CAR_Public/190808.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 8, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 158

                            Headlines

20/20 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Arbitration Bar Invalidation Flipped
ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE: Bayeg Suit Asserts BIPA Breach
AFTON LLC: Otero Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Under TCPA
ALL STATE: Calero Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALPHABET INC: $11MM for Job Seekers' Age-Bias Claims vs. Google

AMAZON.COM: R.A. Suit Moved to Central District of California
AMGEN INC: KPH Healthcare Files Antitrust Suit in Del.
ANTALIA TURKISH: Deran Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
BERKS COUNTY, PA: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Victory Suit Ruling
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Deleston Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

BP EXPLORATION: Cain BELO Suit Dismissal Without Prejudice Endorsed
BP EXPLORATION: Hall BELO Suit Dismissal Without Prejudice Endorsed
BP EXPLORATION: Simmons BELO Suit Dismissal w/o Prejudice Endorsed
BULLSEYE ENERGY: Court Denies $700K Settlement in Jeter Suit
CANADA: CA$900M Settlement Reached in Military Sex Abuse Suit

CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Suit
CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
CAPITAL ONE BANK: Perdew Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court OKs Additional Class Counsel in Kautsman
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Court Issues Protective Order in Harwood

CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Gaddy Files RICO Class Action in Utah
CITY MARKET HOTEL: Deleston Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CONFUCIUS HOLDING: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Violates FMLA, Billingsley Suit Asserts
CUSTARD INSURANCE: Court OKs $810K Settlement in Springer Suit

DANWEI LLC: Perkins Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
DELTA AIR LINES: Court Dismisses McGarry Suit With Prejudice
DELTA AIRLINES: Motion to Certify Class Deemed as Moot
DENVER, CO: About 10,000 Au Pairs to Get Paid in Class-Action Deal
DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action Suit

DIGNITY HEALTH: Court Continues Settlement Docs Deadline in Klatt
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Kent Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona
EQT PRODUCTION: Judge OKs Settlement in 6-Year-Old Class Action
EQUIFAX INC: Settles All Civil Liability for $700MM
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Suit

EROS INTERNATIONAL: Kehoe Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
EXIDE TECH: Sanders Seeks OT Wages for Hourly-Paid Employees
FARMERS INSURANCE: Engaged in Fraud and Conspiracy, Rolaff Says
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Dawson Fuel Injection Suit
GLA COLLECTION: Stewart Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky

HELIUS MEDICAL: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
HIGHLAND INDUSTRIES: Suit Alleges Pollution Sickened Neighbors
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
JOHN TRANSPORTATION: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
JOSEPH CORY: Court OKs $2.675MM Settlement in Lupian

KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: ACERS Files Suit Over Share Drop
KIA MOTORS: Faces Smith Class Action C.D. Calif.
KNIGHT ENTERPRISES: Court Strikes Settlement Offer in Weckesser
L. PARKER STEPHENSON: Picon Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LHC GROUP: Court Grants Leave to File Amended Bledsoe FLSA Suit

LIFE TIME: Court Grants $725K Settlement in J. Roth Suit
LOCATIONSMART: To Fight Class Action Lawsuit
MAG PITT LLC: Reyes Hits Misclassification; Seeks Minimum Wages
MARATHON REFINING: Removes Wood Case to N.D. California
MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Garner TCPA Suit

MDL 2179: 5th Cir. Flips Policy 495 Decision Implementation
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT: Court Dismisses Longmire's Pro Se Suit
MMT HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Appeal from Tax Funds Ruling Granted
MONSANTO COMPANY: Christensens Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Huang et al Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup

MONSANTO COMPANY: Prices Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Solises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Thomases Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
NEW BRUNSWICK: Class Status Sought for Therapist Voyeur Case
NINTENDO CO: US Law Firm Opens Class Action Investigation

OLIN CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Caustic Soda Price-fixing
OPEN DEALER: Thornburg Class Settlement Has Final Court Approval
PCM INC: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over Insight Merger Deal  
POST MOTORS: Does not Pay Workers Proper Wages, Lemus Suit Says
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Tiefenthaler Suit Asserts TCPA Violation

PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: 9th Cir. Flips Insurance Suit Dismissal
R.T.G FURNITURE: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
RANDY'S TRUCKING: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Wolf Sues Over False and Misleading Statement
REAL HOSPITALITY: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

RECKITT BENCKISER: Zhang Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in Newell
RELATED MGMT: Doaks Sues Over Unpaid Interest on Security Deposit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bronson's Partial Summary Judgment Bid Granted
SANKARA NY LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SHEPPARD PERFORMANCE: Robinson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SHUTTERFLY INC: Wolf Files Suit Over Apollo Merger Deal
SOLI-BOND INC: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SRAH BAKERY: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
STARK METAL: Lewis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

STEVE CROMAN: Landlord Faces Claims From More Than 100 Tenants
STRIPES LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Sanchez Suit Asserts
SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action
SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Suit
TEEKAY OFFSHORE: Shareholders File Suit Over Unfair Takeover Deal

TELETECH HOLDINGS: Court OKs Individual Arbitration in Blevins
THYSSENKRUPP MATERIALS: Court Dismisses A. Rael Class Claims
TOCK INC: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs $345K Settlement in Dulberg
VELOCITY CONSTRUCTION: Richard Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

VERMILION COUNTY, IL: Farrow Can't Proceed as Class Suit
VERTICAL SCREEN: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Garcia
XPRESSION OF AWARENESS: Dhesi Files Suit Over Junk Fax Ads
YUBA COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Green Suit
ZUORA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Suit


                            *********

20/20 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Arbitration Bar Invalidation Flipped
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, issued an
Opinion reversing the District Court’s judgment affirming the
Arbitrator’s Clause Award Invalidating the Class Arbitration Bar
in the case captioned  20/20 COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v . LENNOX CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellee. 20/20
COMMUNICATIONS, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RANDALL
BLEVINS; KATHY DIGRUILLES; JAMES COBBLE; BRINA HEALY; JULIA
MUCHEKE-BARRETT; PETER SALDORIGA; LOREN SIMPSON; CHARLES SMITH;
BENJAMIN STANCZIK; FREDDIE TUBBS; KYIL WAITS; DEBORAH BUFFAMANTI;
DAVID VINE; JUAN CASTILLO; LENNOX CRAWFORD; THOMAS DEMIRIS;
KIMBERLY KOPPELMAN; REDWAN NEGASH, Defendants-Appellees. No.
18-10260, Consolidated with 19-10050. (5th Cir.).

The question before the Fifth Circuit is not whether the
arbitrator's class arbitration decision is correct, but whether
class arbitration should have been an issue for the arbitrator,
rather than a court, to decide in the first place.

20/20 filed a new action in federal district court to vacate that
arbitrator's clause construction award invalidating the class
arbitration bar. The district court rejected 20/20's request and
instead confirmed the clause construction award.

20/20 Communications, Inc. is a national direct-sales and marketing
company. The company employs field sales managers and requires as a
condition of employment that they sign the company's Mutual
Arbitration Agreement. That agreement contains, among other
provisions, a class arbitration bar, under which employees agree to
bring only individual actions, and not class or collective actions,
to arbitration.

During the pendency of the federal district court proceedings in
Blevins, some employees asked their individual arbitrators to issue
clause construction awards holding that the class arbitration bar
is prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act. Of the six
arbitrators who issued clause construction awards, one concluded
that the class arbitration bar is indeed unenforceable under the
NLRA.

When parties agree to arbitrate certain disputes, courts naturally
expect those parties to resolve those disputes before an
arbitrator, rather than a court. Certain threshold questions of
arbitrability, however, are typically reserved for courts to
decide, absent "clear and unmistakable" language in the arbitration
agreement to the contrary.

To date, the Supreme Court has not decided whether class
arbitrability is such a gateway issue. Nor have this Court. But a
number of our sister circuits have and all of them have concluded
that class arbitrability is a gateway issue.  

The Court agrees with our sister circuits and hold today that class
arbitrability is a gateway issue for courts, not arbitrators, to
decide, absent clear and unmistakable language to the contrary.
Like our sister circuits, the Court regards the decision to
arbitrate a dispute as a class, rather than on an individual basis,
as a threshold question of arbitrability, because class
arbitrations differ from individual arbitrations in fundamental
ways.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly observed, the class action is
`an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and
on behalf of the individual named parties only. After all, in a
class action, the arbitrator's award no longer purports to bind
just the parties to a single arbitration agreement, but adjudicates
the rights of absent parties as well.

In addition, one of the perceived benefits of arbitration, in
contrast to litigation, is the protection of the privacy and
confidentiality of the parties. That privacy and confidentiality is
threatened in a class arbitration, thereby frustrating the parties'
assumptions when they agreed to arbitrate. So the Court has no
difficulty agreeing with our sister circuits who have described the
availability of class arbitration as a foundational question of
arbitrability. The Court holds that class arbitrability is a
gateway issue.

The arbitration agreement at issue in these appeals contains the
following language, permitting individual arbitrations only and
prohibiting class arbitrations to the maximum extent permitted by
law:

The parties agree that this Agreement prohibits the arbitrator from
consolidating the claims of others into one proceeding, to the
maximum extent permitted by law. This means that an arbitrator will
hear only individual claims and does not have the authority to
fashion a proceeding as a class or collective action or to award
relief to a group of employees in one proceeding, to the maximum
extent permitted by law.  

The Court concludes that this class arbitration bar operates not
only to bar class arbitrations to the maximum extent permitted by
law, but also to foreclose any suggestion that the parties meant to
disrupt the presumption that questions of class arbitration are
decided by courts rather than arbitrators.

Divorced from other provisions of the arbitration agreement, most
notably, the class arbitration bar, these three provisions could
arguably be construed to authorize arbitrators to decide gateway
issues of arbitrability such as class arbitration. Under the first
provision cited by the employees, for example, the availability of
class arbitration (and perhaps even the specific question of
whether the class arbitration bar is permitted by law is arguably a
dispute over the meaning of the agreement.

Whether these provisions, standing alone, clearly and unmistakably
empower the arbitrator to decide questions of class arbitrability
is a question the Court ultimately need not answer, however.
Because when the Court compares these provisions with the class
arbitration bar at issue in this case, the Court concludes that
none of them state with the requisite clear and unmistakable
language that arbitrators, rather than courts, shall decide
questions of class arbitrability.

And even putting aside the exception clauses, none of these
provisions speak with any specificity to the particular matter of
class arbitrations. The class arbitration bar, by contrast,
specifically prohibits arbitrators from arbitrating disputes as a
class action, and permits the arbitration of individual claims
only.  

Accordingly, the provisions cited by the employees do not clearly
and unmistakably overcome the legal presumption reinforced as it is
here by the class arbitration bar that courts, not arbitrators,
must decide the issue of class arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's July 22, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxlfdjps from Leagle.com.

Jimmy Derek Braziel, Lee & Braziel, L.L.P., 1801 N Lamar St Ste
325, Dallas, TX, 75202-1732, for Defendant-Appellee.

Andrew Thomas Turner -- andrew.turner@ogletree.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gavin Samuel Martinson, 8117 Preston Road, Suite 500, Dallas TX
75225, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Andrew Ross Frisch, Morgan & Morgan, 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite
400, Plantation, FL,  33324-1311, for Defendant-Appellee.

