may refile its
motion after conducting additional discovery or may file a motion
to conduct an evidentiary hearing or other proceeding under 9
U.S.C. Section 4.

Uber also moved to stay the entire action.  Because theJudge denied
the motion to compel arbitration, there is no basis to stay the
case as to either Ziers or Rogers.  Accordingly, Uber's motion to
stay is denied.

Further, Uber moved to stay the action pending a decision on the
motion to compel arbitration.  Because the motion to compel has now
been decided, the motion to stay is denied as moot

Because there is a genuine dispute of fact as to whether Ziers and
Uber entered into an arbitration agreement, Judge Gilliam denied
the motion to compel arbitration and stay the action.  Rather than
hold an evidentiary hearing at this time, he denied the motion
without prejudice to its renewal following further discovery.  In
addition, the Judge denied as moot the motion to stay pending a
decision.  Finally, he set a further case management for July 30 at
2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2, Fourth Floor, Oakland, CA to discuss a
case schedule; a case management statement is due by July 23.

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

Lucius Manning, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by David S. Ratner --
david@davidratnerlawfirm.com -- David Ratner Law Firm, Avi Kaufman
-- kaufman@kaufmanpa.com -- Kaufman P.A., pro hac vice & Simon
Seiver Grille, Girard Sharp LLP.

Wanda Rogers & Christopher Ziers, Plaintiffs, represented by James
Everett Richardson, Girard Sharp LLP, pro hac vice & Simon Seiver
Grille, Girard Sharp LLP.

Andrew Katzman, Plaintiff, represented by Simon Seiver Grille,
Girard Sharp LLP.

Carla Vario, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Harry Peluso,
Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, Rebecca Leah Davis, Lozeau Drury LLP,
Richard Toshiyuki Drury, Lozeau Drury LLP, Steven Lezell Woodrow,
Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, Taylor True Smith, Woodrow and Peluso, LLC &
Simon Seiver Grille, Girard Sharp LLP.

Uber Technologies Inc., a Delware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Adam James Hunt -- adamhunt@mofo.com -- Morrison
Foerster LLP, pro hac vice & Lucia X. Roibal -- lroibal@mofo.com --
Morrison Foerster LLP.


USI SOLUTIONS: Faces Santos Suit in Northern District of Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against USI Solutions, Inc.
The case is captioned as Glennpaul Santos Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. USI
Solutions, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04618 (N.D. Ill.,
July 9, 2019). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Virginia M.
Kendall. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Act.

USI Solutions, Inc is a creditor's rights firm that specializes in
debt collection.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Rusty A. Payton, Esq.
          20 North Clark Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (773) 682-5210
          E-mail: info@payton.legal

VIDA MEDICAL: Lopez Seeks OT Wages for Medical Assistants
---------------------------------------------------------
XAREN LOPEZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C
216(b), the Plaintiff, vs. VIDA MEDICAL NETWORK, LLC, a Florida
Corporation, VIDA MEDICAL CENTERS OF MIAMI CORP. a Florida
Corporation, SANDY LOPEZ, individually, ENRIQUE LOPEZ,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23002-DPG (S.D.
Fla., July 19, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and wrongful termination, as well as an additional amount as
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt Receptionist/Medical
Assistant, initially earning $9.50 per hour and eventually earning
$11.50 per hour.

The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Specifically, she worked Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 6:00
pm, and once a month on Saturdays from 8:00 am to 1:00 pm.
Although Plaintiff actually worked from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm,
Defendants forced her to sign a document stating that she only
worked from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.

Notwithstanding, Vida, Sandy Lopez, and Enrique Lopez willfully and
intentionally failed/refused to pay to Plaintiff the federally
required overtime wages for all hours she worked over 40 hours, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Monica Espino, Esq.
          ESPINO LAW
          2655 S. Le Jeune Road, Suite 802
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: 305.704.3172
          Facsimile: 305.722.7378
          E-mail: me@espino-law.com
                 legal@espino-law.com

VISION PRECISION: Removes Martinez Suit to E.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
Vision Precision Holdings, LLC removes case styled MAYRELI
MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, v. VISION PRECISION HOLDINGS,
LLC and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-101374 (Filed
May 17, 2019), from the Superior Court of California, County of
Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of California on July 21, 2019. The Eastern District of California
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00536 to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that Defendants failed to pay all straight
time wages; pay all overtime wages; provide meal periods; authorize
and permit rest periods; and pay all wages due at time of
termination of employment.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Michele Haydel Gehrke, Esq.
          Anne Cherry Barnett, Esq.
          Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
          Telephone: 415 543 8700
          Facsimile: 415 391 8269
          E-mail: mgehrke@reedsmith.com
                  abamett@reedsmith.com
                  mcurtis@reedsmith.com
                  brnhernandez@reedsmith.com