Jeremy William Hays, Esq. -- jeremy.hayes@ogletree.com - for
Plaintiff-Appellant.


ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE: Bayeg Suit Asserts BIPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------
BERTRAND BAYEG, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE ADMIRAL AT THE LAKE, Defendant, Case No.
2019CH08828 (Circuit Ct., Cook Cty., Ill., July 29, 2019) is a
class action complaint against Defendant for its violations of the
Illinois Biometric Privacy Act.

Recognizing the need to protect citizens from these risks, Illinois
enacted the Biometric Information Privacy Act ("BIPA"), to regulate
companies that collect and store biometric information, such as
facial geometry. Despite this law, Admiral disregarded its
employees' privacy rights, unlawfully collecting, storing, and/or
using their biometric data in violation of the BIPA, asserts the
complaint.

Specifically, Admiral violated the BIPA by failing to inform its
employees in writing that it was storing their facial geometric
data; inform its employees in writing of the specific purposes and
length of time for which it was collecting, storing, and using
their facial geometry data; provide a publicly available retention
schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying its employees'
facial geometry data; or obtain written releases from its employees
allowing it to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain their facial
geometry data, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff Bertrand Bayeg is a natural person and resident of the
State of Illinois.

Defendant Admiral is a corporation that sells senior living
services in Chicago.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
     Michael Hilicki, Esq.
     Keogh Law, Ltd.
     55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312.726.1092
     Fax: 312.726.1093
     Email: keith@keoghlaw.com
            mhilicki@keoghlaw.com


AFTON LLC: Otero Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Under TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANNABELLE OTERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AFTON, LLC, an Oregon Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-23138-XXXX (S.D. Fla., July
30, 2019) is a putative class action against Defendant to secure
redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through
this action, 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 herself and members of the class, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

Defendant is a concert production company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
     Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
     SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
     14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205
     Miami, FL 33132
     Phone (305) 479-2299
     Facsimile (786) 623-0915
     Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
            gberg@shamisgentile.com

          - and -

     Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
     Jordan D. Utanski, Esq.
     EDELSBERG LAW, PA
     19495 Biscayne Blvd. #607
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 975-3320
     Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
            utanski@edelsberglaw.com


ALL STATE: Calero Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------
Yader Ariel Roque Calero, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. All State 12 General
Contracting Corp., Adolfo Rojo, and John Does No. 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04277 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid wages from defendants for overtime premium pay,
liquidated  damages, and compensation under the Wage Theft
Prevention Act, the New York Labor Law, and  the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants had a policy and practice of refusing to pay
overtime compensation to their employees for hours they worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit says.

All State is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business from Corona, New
York.[BN]

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated are:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 0001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com

ALPHABET INC: $11MM for Job Seekers' Age-Bias Claims vs. Google
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Burnson, writing for Bloomberg, reports that Google agreed
to pay $11 million to end a lawsuit accusing the internet giant of
discriminating against older job applicants, a deal that amounts to
an average payout of more than $35,000 for 227 people who joined
the class action.

The settlement also calls for the Alphabet Inc. unit to train
employees and managers about age bias, create a committee focused
on age diversity in recruiting and ensure that complaints are
adequately investigated.

Lawyers for the company and attorneys representing the over-40 job
seekers who sued submitted a final settlement proposal to a federal
judge in San Jose. Lawyers will collect about $2.75 million from
the accord.

The case was brought by a woman who claimed she was interviewed by
Google four times over seven years and was never offered employment
despite her "highly pertinent qualifications and programming
experience" because of her age. Cheryl Fillekes accused the company
of "a systematic pattern and practice of discriminating" against
older people.

Google denied the allegations, saying that Fillekes and other job
seekers she cited as examples didn't demonstrate the technical
aptitude required for the job, even though they were found by staff
interviewers to be "Googley" enough to be a good fit for the
company.

"Age discrimination is an issue that needs to be addressed in the
tech industry, and we're very pleased that we were able to obtain a
fair settlement for our clients in this case," Daniel Low, Esq., a
lawyer for Fillekes, said in an email.

Google representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment. [GN]


AMAZON.COM: R.A. Suit Moved to Central District of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled as R.A., a minor, by and through
his Guardian, Steve Altes individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Amazon.com, Inc. and A2Z
Development Center, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 19STCV20205, was
removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles) on July 25, 2019. The Central District of California Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-06454 to the proceeding. The suit
demands $5 million in damages.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Laurence F. Pulgram, Esq.
          FENWICK AND WEST LLP
          555 California Street 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
          E-mail: lpulgram@fenwick.com

AMGEN INC: KPH Healthcare Files Antitrust Suit in Del.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AMGEN, INC. The case
is styled as KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. also known as: KINNEY
DRUGS, INC. INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Amgen Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.,
Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Actavis Pharma Inc., Actavis plc, Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.,
Inc., Watson Laboratories Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Actavis Pharma Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-md-01460-LPS (D.
Del., Aug. 5, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.

Amgen Inc. is an American multinational biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     DIANNE M. NAST, ESQ.
     NASTLAW LLC
     1101 MARKET ST STE 2801
     PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
     Phone: (215) 923-9300
     Fax: (215) 923-9302
     Email: dnast@nastlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     MELANIE L. KATSUR, ESQ.
     GIBSON DUNN CRUTCHER LLP
     1050 CONNECTICUT AVE NW STE 200
     WASHINGTON, DC 20036
     Phone: (202) 887-3636
     Email: mkatsur@gibsondunn.com


ANTALIA TURKISH: Deran Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Soner Deran, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Antalia Turkish Cuisine LLC, AntaliaNYC, Inc., and
Serhat Cetinkaya, Case No. 1:19-cv-06833 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Antalia Turkish Cuisine LLC and AntaliaNYC Inc. are New York
corporations with a principal place of business at 17 West 45th
Street, in New York City.  AntaliaNYC is a successor corporation to
Antalia Turkish Cuisine LLC.  Serhat Cetinkaya is an owner or part
owner and principal of the Antalia Defendants.

The Defendants owned and operated a Turkish restaurant in New York
under the name Antalia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


BERKS COUNTY, PA: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of Victory Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants County of Berks, et al., filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Theresa Victory, et al. v. County of
Berks, et al., Case No. 5-18-cv-05170, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is captioned as Theresa Victory, et al. v.
County of Berks, et al., Case No. 19-2695, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs sought certification of this class:

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees THERESA VICTORY, ALICE VELAZQUEZ DIAZ and
ANABELL DEALBA, and all others similarly situated are represented
by:

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

               - and -

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

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

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


BLUEGREEN VACATIONS: Deleston Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bluegreen Vacations
Unlimited, Inc. The case is styled as Jermaine Deleston on behalf
of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. doing business as: Bluegreen
Vacations King Street Resort Ascend Hotel Collection a Florida
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07276 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 5,
2019).

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

Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. operates as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Bluegreen Corporation. The subsidiary manages the
Bluegreen Vacation Club, which is a points-based vacation ownership
programs for units in Bluegreen resorts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Erik Mathew Bashian, Esq.
     Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C
     500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 279-1555
     Fax: (516) 213-0339
     Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com


BP EXPLORATION: Cain BELO Suit Dismissal Without Prejudice Endorsed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCES LOUISE CAIN, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC. ET AL. SECTION "J" (2). Related to 12-968 BELO in MDL 10-2179,
Civil Action No. 19-10300 (E.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Joseph C.
Wilkinson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana recommended that (i) BP's motion to dismiss be
granted, and (ii) the single claim in the Plaintiff's complaint
concerning chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD") be
dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff Cain was employed as a clean-up worker along the Gulf
coast and resided in Carthage, Mississippi, after the BP/Deepwater
Horizon explosion and oil spill on April 20, 2010.  She filed the
complaint pursuant to the Back-End Litigation Option ("BELO")
provisions of the BP/Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class
Action Settlement Agreement.

Cain seeks compensatory damages and related costs for
later-manifested physical conditions that she allegedly suffered as
a result of exposure to substances released after the oil spill.
Specifically, her complaint asserts the following seven (7)
conditions: reactive airways dysfunction syndrome, chronic damage
to surrounding structures, chronic rhinosinusitis, chronic damage
to cornea, chronic damage to conjunctiva, chronic eczematous
reaction at the site of contact and COPD.

Defendants, BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America
Production Co., moved to partially dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint, dismissing her claim for recovery for COPD for which she
did not satisfy the Medical Settlement Agreement's conditions
precedent before filing the instant lawsuit.  

Local Rule 7.5 requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion
must be filed no later than eight days before the noticed
submission date.  The Plaintiff did not file an opposition
memorandum. Therefore, the motion is deemed unopposed.

Magistrate Judge Wilkinson finds that the plain terms of the
Medical Settlement Agreement do not allow Cain to allege damages in
the BELO lawsuit based on a physical condition without first
including the condition in her notice of intent to sue and having
it accepted by the Claims Administrator as a valid condition.  Cain
failed to meet the conditions precedent to filing a BELO complaint
as to her alleged later-manifested physical condition of COPD.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate recommended that (i)
the Defendants' motion be, and (ii) the single claim in the
Plaintiff's complaint concerning COPD be dismissed without
prejudice.

A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a
copy will bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and
legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the
party has been served with notice that such consequences will
result from a failure to object.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/5AXi56 from Leagle.com.

Frances Louise Cain, Plaintiff, represented by Howard L. Nations --
info@howardnations. com -- Nations Law Firm.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Catherine Pyune McEldowney --
CPM@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC, Devin
C. Reid -- dcreid@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Georgia Lee Lucier
-- georgialucier@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Kevin
Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP &
Scott C. Seiler -- scseiler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.


BP EXPLORATION: Hall BELO Suit Dismissal Without Prejudice Endorsed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLIE LEON HALL III, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC. ET AL. SECTION "J" (2). Related to 12-968 BELO in MDL 10-2179,
Civil Action No. 19-10253 (E.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Joseph C.
Wilkinson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana recommended that (i) BP's motion to dismiss be
granted, and (ii) the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without
prejudice as to his condition of chronic sinusitis.

Plaintiff, Charlie Leon Hall III, was employed as a clean-up worker
along the Mississippi Gulf Coast, where he also lived, after the
BP/Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill on April 20, 2010.  He
filed the complaint pursuant to the Back-End Litigation Option
("BELO") provisions of the BP/Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits
Class Action Settlement Agreement.

Hall seeks compensatory damages and related costs for
later-manifested physical conditions that he allegedly suffered as
a result of exposure to substances released after the oil spill.
Specifically, his complaint asserts the following conditions and/or
symptoms: chronic rhinosinusitis with testing, chronic damage to
conjunctiva, reactive airways dysfunction syndrome with testing,
chronic dermatitis at site of contact and chronic sinusitis.

Defendants, BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America
Production Co., moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim concerning
one of his claimed physical conditions for which he did not satisfy
the Medical Settlement Agreement's conditions precedent before
filing the instant lawsuit.  Specifically, BP argues that Hall
failed to fulfill the conditions precedent to bringing a BELO claim
based on chronic sinusitis.

Local Rule 7.5 requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion
must be filed no later than eight days before the noticed
submission date.  No memorandum in opposition to the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint has been received.
Accordingly, the motion is deemed unopposed.

Magistrate Judge Wilkinson finds that the plain terms of the
Medical Settlement Agreement do not allow Hall to allege damages in
the BELO lawsuit based on chronic sinusitis, without first having
it accepted by the Claims Administrator as a valid condition.  Hall
failed to meet the conditions precedent to filing a BELO complaint
as to that particular later-manifested physical condition.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommended
that (i) the Defendant's motion for partial dismissal be granted,
and (ii) the Plaintiff's single claim concerning chronic sinusitis
be dismissed without prejudice to refiling if all BELO suit
pre-conditions are met.

A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a
copy will bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and
legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the
party has been served with notice that such consequences will
result from a failure to object.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2019 Report and
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/V048gx from
Leagle.com.

Charlie Leon Hall, III, Plaintiff, represented by Howard L. Nations
-- info@howardnations. com -- Nations Law Firm.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Catherine Pyune McEldowney
-- CPM@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC,
Devin C. Reid -- dcreid@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Georgia Lee
Lucier -- georgialucier@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP,
Kevin Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP
& Scott C. Seiler -- scseiler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.


BP EXPLORATION: Simmons BELO Suit Dismissal w/o Prejudice Endorsed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARLES ANTHONY SIMMONS, v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC. ET AL. SECTION "J" (2). Related to 12-968 BELO in
MDL 10-2179, Civil Action No. 19-10129 (E.D. La.), Magistrate Judge
Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana recommended that (i) BP's motion to dismiss
be granted, and (ii) the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without
prejudice.

Plaintiff Simmons, was employed as a clean-up worker along the
Florida Gulf Coast after the BP/Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil
spill on April 20, 2010.  The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages
and related costs for later-manifested physical conditions that he
allegedly suffered as a result of exposure to substances released
after the oil spill.

The Plaintiff's Notice of Intent to Sue and an attached death
certificate indicate that he died on June 12, 2017, almost two
years before the instant lawsuit was filed.  The Plaintiff's Notice
of Intent to Sue was signed by Codell Gayden, purporting to be
acting as the Plaintiff's Authorized Representative, but Gayden is
not the named Plaintiff and has not appeared in the action.

Defendants BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America
Production Co., filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
complaint.  BP argues that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the
prerequisites of the Medical Settlement Agreement because (1) the
Plaintiff is deceased and therefore not a proper party; and (2) the
proper documentation required by the BP/Deepwater Horizon Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement, confirming Codell
Gayden's legal authority to file a lawsuit and proceed on his
behalf has not been provided.

Local Rule 7.5 requires that a memorandum in opposition to a motion
must be filed no later than eight days before the noticed
submission date.  The Plaintiff did not file an opposition to this
motion. Therefore, the motion is deemed unopposed.

Magistrate Judge Wilkinson finds that the Medical Settlement
Agreement enumerates the steps that an Authorized Representative
must satisfy as conditions precedent to filing a BELO lawsuit on
behalf of a deceased Medical Benefits Settlement Class Member.  The
Plaintiff's purported Authorized Representative Codell Gayden did
not comply with the Medical Settlement Agreement's clearly defined
prerequisites for filing a BELO lawsuit on behalf of a deceased
Medical Benefits Settlement Class Member.  

The requirement to satisfy the condition precedent is not a mere
case management tool, but is required by the court-approved Medical
Settlement Agreement and is not subject to alteration.  Because the
Plaintiff is deceased and his purported Authorized Representative
has neglected to submit documentation of his legal authority to act
on the Plaintiff's behalf, the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the
conditions precedent to filing a BELO complaint as required in the
Medical Settlement Agreement.

For all the forgoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
(i) the Defendants' motion be granted, and (ii) the Plaintiff's
complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to satisfy the
conditions precedent to filing a BELO lawsuit on behalf of a
deceased Medical Benefits Settlement Class Member as required in
the Medical Settlement Agreement.

A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation in a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation within 14 days after being served with a
copy will bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and
legal conclusions accepted by the district court, provided that the
party has been served with notice that such consequences will
result from a failure to object.  

It is suggested, in these circumstances, that any objection to the
Peport and Recommendation filed by theplaintiff's counsel should
attach the required documentation establishing that Codell Gayden
is in fact the Plaintiff's legally Authorized Representative to
pursue the claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/z1h85u from Leagle.com.

Charles Anthony Simmons, Plaintiff, represented by Howard L.
Nations -- info@howardnations. com -- Nations Law Firm.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc. & BP America Production Company,
Defendants, represented by Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Catherine Pyune McEldowney
-- CPM@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC,
Devin C. Reid -- dcreid@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Georgia Lee
Lucier -- georgialucier@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP,
Kevin Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly, LLP
& Scott C. Seiler -- scseiler@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.


BULLSEYE ENERGY: Court Denies $700K Settlement in Jeter Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District Oklahoma
issued an Opinion and Order denying Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Settlement Agreement in the cases captioned KEVIN
JETER, JOE A. JETER, BARBARA LUCAS, JAMES H. MILLER, SHARON RIGSBY
MILLER, LARRY SMITH, JANICE SUE PARKER, individually and as Class
Representatives on Behalf of All Similarly-Situated Persons,
Plaintiffs, v. BULLSEYE ENERGY INC., CEP MID-CONTINENT, LLC, KRS&K,
an Oklahoma Partnership, GASHOMA, INC. PURGATORY CREEK GAS, INC.,
REDBIRD OIL, an Oklahoma Partnership, WILD WEST GAS, LLC, WHITE
HAWK GAS, INC., FOUNTAINHEAD, LLC, ROBERT M. KANE, LOUISE KANE
ROARK, ANNE KANE SEIDMAN, MARK KANE, PAMELA BROWN, GARY BROWN,
Defendants. and KEVIN JETER, JOE A. JETER, BARBARA LUCAS, JAMES H.
MILLER, SHARON RIGSBY MILLER, LARRY SMITH, JANICE SUE PARKER, JAMES
D. ENLOE, CAROLYN R. ENLOE, and SCOTT BAILY, individually and as
Class Representatives on Behalf of All Similarly-Situated Persons,
Plaintiffs, v. CEP MID-CONTINENT, LLC, ROBERT M. KANE, LOUISE KANE
ROARK, ANNE KANE SEIDMAN, MARK KANE, PAMELA BROWN, and GARY BROWN,
Defendants. Case Nos. 12-CV-411-TCK-FHM, 15-CV-455-TCK-TLW (N.D.
Okla.).

Under the proposed settlement agreement, the Defendants would pay
$700,000 into a Settlement Account, and would agree to binding
changes in their future royalty payment methodology, which the
settling parties contend have a present value of at least
$810,248.10 to $2,383,843.37, for a total settlement value of
between $1,510,248.10 to $3,083.843.37.  

In exchange, the members of the settlement class would release
their claims against the Defendants. Additionally, class counsel
would seek a fee not in excess of 33 percent of the total recovery,
and expert fees and litigation costs of approximately $170,000,
leaving a Net Settlement Amount of $485,666.67.

Whether the Agreement Was Fairly and Honestly Negotiated

There is no evidence that the proposed settlement agreement was not
honestly negotiated, but substantial questions exist regarding the
fairness of negotiations. As an initial matter, the proposed
settlement was reached after former class counsel's representation
of the eight Non-Settling Named Plaintiffs ended, and the majority
of negotiations excluded new counsel for the objectors.

Moreover, the Non-Settling Plaintiffs argue the agreement is not
fair, reasonable and adequate because it fails to separate the
class into damages or settlement sub-classes for members with
deduct leases (i.e., net leases) and those with non-deduct leases
(i.e., gross leases). The Non-Settling Plaintiffs argue that the
failure to distinguish between gross and net royalty owners is a
substantial problem because it would result in over-compensation to
net lease holders and under-compensation to gross lease holders.
  
The Court concurs with Non-Settling Plaintiffs that the proposed
settlement is not fair, reasonable or adequate for the reasons set
forth above.

Whether Serious Questions of Law and Fact Exist

At the fairness hearing, Settling Plaintiffs' expert witness Paul
DeMuro, citing Mittelstaedt v. Santa Fe Minerals, Inc., 954 P.2d
1203 (Okla. 1998), testified there was a risk plaintiffs would lose
on the merits based on marketability issues.

He opined that (1) pursuant to Mittlestaedt, if the gas was found
to be marketable at the wellhead, defendants would be entitled to
recover the costs at issue from net lessors (2) a finder of fact
would conclude the costs charged by the producers were reasonable
and (3) as a result, there would be no recovery for the plaintiffs.

  
However, a recent Tenth Circuit decision calls into question
DeMuro's evaluation of both the merits of the case and the
likelihood of class certification surviving on appeal.
  
The Court concludes that questions of law and fact are not so
insurmountable that Plaintiffs are likely to lose on the merits of
their claims.

Whether the Value of Immediate Recovery Outweighs the Mere
Possibility of Future Relief

Pursuant to the proposed Settlement Agreement, up to 30 percent of
settlement proceeds $210,000 is earmarked to pay class counsel's
attorneys' fees, including payments to attorneys who withdrew from
the case and attorneys who Non-Settling Plaintiffs argue refused to
adequately fund the litigation.5 Additionally, litigation costs of
up to $170,000 and a class representative fee of $21,000 would be
deducted.

After deduction of these costs, a net settlement fund of only
$199,000 would remain to be divided among Settling Plaintiffs.
Furthermore, although Defendant Bullseye has threatened to file for
bankruptcy if the case continues, 14 other Defendants remain in the
case, and no admissible evidence concerning their economic
condition has been introduced. Therefore, the Court is not
convinced that the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the
possibility of future relief.

Judgment of the Parties that Settlement is Fair and Reasonable

Settling Plaintiffs' expert, DeMuro, testified he believed the
proposed settlement was fair and reasonable because: (1) it was
questionable whether Plaintiffs would prevail on the merits; (2)
even if the district court certified a class, there was a
significant risk the Tenth Circuit would overturn the class
certification and (3) even assuming Plaintiffs ultimately
prevailed, there were issues with collectability of a damages
award.

However, in light of Naylor, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs'
chances of prevailing on the merits have improved considerably, as
has the likelihood that class certification, if properly
structured, would withstand appellate review. And although
Defendant Bullseye has threatened to file for bankruptcy if the
case continues, 14 other Defendants remain in the case, and no
admissible evidence concerning their economic viability has been
introduced. Therefore, the Court is not convinced that the value of
an immediate recovery outweighs the possibility of future relief.

The Court finds merit in the Non-Settling Plaintiffs' arguments. In
particular, the Court concludes that the settling plaintiffs have
failed to carry their burden to show that the settlement is fair,
inasmuch as it does not account for the differences between gross
and net lessors.

The Court concludes that the Joint Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement Agreement must be denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y34k3j8x from
Leagle.com.