WALLY'S DELI: Vazquez Seeks Overtime Pay for Grocery Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Efrain Rescalvo Vazquez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Wally's Deli & Grocery Corp.
and Derhim Nasser, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06797
(S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2019), seeks unpaid wages from Defendants for
overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay
as required by law, and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Throughout his employment, Mr. Vazquez worked six or seven shifts
per week that lasted in excess of 10 hours from start to finish,
and yet defendants willfully failed to pay him one additional
hour’s pay at the minimum wage for each such day.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons are current and
former employees of Wally's Deli & Grocery.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com

WALMART: Workers Must Pursue Sex Bias Claims in 79 Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dorrian and Erin Mulvaney, writing for Bloomberg Law,
report that two groups of women who brought separate cases against
Walmart for alleged systemic sex discrimination must pursue their
claims in 79 individual lawsuits, a federal judge in Florida
ruled.

All 79 women worked at different stores, held different positions,
and worked during different time periods, the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida said July 12. They also all
worked under different supervisors and under different employment
policies. Some of those policies were created and implemented prior
to 2004, the court said, granting Walmart's motion to sever in each
case.

Both cases stem from the proposed massive sex bias class action of
approximately 1.5 million women that the U.S. Supreme Court
invalidated in its landmark 2011 Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes
decision.

The retail giant has managed to fend off allegations of pay
discrimination brought by thousands of women for more than a
decade.

The Dukes ruling was seen as a major win for the defense bar
against class actions. It said the plaintiffs didn't identify a
common policy to link their cases. The decision influenced
strategies for future class actions filed against major companies.

Smaller regional class actions against Walmart were filed in the
wake of that decision, including the two cases in Florida. Many of
those classes were shot down as courts questioned the timeliness of
the claims or the certification requirements for each class.
Walmart also settled with the named plaintiffs in a number of
cases.

A new strategy has emerged as well, with attorneys who represent
these women filing individual lawsuits. Since February 2019, at
least 13 individual lawsuits have been brought against the
retailer. Attorneys with Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll represent
the women in the individual lawsuits, as well as the class actions.
Many of the old complaints remain the same, but the strategy and
the named plaintiffs are new, even if they were part of the
originally certified Dukes class.

The women in the two Florida cases seek to join their various
claims. But it's not enough that they all allege discrimination
based on sex in pay and promotions, gender stereotyping, and a
failure by Walmart to effectively uphold workplace anti-bias laws,
Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. said. None of their claims arise out of
the same transaction or occurrence, and there's no common policy,
job practice, or set of facts that applies to all of the women in
each case, the court said.

Similar issues of employer liability alone aren't enough to warrant
joining the women's claims in either case, Scola said.

The allegations in the two lawsuits only consist of "a brief
summary of the alleged discriminatory practices," Scola said. For
some women, a full page of specific details is included, but for
others, there are "as few as three brief sentences of allegations,"
he said.

In a statement provided to Bloomberg Law, a Walmart spokesman said,
"We are pleased the Court ended yet another attempt by these
lawyers to group dozens of plaintiffs into one suit against us. As
we have said, if these plaintiffs believe they have been treated
unfairly, they deserve to have their timely, individual claims
heard in court — but not in some package the law does not
recognize. The Court has laid out a process where each plaintiff
can file an individual complaint to hear allegations that are more
than 15 years old. We will thoughtfully address each case as we
continue to defend the company."

Scott Wagner & Associates P.A. and Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll
PLLC represent the women. Greenberg Traurig and Littler Mendelson
P.C. represent Walmart. The attorneys for the workers didn't
respond to requests for comment.

The cases are Radtka v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2019 BL 258467, S.D.
Fla., No. 19-80153, 7/12/19 and Price v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
2019 BL 258445, S.D. Fla., No. 19-80152, 7/12/19. [GN]


WARMLIVING HEALTH: Wilbon Seeks Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------
MICHELLE P. WILBON, 5659 Shawnee Dr. Lyndhurst, OH 44124, On behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
WARMLIVING HEALTH CARE, LLC c/o Statutory Agent Salima Gharbaoui
7155 Pearl Rd., Ste. 204 Middleburg Hts., OH 44130; and SALIMA
GHARBAOUI, 7155 Pearl Rd., Ste. 204 Middleburg Hts., OH 44130, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01661 (N.D. Ohio, July 22, 2019),
challenges the policies and practices of Defendants that violate
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the laws of the State of Ohio.

As a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA, the Plaintiff
and the FLSA Collective were injured in that they did not receive
wages due to them. They should have been paid overtime wages in the
amount of 150% of their "regular rate" for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit says.