Kevin L Jeter, Individually & Joe A Jeter, Individually,
Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis Albert Caruso, Caruso Law Firm
PC, Mark Allen Smith, Caruso Law Firm PC, The Colonial Bldg., 1325
E. 15th St., Ste. 201, Tulsa, OK 74120-5833 & Mbilike Mwafulirwa,
Brewster & De Angelis PLLC, 2617 E 21st St, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114

Barbara Lucas, Individually, James H Miller, Individually, Sharon
Rigsby Miller, Individually, Larry Smith, Individually & Janice Sue
Parker, Individually, Plaintiffs, represented by Cedric Christian
Micaiah Bond -- CCMB@FEDERMANLAW.COM -- Federman & Sherwood,
Mbilike Mwafulirwa, Brewster & De Angelis PLLC, 2617 E 21st St,
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114, Reagan Edward Bradford --
Reagan.Bradford@LanierLawFirm.com -- Lanier Law Firm, Ryan Keith
Wilson -- ryan.wilson@lanierlawfirm.com -- Lanier Law Firm, William
Bernard Federman, Federman & Sherwood, 10205 N. Pennsylvania.
Oklahoma City, OK 73102 & Kevin Duane Adams, Kevin D Adams PLLC,
1535 South Memorial DriveSuite 104Tulsa, OK 74112- 7046.

Wild West Gas, Inc., Bullseye Energy, Inc. & KRS&K, an Oklahoma
General Partnership, Defendants, represented by Bruce Wayne
Robinett, Robinett King Law Office, 117 West 5th Street,
Bartlesville, Oklahoma 74005, J. Kevin Hayes, Hall Estill Hardwick
Gable Golden & Nelson & Pamela S. Anderson, Hall Estill Hardwick
Gable Golden & Nelson, 320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 200Tulsa, OK
74103- 3706

CEP Mid-Continent LLC, Robert M Kane, Louise Kane Roarke, Ann Kane
Seidman, Mark Kane, Pamela Brown & Gary Brown, Defendants,
represented by J. Kevin Hayes, Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden &
Nelson & Pamela S. Anderson, Hall Estill Hardwick Gable Golden &
Nelson.


CANADA: CA$900M Settlement Reached in Military Sex Abuse Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toronto Sun reports that the federal government promised CN$900
million in compensation to settle multiple class-action lawsuits
lodged on behalf of survivors of sexual harassment, gender
discrimination and sexual assault in the military.

The settlement provides $800 million for members of the Canadian
Armed Forces and $100 million in compensation for another class of
employees of the Department of National Defence.

Over the past few years, participants in several lawsuits alleging
similar misconduct and systemic problems in the military agreed to
co-operate in their legal actions against the government.

One claim, filed by three former members of the military, said the
Armed Forces was "poisoned by a discriminatory and sexualized
culture" that encouraged sexual misconduct and was caused by a
failure in leadership.

Amy Graham, a primary plaintiff in that case, said the settlement
was not just about monetary compensation, and she was most excited
for policy changes included in the agreement. Graham was assaulted
by a superior while returning from a deployment in Afghanistan.

One of the most exciting things, she said, is a "restorative
engagement" program where victims could share their experiences
with military leadership.

From there, Graham said, "we can go about getting some real change
to decrease the amount of victims."

Reducing the number of victims was the main motivation behind the
suit in the first place, Graham said. The problem continues, she
noted, citing a recent survey from Statistics Canada that showed
little improvement in the rates of sexual misconduct in the
military.

Another positive aspect of the settlement was that it could help
provide closure for people who were never able to come forward or
have their cases investigated, Graham said.

"I'm hoping they can move forward and start the healing process."

In a statement July 18, deputy defence minister Jody Thomas and the
military's top general Jonathan Vance said they acknowledged the
"obligation to ensure a safe work environment for all women and
men" in the military.

"We hope that the settlement will help bring closure, healing, and
acknowledgment to the victims and survivors of sexual assault,
harassment, and discrimination," the statement said.

The settlement notes that the government is not admitting
liability.

The government had sought to defend itself in court against the
lawsuits, filing documents in December 2017 in an attempt to quash
them.

But after facing criticism, the government moved to begin
settlement proceedings in early 2018.

Class members will mostly be eligible for between $5,000 and
$55,000, with higher compensation for people who were subjected to
exceptional harm and were denied disability benefits related to
that harm. Those members could receive up to $155,000.

The specifics of the payout will depend on the size of the class in
the case -- the number of people who come forward saying they were
the subject of sexual harassment, gender discrimination or sexual
assault.

The settlement also calls for an external review of existing
anti-harassment programs and revisions to how the government deals
with disability benefits for survivors of sexual assault or
harassment.

While Graham is hopeful about the policy changes included in the
settlement, she said changing the culture of the military will not
come easily.

"It's been entrenched, ingrained in the military for so long --
decades -- that it's not going to be a quick fix," she said. [GN]


CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming Sept. 9, 2019 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in
the class action filed on behalf of CannTrust Holdings Inc. (NYSE:
CTST) investors who purchased securities between November 14, 2018
and July 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On July 8, 2019, the Company disclosed that Health Canada found
that its greenhouse facility in Pelham, Ontario, is non-compliant
with certain regulations. As a result, Health Canada placed a hold
on 5,200 kilograms of dried cannabis harvested from the unlicensed
rooms, along with an additional 7,500 kilograms voluntarily held by
the Company, until the facility becomes compliant.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.11, or more than
22%, to close at $3.83 per share on July 8, 2019, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

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

If you purchased or otherwise acquired CannTrust securities during
the Class Period you may move the Court no later than September 9,
2019 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.  If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

Contact:

         Lesley Portnoy, Esq.
         Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
         Los Angeles
         Tel.No.: 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
         Website: www.glancylaw.com
         Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com
                lportnoy@glancylaw.com [GN]


CANNTRUST HOLDINGS: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds that an
investor securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed
against CannTrust Holdings Inc. (CTST) ("CannTrust") on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired CannTrust securities
between November 14, 2018 and July 5, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

CannTrust investors who purchased or otherwise acquired securities
during the Class Period may, no later than September 9, 2019, seek
to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.

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

According to the complaint, CannTrust is a licensed producer and
distributor of medical and recreational cannabis.

The Class Period commences on November 14, 2018, when CannTrust
announced its third quarter 2018 financial results in a press
release.

According to the complaint, on July 8, 2019, CannTrust disclosed
that its greenhouse facility in Pelham, Ontario is non-compliant
with certain regulations, and that CannTrust was growing cannabis
in unlicensed rooms between October 2018 and March 2019.

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

CannTrust investors may, no later than September 9, 2019, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class
members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to
share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com
[GN]


CAPITAL ONE BANK: Perdew Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PERDEW, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Defendant,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01421-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal., July 30, 2019) is a
Class action complaint on behalf of Plaintiff individually and all
others similarly situated, by and through their attorneys, against
Defendant for failure to abide by its statutory duty.

To ensure that that personally identifiable information ("PII")
about California residents is protected, the California legislature
enacted California Civil Code. The creation of this bill provided
Plaintiff, and all other persons similarly situated within the
United States, a right to keep their personal information
maintained by Defendant confidential. However, the Defendant has
neglected its duty to do so and has allowed unauthorized access to
its customers' PII, says the complaint.

Specifically, Capital One allowed Plaintiff's PII that was on his
credit card application to be vulnerable and accessible. This PII
includes his name address, zip code, phone number, email address,
date of birth, self-reported income, credit score, and his social
security number. Plaintiff's PII has been shared with third parties
and is now accessible on the web. Plaintiff's PII would not have
been accessed and exposed if it were not for Capital One's
negligence and lack of reasonable measures in designing its web
application, says the complaint.

Plaintiff opened a credit card with Capital One Bank on or about
July 25, 2012.

Defendant extends consumer credit cards nation-wide and has been
one of the most vocal advocates for using cloud services among
banks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
     Nicholas R. Barthel, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
     Costa Mesa, California 92626
     Phone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     Email: ak@kazlg.com
            jason@kazlg.com
            nicholas@kazlg.com


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court OKs Additional Class Counsel in Kautsman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to
Approve Additional Class Counsel in the case captioned NIKOLAY
KAUTSMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC,
et al., Defendants. Case No. C16-1940-JCC. (W.D. Wash.).

With regard to the motion to approve additional class counsel, that
motion is granted.  In appointing class counsel, the Court must
consider: (1) the work counsel has done in identifying or
investigating potential claims in the action (2) counsel's
experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and
the types of claims asserted in the action (3) counsel's knowledge
of the applicable law and (4) the resources that counsel will
commit to representing the class.

The parties propose Roger Davidheiser and the law firm of Friedman
Rubin as additional class counsel in this case. Mr. Davidheiser and
Friedman Rubin are experienced in handling class actions.  Mr.
Davidheiser is knowledgeable in the applicable law in this case
because he has tried numerous complex cases and has previously been
lead class counsel. Friedman Rubin is able to commit substantial
resources to this class action.  And although Mr. Davidheiser and
Friedman Rubin have not done as much work as current class counsel
identifying and investigating potential claims in this action,
adding additional class counsel in this case seems particularly
appropriate given the snuggles of Plaintiffs' current counsel
previously identified by the Court.  Finally, all parties agree
that Mr. Davidheiser and Friedman Rubin would serve as adequate
additional class counsel.  

Therefore, the Court finds that Roger Davidheiser and the law firm
of Friedman Rubin will adequately represent the class and appoints
Mr. Davidhesier of Friedman Rubin as additional class counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4p6tkx5 from Leagle.com.

Nikolay Kautsman & Olga Kofanova, and each on behalf of
himself/herself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Harish Bharti, Jason E. Anderson & Roger S.
Davidheiser, FRIEDMAN RUBIN PLLC, 1126 Highland Ave., Bremerton,
WA, 98337-1828.

Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, a Delaware corporation &
Carrington Home Solutions L.P., formerly known as White Van Real
Estate Services, Defendants, represented by Amanda J. Beane --
abeane@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE & Steven Douglas Merriman --
SMerriman@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE.


CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Court Issues Protective Order in Harwood
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division, issued a Protective Order in the
case captioned ELIZABETH HARWOOD AND ZANE VANSELOW, individually
and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES, LLC, fka PST
SERVICES, INC., MILWAUKEE RADIOLOGISTS, LTD., S.C., AND MIDWEST
AREA PHYSICIANS, LLC, Defendants, ACUITY, A MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Intervening Defendant. Putative Class Action Case No.
2:18-CV-01941-LA. (E.D. Wis.).

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Protective
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2yzllag from
Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Harwood, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Welcenbach,
Welcenbach Law Offices SC, 933 N Mayfair Rd, Ste 311, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53226, John Craig Jones -- craig@joneshilllaw.com --
Jones & Hill LLC & Scott C. Borison, Legg Law Firm LLP. 5500
Buckeystown Pike, Frederick, MD 21703

Healthcare Technology Enabled Services LLC, formerly known as PST
Services Inc., Defendant, represented by Kelly J. Noyes --
knoyes@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper SC, Robert Ashby Pate
-- apate@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC, Sara
A. Ford -- sford@lightfootlaw.com -- Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC
& Susan E. Lovern -- slovern@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper
SC.

Milwaukee Radiologists Ltd SC, Defendant, represented by Anne M.
Plichta -- aplichta@mzmilw.com -- Mallery & Zimmerman SC, K. Scott
Wagner -- swagner@mzmilw.com -- Mallery & Zimmerman SC & Shauna D.
Manion -- smanion@mzmilw.com -- Mallery & Zimmerman SC.
Midwest Area Physicians LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel A.
Manna -- manna@gwmlaw.com -- Gass Weber Mullins LLC & Ralph A.
Weber -- weber@gwmlaw.com -- Gass Weber Mullins LLC.


CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST: Gaddy Files RICO Class Action in Utah
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Corporation of
the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
The case is styled as Laura A. Gaddy individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. The Corporation of the
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints a Utah
corporation sole, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00554-EJF (D. Utah,
Aug. 5, 2019).

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often informally
known as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, is a nontrinitarian,
Christian restorationist church that is considered by its members
to be the restoration of the original church founded by Jesus
Christ.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kay Burningham, Esq.
     299 S MAIN ST STE 1375
     SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
     Phone: (888) 234-3706
     Email: kay@kayburningham.com


CITY MARKET HOTEL: Deleston Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Market Hotel
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Jermaine Deleston on behalf
of himself, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City
Market Hotel Associates, LLC doing business as: Hotel on Market a
South Carolina limited liability company, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07282 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 5, 2019).

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

City Market Hotel Associates LLC is a privately held company in
Charleston, SC and is a Single Location business, categorized under
Franchise Hotels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Erik Mathew Bashian, Esq.
     Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C
     500 Old Country Road, Suite 302
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 279-1555
     Fax: (516) 213-0339
     Email: eb@bashpaplaw.com



CONFUCIUS HOLDING: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Confucius Holding
LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Confucius Holding LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07287 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 5, 2019).

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

CONFUCIUS HOLDING LLC Domestic Limited Liability Company is located
at 215-35 27th Ave, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
     The Marks Law Firm PC
     175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Violates FMLA, Billingsley Suit Asserts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Billingsley, Jeremy Clifford, Mike Robbins, Bryan Stutz, and
Kyle Wood, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-00858-BJD-JBT (M.D.
Fla., July 23, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Family
Medical Leave Act's anti-retaliation and anti-interference
provisions.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action to restrain and enjoin CSX
from engaging in a pattern and practice of punishing employees for
taking FMLA leave and to recover damages caused by CSX's unlawful
retaliatory conduct.

CSX Transportation, Inc. is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida
and provides freight rail transportation services throughout the
country, including in Florida.  CSX operates a 24-hour-a-day,
365-day-a-year business.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Audrey Schechter, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF AUDREY HILDES SCHECHTER
          P.O. Box 445
          Largo, FL 33779
          Telephone: (727) 219-9707
          E-mail: audreyschechterlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq.
          THE MOODY LAW FIRM
          500 Crawford St., #200
          Portsmouth, VA 23704
          Telephone: (757) 399-8906
          Facsimile: (757) 397-7257
          E-mail: nthompson@moodyrrlaw.com


CUSTARD INSURANCE: Court OKs $810K Settlement in Springer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Settlement Agreement in the case captioned GERALD
SPRINGER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CUSTARD INSURANCE ADJUSTERS, INC.,
Defendant. Case Nos. 17-cv-05840-WHO, 18-cv-02768-WHO,
18-cv-04670-WHO, 18-cv-05487-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs' investigation and discovery have been sufficient to
allow the court and counsel to act intelligently. Counsel for both
parties are experienced in similar employment class action
litigation. All counsel recommended approval of the Agreement.
There were no objections or requests for exclusion. The
consideration to be given to the Settlement Class Members under the
terms of the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate
considering the strengths and weaknesses of the claims asserted in
this action and is fair, reasonable, and adequate compensation for
the release of Settlement Class Members' claims, given the
uncertainties and risks of the litigation and the delays which
would ensue from continued prosecution of the action.

The proposed Settlement Agreement is approved as fair, adequate,
reasonable, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.

Enhancement Awards

The Settlement Agreement provides for Enhancement Awards of up to
$7,500 each for Representative Plaintiffs Keith Tyner, Armen
Abgaryan, Perry Wadler, Gerald Springer, and Troy Willis, and
$2,500 for Representative Plaintiff Ray Paiva, subject to the
Court's approval. The Court finds these Enhancement Awards to be
reasonable in light of the risks and burdens undertaken by the
Representative Plaintiffs in this Action, for their time and effort
in bringing and prosecuting this matter on behalf of the Plaintiff
Classes, and for the broader releases they are providing to
Defendant.

Cost of Settlement Administration

The Settlement Agreement provides for payment of settlement
administration expenses from the Gross Settlement Fund. The
Settlement Administrator has $19,000 in settlement administration
expenses. The amount of this payment is reasonable in light of the
work performed by the Settlement Administrator and shall be awarded
thereto.

PAGA Payment

The Agreement provides for a PAGA payment of $15,000, from which
$11,250 shall be allocated and delivered to the California Labor
and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). The remaining $3,750 will
be distributed to the Settlement Classes.

Attorney Fees and Expenses

The Plaintiffs' counsel sought an award of 33 1/3% of the Gross
Settlement Fund ($810,000). They justified seeking that award based
on the good recovery secured and as their lodestar was at or
slightly exceeded that amount.

The Plaintiffs' counsel seek an award of $15,000 to cover their
expenses in litigating these related cases. The Court have reviewed
the bills submitted and find it appropriate to award $15,000 for
the expenses incurred (which slightly exceed that amount.

The Settlement Classes are certified for the purposes of settlement
only. The Settlement Classes are hereby defined to include:

   California Class: All persons who were employed as
overtime-exempt insurance adjusters by Custard Insurance Adjusters,
Inc. in one or more of its Custard branch office locations in
California at any time on or after October 4, 2013.

   FLSA Class: All persons who were employed as overtime-exempt
insurance adjusters by Custard Insurance Adjusters, Inc. in one or
more of its Custard branch office locations in the United States at
any time on or after October 4, 2014.

All persons who meet the foregoing California Class definition are
members of the California Settlement Class.

All persons who meet the foregoing FLSA Class definition who cash
their Individual Settlement Payment checks will thereby opt-in to
the FLSA Settlement Class and release their FLSA Class Claims.

The Settlement Agreement is hereby finally approved as fair,
reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the Settlement
Classes.

The payment of Enhancement Awards in the amount of $7,500 each for
Representative Plaintiffs Keith Tyner, Armen Abgaryan, Perry
Wadler, Gerald Springer, and Troy Willis, and $2,500 for
Representative Plaintiff Ray Paiva, is approved.

The payment of $19,000 to the Settlement Administrator for
settlement administration services is approved and the PAGA payment
of $11,250 (i.e., 3/4 of $15,000) is approved.

Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of
$607,500.

Class Counsel are reimbursed litigation costs in the amount of
$15,000.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5s22zgz from Leagle.com.

Gerald Springer & Troy Willis, Plaintiffs, represented by Corey
Benjamin Bennett -- cbennett@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law
Group, PC, Matthew John Matern --  MMatern@maternlawgroup.com --
Matern Law Group, PC, Cesar A. Alvarado, Law offices of Scott Cole,
1970 Broadway; Oakland, California 94612, Mark G. Griffin --
mgriffinesq@gmail.com -- Scott Cole and Associates APC & Scott
Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC.

Keith Tyner, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Corey Benjamin Bennett, Matern
Law Group, PC, Cesar A. Alvarado, Law offices of Scott Cole,Mark G.
Griffin, Scott Cole and Associates APC & Scott Edward Cole, Scott
Cole & Associates, APC.

Custard Insurance Adjusters, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark
Andrew Saxon -- msaxon@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani,
Saxon D. Brandon -- bsaxon@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees & Travis Kai
Jang-Busby -- tjang-bugsby@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully &
Mansukhani LLP.


DANWEI LLC: Perkins Sues Over Illegal Tip Pool
----------------------------------------------
LUCAS PERKINS, Plaintiff, v. DAVE SINGH, an individual, and DANWEI
LLC, an Oregon limited liability company, Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-01157-AC (Circuit Ct., Multnomah Cty., Ore., July 26, 2019)
is an action brought on behalf of all employees of DANWEI from six
years preceding the filing of this Complaint under state and
federal wage-and-hour and other statutes for tort, equity,
common-law, and common-count claims for certain present and former
employees.  The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages, statutory
damages, civil penalties, economic and noneconomic compensatory
damages, attorney fees, costs, and disbursements (and pre- and
post-judgment interest thereon), as well as restitution,
declaratory, other equitable relief, and punitive damages.

Plaintiff was an employee of DANWEI. Danwei LLC was and/or is an
Oregon limited liability company.

The complaint alleges that DANWEI required plaintiff and the other
class members to contribute all of the tips and gratuities to a tip
pool. DANWEI kept all of the tip pool documents secret, so that no
one knew whether or when those moneys ever got paid, or to whom. As
such, DANWEI required Mr. Perkins and the class members to
participate in an illegal tip pool, in which tips were taken from
those to whom they were given and allegedly given to employees who
worked in non-customarily tipped occupations and/or managers,
supervisors, and one or more employers, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jon M. Egan, Esq.
     JON M. EGAN, P.C.
     547 Fifth Street
     Lake Oswego OR 97034-3009
     Phone: (503) 697-3427
     Fax: (866) 311-5629
     Email: info@eganlegalteam.com


DELTA AIR LINES: Court Dismisses McGarry Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California dismissed with prejudice in its
entirety the case, TERESA J. McGARRY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., and
[24]7.AI, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09827-MWF-E (C.D.
Cal.).  The Judge has considered the Plaintiff's Notice of Intent
Not to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint.  

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2019 Final Judgment and
Order is available at https://is.gd/exjE15 from Leagle.com.

Teresa J. McGarry, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Carter, TOSTRUD LAW
GROUP, P.C., Barbara L. Gibson -- bgibson@kohnswift.com -- Kohn
Swift and Graf PC, pro hac vice, Demet Basar -- basar@whafh.com --
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Denis F.
Sheils -- dsheils@kohnswift.com -- Kohn Swift and Graf PC, pro hac
vice, Gregory M. Nespole -- gmn@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman and Herz LLP, Jon A. Tostrud -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com --
Tostrud Law Group PC, Kate M. McGuire, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman and Herz LLP, pro hac vice & Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz LLP, pro hac vice.

Delta Air Lines Inc, Defendant, represented by David L. Balser --
dbalser@kslaw.com -- King and Spalding LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph N.
Akrotirianakis -- jakro@kslaw.com -- King and Spalding LLP & Marisa
C. Maleck, King and Spalding LLP, pro hac vice.

(24)7.AI, Defendant, represented by Casie D. Collignon --
ccollignon@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher A. Wiech, Baker and Hostetler LLP, pro hac vice, Paul
G. Karlsgodt -- pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP,
pro hac vice, Teresa C. Chow -- tchow@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and
Hostetler LLP & Matthew D. Pearson, Baker and Hostetler LLP.


DELTA AIRLINES: Motion to Certify Class Deemed as Moot
------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH VARILYN DONOFF, on behalf of herself and a1l others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. DELTA AIRLINES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 9:18-cv-81258-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Donald M. Middlebrooks entered an order on July 23, 2019:

   1. granting Parties' joint motion for amendment of
      scheduling order;

   2. advising Defendant need not file an answer to plaintiff
      second amended complaint, in light of the third amended
      complaint;

   3. deeming moot Plaintiff's motion to certify class, and
      requiring any amended motion to certify class to be
      filed on or before September 4, 2019;

   4. rescheduling trial for two-week trial period beginning  
      January 13, 2020 at 9:00 am , with a calendar call  
      scheduled for January 8, 2020 at 1:15 pm ;

   5. rescheduling certain deadlines:

      September 4, 2019   -- Deadline for plaintiff to file
                             an amended motion to certify
                             class.