WarmLiving is a home health agency providing home health
aides.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Caxton Building
          812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
          Cleveland, OH 44115
          Telephone: (216) 912-2221
          Facsimile: (216) 350-6313
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

WELLS FARGO: Ronquillo Seeks Overtime Wages for Branch Managers
---------------------------------------------------------------
RENE RONQUILLO, an individual, the Plaintiff, vs. WELLS FARGO BANK,
And DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
37-2019-00037469-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., July 19, 2019), alleges
that Defendants failed to pay wages, failed to provide meal and
rest breaks, failed to provide accurate wage statements, and failed
to make payments within the required time under the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants for engaging in
a uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their
salary paid employees in California. This scheme involved, inter
alia, misclassifying the Branch Managers, including Plaintiff as
"exempt" managerial/executive employees for purposes of the payment
of overtime compensation when, in fact, they were "non-exempt"
non-managerial employees according to California law.

Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company
headquartered in San Francisco, California, with central offices
throughout the United States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          John Glugoski, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 397-9005

WESTERN RANGE: 9th Cir. Flips Dismissal of Castillo Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ABEL CANTARO CASTILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WESTERN
RANGE ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 18-15398 (9th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
district court's dismissal of Castillo's claims.

Appellant Castillo, a nonimmigrant guestworker shepherd employed by
Appellee Western Range Association ("WRA") through the H-2A visa
program, appeals the dismissal of his claims for lack of federal
question jurisdiction, and for failure to satisfy the
jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").

The Court finds that the district court erred in applying a
two-year statute of limitations to Cantáro's breach of contract
claims.  It erred by instead applying the "gravamen of the action"
test to determine that the two-year minimum wage claim statute of
limitations applied to Cantáro's claims for breach of the explicit
terms of a written employment contract.  The Nevada Supreme Court
has applied this test in the context of personal injury cases
pleaded as breach of implied contract.  However, it has not applied
it to breach of contract claims.

Although the district court did not analyze whether Cantáro met
CAFA's requirements under the six-year statute of limitations, the
Appellate Court holds that the district court clearly erred in
determining that Cantáro failed to meet the requirements under
even a two-year statute of limitations.  CAFA provides federal
jurisdiction over class actions where: (1) the class has more than
100 members; (2) the parties are minimally diverse; and (3) the
amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.  Minimal diversity is not
at issue in the appeal.

The Court also finds that nothing in the record suggests WRA
secured DOL certifications and subsequently failed to employ
herders.  Further, Cantáro omitted from the class size estimate
himself and any other shepherds certified as California herders but
working in Nevada.  Therefore, the district court clearly erred to
the extent it determined that Cantáro failed to demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that the WRA class included more than
100 members.

It further finds that the district court clearly erred in
determining that Cantaro failed to satisfy CAFA's $5 million amount
in controversy requirement.  The amount in controversy exceeds $5
million even under the 56-hour work week accepted by the district
court as a reasonable estimate.  The court committed clear error
for failing to recalculate the amount in controversy before
concluding that the preponderance lies with the Defendants.

Finally, because the Court holds that the district court possessed
diversity jurisdiction under CAFA, it need not address federal
question jurisdiction.

Based on the foregoing, the Court reversed and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 19, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/e5DsqU from Leagle.com.


WILL COUNTY, IL: Simon Lee's Class Certification Bid Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Simon A. Lee, the Plaintiff,
v. County of Will, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04244
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John Z. Lee entered an order on July
22, 2019:

   1. denying Plaintiff's applications for leave to proceed in
      forma pauperis; and

   2. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification without
      prejudice.

To proceed with this case, Plaintiff must either: (1) pay the
$400.00 filing fee upfront; or (2) show good cause in writing why
he cannot pay the filing fee as explained in this order.  His
failure to comply with this order by August 26, 2019, will result
in the summary dismissal of this case without prejudice, the Court
says.[CC]

[*] DLA Piper Releases Roundup of Class Action Developments
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keara Gordon, Esq. -- keara.gordon@dlapiper.com -- Isabelle Ord,
Esq. -- isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com -- Anthony David Gill, Esq. --
anthony.gill@dlapiper.com -- Christopher Young, Esq., Colleen Carey
Gulliver, Esq., and David Priebe, Esq., of DLA Piper, in an article
for Mondaq, report that in 2018 and the first half of 2019, there
were a  number of important developments in class actions.

Among these developments:

   * The United States Supreme Court moved to strengthen
arbitration agreements and class action waivers generally

   * Courts continued to grapple with the application of personal
jurisdiction principles in class actions

   * Increased focus on the problems of certifying a class that
contains uninjured class members

   * Spokeo jurisprudence continues to evolve

   * The Supreme Court releases its highly anticipated decision in
China Agritech v. Resh addressing equitable tolling under American
Pipe

  * Five amendments to Rule 23 improved notice and settlement
procedures

  * Global class actions and collective redress procedures continue
gathering force.

In this roundup of recent developments in class actions, we take a
top-level look at class action litigation and consider the trends,
issues, and strategies that businesses face in the months to come.

A copy of the Roundup is available at https://is.gd/TG0Y9T [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***