      October 18, 2019    -- All pretrial m otions, including
                             summary judgment motions and
                             daubert motions, and motions in
                             limine shall be sled.

      December 13, 2018   -- Joint pretrial stipulation shall
                             be filed. Designations of
                             deposition testimony shall be
                             made.

      December 20, 2019   -- Objections to designations of
                             deposition testimony shall be  
                             filed.

      January 6, 2020     -- Jury instructions or proposed  
                             findings of fact and conclusions
                             of law shall be filed.

      January 8, 2020     -- Calendar call.[CC]

DENVER, CO: About 10,000 Au Pairs to Get Paid in Class-Action Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Slevin, writing for Star Tribune, reports that about 10,000
live-in childcare workers from around the world will share in a
class-action settlement in a case that challenged whether they
should be treated as employees entitled to minimum wage or members
of the family learning about the United States while helping out at
home.

U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello gave final approval to the
$65.5 million deal July 18 during a hearing in Denver, saying the
payments to au pairs who filed claims by the May deadline would
average $3,500 each.

About 160,000 au pairs who came to the United States to work from
2009 to late 2018 under J-1 visas were identified as having the
potential to receive money under the deal announced in January.
Notices were sent to nearly all of them, but about 10,000 filed
claims by the May deadline.

About 40 percent of the deal will go to pay for administrative
costs, lawyers' fees and other expenses. Lawyers for Towards
Justice, a nonprofit Denver law firm that filed the lawsuit in
2014, and the high-profile New York firm of Boies Schiller Flexner
were not paid during the case.

The settlement also requires that 15 agencies authorized by the
U.S. State Department to connect au pairs with families notify both
parties going forward that au pairs can negotiate to be paid more
than the minimum $195.75 a week required by the department. The
minimum pay is based on the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for 45
hours of work minus a 40 percent deduction for room and board.

The agencies, the only ones that sponsored au pairs when the suit
was filed, did not admit wrongdoing. One other company was later
allowed to bring au pairs to the United States, but lawyers for the
au pairs thought it was treating its au pairs more fairly, perhaps
because of the pending lawsuit.

The lawsuit, brought by 11 au pairs from Colombia, Australia,
Germany, South Africa and Mexico, claimed the agencies colluded to
keep their wages low, ignoring overtime and state minimum wage laws
and treating the federal minimum wage for au pairs as the maximum
they could earn. In some cases, the lawsuit said, parents pushed
the limits of their duties, requiring au pairs to do things like
feed backyard chickens and help families move and not allowing them
to eat with the family.

A handful of former au pairs submitted written comments to the
court. Echoing allegations in the lawsuit, Alejandra Guadalupe
Franyutti Ramirez of Queretaro, Mexico, said she was fired and
given a short time to leave the country when she got sick soon
after pushing back about her duties while serving as an au pair in
Portola Valley, California.

Meanwhile, Eva Bein of Germany, described having a positive
experience with her host family said she objected to the
settlement's focus on pay, fearing it could hurt the cultural
exchange mission.

She also said the deal should require sponsors to not only check on
au pairs more often but remove host families who mistreat them,
noting that agencies now act in the interest of the families who
pay them fees to recruit au pairs.

The settlement comes amid a movement to protect the rights of
domestic workers, who were originally excluded from federal labor
protections. A handful of states have passed domestic worker bills
of rights, and U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris and Rep. Pramilla Jayapal
introduced a federal version.

The settlement did not address whether au pairs are entitled to
higher minimum wages in states and cities that have set them above
the federal minimum or whether families should be allowed to deduct
room and board expenses, something that is generally not permitted
when they are seen as a benefit to the employer. The federal
appeals court based in Boston is considering the wage issue in a
case challenging Massachusetts' inclusion of au pairs in its
domestic bill of rights.

David Seligman, Esq., executive director of Towards Justice, said
the settlement provides important reforms in the industry in
addition to the payouts.

"The outcome reaffirms that everyone — including low-wage workers
— has the right to a free and competitive marketplace," he said.

The practice of having au pairs -- French for "on par with" --
developed in postwar Europe, where young people lived with families
in other countries to learn a language in exchange for helping with
childcare and some housework. In Europe, au pairs generally are
limited to working 30 hours a week.

The concept came to the United States in 1986 when the State
Department launched it as a cultural exchange program amid a
growing demand for childcare. [GN]


DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP reminds investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Diebold Nixdorf,
Inc. (DBD) ("Diebold Nixdorf ") on behalf of all purchasers of
common stock during the period between May 4, 2017 through July 4,
2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is
not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve
as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
September 3, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action, have any
questions concerning this notice, or your rights or interests,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at
619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number.

The complaint charges that Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was
experiencing delays in systems rollouts as well as a longer
customer decision-making process and order-to-revenue conversion
cycle; (2) the foregoing issues were negatively impacting the
Company's services business and operations; and (3) as a result,
defendants' statements about Diebold's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
https://www.johnsonfistel.com

Contact:

         Jim Baker, Esq.
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Tel.No.: 619-814-4471
         Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


DIGNITY HEALTH: Court Continues Settlement Docs Deadline in Klatt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order continuing Settlement Documents Deadline in the case
captioned MEGAN E. KLATT, an individual, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a
California corporation; DOES 1-50, unknown individuals; and ROE
COMPANIES 1-50, unknown business entities, Defendants. Case No.
2:17-cv-02425-RFB-BNW. (D. Nev.).

The Parties filed a Stipulation and Order to Continue Settlement
Documents Deadline (Second Request), which the Court granted on
July 3, 2019, because they needed additional time to complete the
drafting of the settlement documents. The settlement papers are
currently due on July 10, 2019.

The Parties filed a Stipulation and Order to Continue Settlement
Documents Deadline (Third Request), which the Court granted on July
11, 2019, because they needed additional time to complete the
drafting of the settlement documents. The settlement papers are
currently due on July 19, 2019.

Since the last extension was granted, the Parties have continued to
work diligently to finalize the settlement papers and have
discussed additional changes to the settlement papers, but have
been unable to finalize the documents in light of counsel for
Plaintiff being out of the office traveling on vacation. As such,
the Parties request an additional seven (7) days, through and
including July 26, 2019, to complete the documents and submit the
papers for Court approval.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4ryttn8 from Leagle.com.

Megan E. Klatt, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D. Kircher,
Semenza Kircher Rickard, Jarrod L. Rickard, Semenza Kircher Rickard
& Lawrence J. Semenza, III, Semenza Kircher Rickard, 10161 Park Run
Dr Ste 150, Las Vegas, NV, 89145-8872

Dignity Health, Defendant, represented by Kirsten Ann Milton --
Kirsten.Milton@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC, pro hac vice &
Daniel Aquino -- Daniel.Aquino@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Kent Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Talon Kent individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dynamic
Recovery Solutions, LLC, Jefferson Capital Systems LLC, Unknown
Parties named as John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
2:19-cv-04886-DLR (D. Ariz., Aug. 5, 2019).

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

Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC is a full-service collection agency
based in South Carolina. Dynamic Recovery Solutions is experienced
in collecting late-stage debt for small, medium, and high-volume
businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
     Stein Saks PLLC
     285 Passaic st
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (347) 668-9326
     Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com


EQT PRODUCTION: Judge OKs Settlement in 6-Year-Old Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
federal judge approved a settlement finally putting an end to a
2013 lawsuit against EQT Production Company for royalty payments.

The settlement provides for $53.5 million into a settlement fund
and counsel requested $50,000 for each of the named class
representatives and attorneys will receive one-third of the
settlement for attorneys' fees, according to the July 22 final
order filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
West Virginia.

"Each class member will receive a recovery which is based upon the
amount of money (deductions) taken from their royalty income less
fees and costs...except that there will be some class members who
would have received less than $200.00 and it was in the best
interest of the class to assure each class member would receive at
least that amount and it will not significantly affect the
remaining class members' recovery," the order states.

U.S. District Judge John Preston Bailey also wrote in the final
order that there were no objections filed to any part of the
settlement agreement.

Even after six years of "intense litigation" the final settlement
agreement was not completed until January and not signed by the
defendants until February, according to the final order.

"The litigation and the settlement negotiations were intense and
adversarial," Bailey wrote. "There was no collusion. Settlement was
not even mentioned until after the Court ruled on essentially all
pretrial motions."

Earlier this month, an order was filed granting EQT's motions to
exclude from class settlement two leases litigated in separate
actions.

"Defendants move to exclude John Fout, Nancy Fout, J&N Management,
LLC, and J&N Management Enterprises, LLC from the class settlement
preliminarily approved by this Court with regard to their interest
in EQT Production Lease 300648 because the Fouts filed a separate
royalty deduction claim against EQT Production in this Court
regarding that Lease, and judgment was entered against them after a
jury trial," the order states.

EQT also moved to exclude Arnold K. Richards and Mary L. Richards
from the class settlement because a judgment was entered against
EQT after a jury trial with them as well.

In the lawsuit, which was first filed in Doddridge Circuit Court
before being removed to federal court, the plaintiffs alleged that
EQT took deductions, reduced the plaintiffs' royalty payments,
overcharged them for deductions and otherwise reduced the royalty
volume and/or price.

The plaintiffs are represented by Marvin W. Masters, Esq. --
mwm@themasterslawfirm.com -- of The Masters Law Firm; Michael W.
Carey, Esq. and Robert E. Douglas, Esq. of Carey, Scott, Douglas &
Kessler; and Thomas W. Pettit, Esq. of Thomas W. Pettit LC.

EQT is represented by Stephen E. Hastings, Esq. and David K.
Hendrickson, Esq., of Hendrickson & Long. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Settles All Civil Liability for $700MM
---------------------------------------------------
Boingboing.net reports that Equifax doxed virtually every adult in
America as well as millions of people in other countries like the
UK and Canada. The breach was caused by an acquisition spree in
which the company bought smaller competitors faster than it could
absorb them, followed by negligence in both monitoring and
responses to early warnings. Execs who learned of the breach used
it as an opportunity to engage in insider trading, while failing to
take action to alert the public. Equifax nonconsensually gathers
dossiers on everyone it can, seeking the most sensitive and
potentially damaging information to record. The company was founded
as part of a corporate spy-ring employed to root out and identify
political dissidents and sexual minorities.

Despite Equifax's assurances to the contrary, there's scant
evidence it's done anything to prevent future breaches.

The company used the breach as a chance to lock Americans into
years of payments for credit-monitoring services.

Equifax's market cap stands today at $16.6B, and it posted $3.412B
in earnings in 2018, up 1.48% increase from 2017.

The company has settled virtually all the civil liability from its
breach for $700m. The victims of the breach have effectively
unlimited, permanent liability from this breach and will face
identity theft, fraud and stalking risks for the rest of their
lives -- and after they die, their estates will also be under
threat from the breach.

The settlement covers federal liability from the FTC and CFPB,
class action suits, and most state attorneys general actions.

Elizabeth Warren, who hopes to be the Democratic presidential
nominee, has called for criminal prosecutions of the Equifax execs.
Many of these execs "retired" shortly before the breach with
multi-million-dollar payouts. [GN]


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that approximately one month remains to make a
motion for lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of those who acquired Eros International PLC shares ("EROS,"
or the "Company") (EROS) between July 28, 2017 and June 5, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to
recover damages for EROS investors under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

If you purchased EROS securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit Eros International PLC Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) EROS and its executives engaged in a  scheme to use
related-party transactions to fabricate receivables that they
reported in EROS's public financial disclosures; (ii) because of
this scheme, EROS's financial position was weaker than what the
Company disclosed; (iii) consequently, the Company's Indian
subsidiary, Eros International Media Ltd ("EIML"), missed loan
payments and had its credit downgraded; and (iv) due to the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about EROS's receivables,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On June 5, 2019, CARE Ratings, India's second largest credit
ratings agency, downgraded EIML's credit rating to "Default"
because of "ongoing delays/default in debt servicing due to
slowdown in collection from debtors." On June 6, 2019, EROS issued
a press release admitting that EIML was late on two loan interest
payments for April and May 2019.

On this news, shares of EROS fell $3.59 or over 49% to close at
$3.71 per share on June 6, 2019, damaging investors.  The next day,
before the market opened, Hindenburg Research published an article
titled "Eros International: On-The-Ground Research, Employee
Interviews, and Private Company Documents Expose Egregious
Accounting Irregularities," explaining the reason for the downgrade
of EIML.  The article stated, among other things, that "a
significant portion of EROS's receivables don't exist" and that
they have documented "multiple undisclosed related-party
transactions that appear designed to hide receivables."

On this news, shares of EROS fell another $.41 or over 11% to close
at $3.30 per share on June 7, 2019, damaging investors.  

If you purchased EROS securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/erosinternationalplc-eros-lawsuit-class-action-fraud-stock-149/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action, you
must move the court no later than August 20, 2019. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: http://www.bernlieb.com   
         Tel.No.: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Kehoe Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Eros International PLC (NYSE: EROS) on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Eros from July 28, 2017 through
June 5, 2019, inclusive.  The class action lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Eros shareholders under the federal securities laws.

If you purchased Eros securities during the Class Period and
suffered damages, please click Join a Securities Class Action or
contact either:

   John Kehoe, Esq.
   Tel: (215) 792-6676, Ext. 801
   Email: jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com

   or

   Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
   Tel: (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
   Email: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com
          info@kehoelawfirm.com

to learn more about the class action lawsuit.  

Pivotal investors have until August 20, 2019 to move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff.

According to the class action complaint, the Eros Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Eros and its executives engaged in a scheme to use
related-party transactions to fabricate receivables that they
reported in Eros's public financial disclosures; (2) because of
this scheme, Eros's financial position was weaker than what Eros
disclosed; (3) consequently, the Company's Indian subsidiary, Eros
International Media Ltd ("EIML") missed loan payments and had its
credit downgraded; and (4) due to the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about Eros's receivables, business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors. [GN]


EXIDE TECH: Sanders Seeks OT Wages for Hourly-Paid Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD SANDERS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated; Plaintiff, vs. EXIDE
TECHNOLOGIES, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-01367 (Cal. Super.,
July 25, 2019), seeks to recover compensatory damages, restitution,
penalties, wages, premium pay, and pro rata share of attorneys'
fees under the California Labor Code.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other persons as hourly-paid
and piece-rate employees within the State of California on or about
October 2013 and resigned on or about 12 March 2019. The Defendants
allegedly failed to compensate them for all hours worked, missed
meal periods and/or rest breaks.

The Defendants intentionally and willfully failed to pay overtime
wages owed to Plaintiff and the other class members (but not all),
including not factoring bonuses, commissions and/or incentives in
the regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime compensation.

Exide Technologies is an American manufacturer of lead-acid
batteries, including automotive batteries and industrial batteries.
Its four global business groups provide stored electrical energy
products and services.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          75J North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (818) 230-7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230-7259

FARMERS INSURANCE: Engaged in Fraud and Conspiracy, Rolaff Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Rolaff and Harlene Rollaff, husband and wife for themselves as
representatives of classes of similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.; Farmers Insurance
Exchange; Fire Insurance Exchange; Truck Insurance Exchange;
Foremost Insurance Company; Mid-Century Insurance Co.; Farmers
Group, Inc.; Fire Underwriters Association; Donan Engineering Co.,
Inc.; Engineering, Inc.; Ford Engineering; The Structures Group,
Inc.; Nelson Forensics, LLC; PT&C Forensics Consulting Services,
P.A.; Envista Forensics, LLC; and Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00689-R filed in Payne County District
Court, in Oklahoma on July 29, 2019, is an action involving
fraudulent schemes and conspiracy on the part of Farmers insurance
companies and several engineering firms in Oklahoma, who developed
a way to avoid costly payments to insureds for earthquake damage
under valid insurance policies.

Plaintiffs and Class Members are those insureds and policyholders
who filed claims under valid earthquake coverage for damage to
their property. The Defendants are those Farmers insurance
companies who denied claims in bad faith and in violation of
Oklahoma insurance LAW, along with the engineering firms who
drafted sham and/or pretextual reports showing "pre-existing
damage" or other false reasons to justify the wrongful denials. The
Farmers Defendants wrongfully denies Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
earthquake coverage claims in two ways: (a) The Farmers Defendants
denied insureds' earthquake coverage claims on the basis of
pre-existing damage. However, those denials (in whole or in part)
were not support by a legally required prior inspection or survey,
which must have been conducted prior to the inception of coverage
under Oklahoma insurance law; and (b) The Farmers Defendants
procured sham engineering reports from the Engineering Defendants
for the sole purpose of justifying their denial of insureds'
claims.

The Farmers Defendants wrongfully denied Plaintiffs insureds'
claims using one or both of these schemes. They failed to disclose
the unlawful basis of their coverage denial to their insureds,
thereby breaching the duty they owe to their insureds. This conduct
is fraudulent and has padded the Farmers Defendants' pockets with
ill-gotten gains--the indemnity payments they should have paid to
their insureds under valid earthquake insurance policies--for
years, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were parties to a valid contact for indemnity insurance
for damage to their property caused by earthquake, which was
issued, administered, and adjusted by the Farmers Defendants.

Farmers Insurance Company, Inc. is a Kansas corporation authorized
and admitted to write insurance in Arkansas, Texas and
Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Reggie Whitten, Esq.
     Michael Burrage, Esq.
     J. Revell Parrish, Esq.
     WHITTEN BURRAGE
     512 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 300
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     Phone: (405) 516-7800
     Fax: (405) 516-7859
     Email: rwhitten@whittenburragelaw.com
            mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com
            rparrish@whittenburragelaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses Dawson Fuel Injection Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the
case captioned BRUCE DAWSON and JOHN TAMBURINI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL
MOTORS LLC, Defendant. Civ. No. 19-8680. (D.N.J.).

This putative class action is brought against the Defendant, which
allegedly installed Bosch CP4 fuel injection pumps in its diesel
vehicles that were incompatible with American diesel fuel, making
the vehicles prone to catastrophic failure.

Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim Under the NJCFA

The Plaintiffs assert two theories of liability under NJCFA:
affirmative misrepresentations and knowing omissions. As to the
first, Plaintiffs do not successfully assert any affirmative
misrepresentations by Defendant. Some of the statements described
in the Complaint lack the required particularity. Rule 9(b)
requires that Plaintiffs state with particularity the circumstances
constituting fraud. For example, the Complaint mentions the
representation that the vehicle would retain all of its promised
fuel economy and performance throughout its useful life, but does
not say specifically what was said, who said it, or when they did
so.

Other affirmative statements fall short as well: Defendant's
statement that its engineers left no bolt unturned; that it
delivered the strongest, most powerful and most capable lineup of
Sierra HD Pickups, ever; and that the engine improves power and
mileage, runs at peak efficiency and provides a highway mileage
range of up to 680 highway miles.The parties disagree as to whether
these statements are inactionable puffery.

But even if these statements are not puffery, Plaintiffs have not
shown how the alleged fuel pump failure makes any of the statements
untrue.

In this case, then, the question is whether Defendant knew with
certainty that the CP4 fuel pump would fail and Plaintiffs must
meet the heightened fraud-pleading standards of Rule 9(b). Some of
Plaintiffs' allegations are too general to meet that standard: for
example their claim that Defendant has long been aware of the
defect  or general mentions of customers' complaints or warranty
and post-warranty claims. Additionally, because Plaintiffs must
show that Defendant knew about the defect at the time that
Plaintiffs purchased their vehicles between October 2010 and August
2015, the Court will not consider any revelations that occurred
after that date.

Plaintiffs have the heavy burden of pleading that Defendant knew
with certainty that the fuel pumps would fail. Because Plaintiffs
have not carried their burden here, their NJCFA claim is
dismissed.

Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for Breach of Express Warranty

To prevail on a claim for breach of express warranty in New Jersey,
a plaintiff must prove the following: (1) that Defendants made an
affirmation, promise or description about the product (2) that this
affirmation, promise or description became part of the basis of the
bargain for the product and (3) that the product ultimately did not
conform to the affirmation, promise or description.

Here, Defendant provided a warranty, but the warranty expired
before any of the alleged failures associated with the fuel pump.
For this reason, Plaintiffs' express warranty claim fails.  

Plaintiffs argue that the warranty's time and mileage limitations
are unconscionable and therefore inapplicable. Cases in the
District of New Jersey are split as to whether a manufacturer's
knowledge of a defect, by itself, makes the warranty's limitation
period unconscionable. But in any case, Plaintiffs have failed to
plead that Defendant knew of the defect. Plaintiffs therefore fail
to plead unconscionability.

Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for Breach of Implied Warranty

A warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a
contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to
goods of that kind.  Merchantable goods, among other things, are
fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.
Generally, an implied warranty does not extend beyond the time or
mileage limitation provided by an express warranty and Plaintiffs
provide no compelling reason to depart from that rule. Plaintiff's
implied warranty claim fails.

Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim Under the MMWA

The MMWA allows a suit brought by a consumer who is damaged by the
failure of a supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply
with any obligation under this chapter, or under a written
warranty, implied warranty, or service contract. MMWA claims based
on breaches of express and implied warranties under state law
depend upon those state law claims. Because Plaintiffs' state law
claims do not survive, neither does their MMWA claim.

Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim for Unjust Enrichment

To prove unjust enrichment,a plaintiff must show both that
defendant received a benefit and that retention of that benefit
without payment would be unjust. The unjust enrichment doctrine
requires that plaintiff show that it expected remuneration from the
defendant at the time it performed or conferred a benefit on
defendant and that the failure of remuneration enriched defendant
beyond its contractual rights.

In this case, Plaintiffs have not shown that they performed or
conferred a benefit on Defendant because they have not alleged a
direct relationship between the parties. Plaintiffs paid
substantial sums of money for their vehicles, but they paid these
sums and thus conferred a benefit to the dealerships. The Complaint
does not specify if or how this benefit accrued to Defendant. It is
not difficult to imagine that Defendant has benefitted through the
sales of its cars but Plaintiffs must connect those dots in the
pleadings. Because they fail to do so here, their unjust enrichment
claim is dismissed.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted and leave
to amend is granted.
  
A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxzeluu8 from Leagle.com.

BRUCE DAWSON & JOHN TAMBURINI, individuallly, Plaintiffs,
represented by AMEY JIYOUNG PARK -- apark@bm.net -- Berger
Montague, ERIC LECHTZIN -- elechtzin@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC &
RUSSELL D. PAUL -- rpaul@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC.

GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant, represented by HONOR R. COSTELLO --
hcostello@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING LLP.


GLA COLLECTION: Stewart Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against G.L.A. Collection
Company, Incorporated. The case is styled as Sherhonda Jones
Stewart individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. G.L.A. Collection Company, Incorporated,
John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00560-RGJ (W.D. Ky,
Aug. 5, 2019).

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

GLA Collection Co., Inc. is a Louisville, Kentucky based collection
company that focuses on the collection of medical debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Yaakov Saks, Esq.
     Stein Saks, PLLC
     285 Passaic Street
     Hackensack, NJ 07601
     Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext 101
     Fax: (201) 282-6501
     Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com


HELIUS MEDICAL: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Helius Medical Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: HSDT) from
November 9, 2017 through April 10, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Helius investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Helius class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1496.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq., toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com
or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the clinical study on the use of the Portable
Neuromodulation Stimulator ("PoNS") did not produce statistically
significant results regarding the effectiveness of the treatment;
(2) the clinical study did not support Helius' application for
regulatory clearance; (3) Helius was unlikely to receive regulatory
approval of PoNS; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about Helius' business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1496.html or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

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

Contact:

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


HIGHLAND INDUSTRIES: Suit Alleges Pollution Sickened Neighbors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sammy Fretwell, writing for Greenville News, reports that after
years of operating quietly in a small Pee Dee, South Carolina
community, an industrial plant that employs hundreds of people is
being accused by neighbors of polluting their land and making them
sick.

One of those neighbors, Janet Tillman of Cheraw, filed a lawsuit
against Highland Industries for what she says is a failure to stop
pollution that dates as far back as 1970.  The suit, which says the
Cheraw plant released cancer-causing PCBs, seeks compensation for
Tillman and class action status, meaning hundreds of neighbors also
could be compensated if the suit is successful.

Duke Energy also was mentioned in the lawsuit and likely will be
listed as a defendant at a later date, a spokeswoman for the
Harrell law firm of Charleston said July 19. In the past, Duke
washed equipment coated with PCBs in a field across the street from
the Highland plant, said the firm's Shelia Arroyo, Esq. --
shelia@hlfpa.com

A Duke spokesman said the company didn't know why it was mentioned
in the suit, and Highland had no immediate comment July 19. The
lawsuit is the second filed in court in Chesterfield County against
Highland since Hurricane Florence focused attention last September
on industrial pollution from the site. A creek basin below the
plant has been declared a federal Superfund cleanup site because of
historic contamination from the Highland property.

When the hurricane blew through, it washed toxins from the
Superfund area into four houses and five other yards, sparking
emergency cleanup work and focusing attention on Highland.

"In September of 2018, a serious storm caused severe flooding and
further movement of the contaminants from the defendant's site onto
and into the properties of (Highland's) neighbors," the suit says,
noting that the manufacturing plant released the pollution through
"neglect and failures."

But the suit isn't just about Hurricane Florence's aftermath. It
says the plant had been polluting the area for parts of 49 years.

The state lawsuit says Highland Industries knew or should have
known that the site was "seriously contaminated" and toxins were
leaving its property when it purchased the site in 1988 from
Burlington Industries. But Highland never did anything to stop the
poisonous mess that today is lowering property values and affecting
people's health, the suit says.

"The migration of hazardous and toxic constituents .... is
continuing, causing loss of property value, property damage and
.... painful severe injuries and illnesses," the suit said.

The State reported on the legacy of pollution problems after
Hurricane Florence zapped the area last fall. Among other things,
the newspaper found that state regulators had known as far back as
1970 about the discharge of a greenish waste into a ditch from the
industrial plant. But many people didn't learn about the pollution
until the state Department of Health and Environmental Control
began investigating about four years ago. The EPA later declared a
3.2 mile area below the Highland plant, including a former city
park, as a Superfund site.

Highland has denied liability but has done some cleanup work since
the hurricane. Some of Cheraw's leaders have spoken favorably of
Highland, which they say has been a good neighbor through the
years. The textile manufacturing plant, which opened in 1961,
employs several hundred people. It has made a variety of fabrics
through the years, including Kevlar for bulletproof vests.

Cheraw, a town of about 6,000, is near the North Carolina border in
South Carolina's Pee Dee region, a mostly rural area east of
Columbia. The EPA says it has cleaned up the worst of the
contamination, but has a long-term plan to clean up other parts of
the area that it says were not as badly contaminated.

Tillman, a neighbor of the factory, says she and her family are
examples of how pollution affected their property and their health.
PCBs, products once used widely by industry, can cause liver cancer
and skin irritation to people exposed to large amounts of the
material over time. PCBs once were used as coolants and lubricants
in transformers and other electrical equipment, according to the
federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Tillman's sons say they played as children in the drainage ditch
that flowed from the Highland site. One of them, Domonic Tillman of
Texas, said he suspects an acne-like rash that plagues him today is
related to pollution that washed down the creek. Another son, Jerod
Harris of Columbia, said he also is having health problems that are
not common to his family.

"There's no telling what's down the line with our health," said
Janet Tillman, who said she's lived below the plant for 29 years
and only learned of the pollution about three years ago. "Who can
tell later on?"

In her lawsuit, Tillman asks a court to not only grant class action
status, but to force further cleanup of the area by Highland
Industries of "all contaminants from its plant site, the affected
drainage ditch/creek and from (Tillman's) property." If the company
doesn't do that, the court should order it to be shut down, the
suit says.

One neighbor who lives across the ditch from Tillman said he plans
to join the lawsuit.

Melvin Wilkerson, whose home also is next to an old sludge disposal
area the plant used, said he has suffered thyroid cancer and skin
rashes that he suspects are tied to the industrial pollution. He
wants the vacant sludge disposal site cleaned up.

"The lot next to us on our right side, facing our front door, has
not been cleaned up," said Wilkerson, a retired school teacher. "If
there is no resident or occupant on the land, it is not cleaned
up." [GN]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court no
later than September 9, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you take no action, you may
remain an absent class member.

If you purchased INS securities during the Class Period, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/yxstsqy9 or contact Matthew Guarnero toll free
at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         https://www.bernlieb.com
         Tel.No.: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]


JOHN TRANSPORTATION: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MICHELLE WARNER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
LITTLE JOHN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC.; CHRISTOPHER DALE; and
STEVEN DALE, the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 5:19-cv-05042-PKH (W.D.
Ark.), the Hon Judge P.K. Holmes, III entered an order on July 24,
2019, denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification

The Court said it need not certify a Rule 23 class when pursuit of
the already-certified collective action will allow the parties in
this action to fairly and effectively litigate their claims.
Because Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how a class action is a
superior method of adjudication here, the motion will be
denied.[CC]

JOSEPH CORY: Court OKs $2.675MM Settlement in Lupian
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion granting Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary
Approval of a Class Action Settlement in the case captioned
ALEJANDRO LUPIAN, JUAN LUPIAN, ISAIAS LUNA, JOSE REYES and EFRAIN
LUCATERO, individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH CORY HOLDINGS, Defendant. Docket
No. 16-cv-5172. (D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs Alejandro Lupian, Isaias Luna, Jose Reyes, and Efrain
Lucatero worked for Defendant as delivery truck drivers. Plaintiffs
were paid a set wage, did not receive overtime, and had certain
amounts deducted from their paychecks for insurance, unsatisfactory
deliveries, and other expenses. Plaintiffs allege that they should
have been classified as employees under Illinois law and that the
amounts Defendant deducted from their wages were impermissible.  

Based on these facts, the Plaintiffs initially filed this action,
alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collections
Act (IWPCA), the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law. Plaintiffs also asserted a count for unjust
enrichment.

The Rule 23(a) Requirements

Numerosity

Numerosity is satisfied when joinder of all putative class members
is impracticable. Where the number of potential plaintiffs exceed
forty, the numerosity requirement is generally fulfilled. Here, the
parties state that the proposed class has approximately 200
members.

The Court finds numerosity satisfied.

Commonality

Commonality considers whether there are `questions of law common to
the class. Commonality is satisfied when there are classwide
answers.  Commonality requires that the class members have suffered
the same injury and not merely that they have all suffered a
violation of the same provision of law. Thus, the members of the
class must assert a common contention that is capable of classwide
resolution such that the determination of its truth or falsity will
resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the
claims in one stroke.

Here, the parties argue that the settlement class meets commonality
because each member has suffered the same injury when he was
improperly classified as an independent contractor and thus
subjected to certain impermissible wage deductions. The Court
agrees. Common question of law regarding whether each delivery
truck driver was improperly classified is subject to common answers
and capable of classwide resolution. Minor differences between the
delivery driver's work schedules or wage deductions do not defeat
commonality.

Commonality is thus satisfied.

Typicality

The concepts of commonality and typicality are broadly defined and
tend to merge. The typicality inquiry centers on whether the
interest of the named plaintiffs align with the interests of the
absent members. Thus, the typicality requirement ensures that the
class representatives are sufficiently similar to the rest of the
class in terms of their legal claims, factual circumstances, and
stake in the litigationso that certifying those individuals to
represent the class will be fair to the rest of the proposed
class.

Here, the record reflects that the named plaintiffs' claims are
sufficiently typical of the class. Each named plaintiff signed an
agreement classifying him as an independent contractor, was
actually classified as such by the Defendant, and was subjected to
various wage deductions as a result. The claims of the
representatives, therefore, are generally the same as those of the
class, each of whom also signed a contract, was misclassified, and
was subjected to wage deductions. The legal theories and factual
circumstances underlying their claims are typical of the claims of
the class as a whole, thus aligning their interests with the
interests of the class.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs meet the requirements
of typicality.  

Adequacy

Adequacy encompasses two distinct inquiries designed to protect the
interests of absentee class members. First, it tests the
qualifications of the counsel to represent the class. Second, it
serves to uncover the conflicts of interest between named parties
and the class they seek to represent.

Counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted adequate documentation
that the attorneys on this matter at Berger Montague PC, Siegel &
Dolan Ltd., and Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., are experienced and
knowledgeable plaintiffs' class action attorneys and have litigated
cases in this state's Supreme Court and nationally related to wage
misclassification and alleged improper wage deductions. They have
further been appointed class counsel in at least ten federal class
action settlements. The Court finds Plaintiffs' counsel qualified.

As to the second prong, the Court finds no conflicts of interest
between the named parties and the class.  Plaintiffs as delivery
truck drivers similarly affected by Defendant's alleged improper
classification will adequately represent the interests of the
class. Although the Court notes that the settlement includes an
incentive payment of $15,000 to each named plaintiff, such payments
are not atypical for class representatives and do not impact their
ability to adequately represent the class.

The Rule 23(b) Requirements

Predominance

Here the parties seek to certify a settlement class under Rule
23(b)(3), and as such the Court must examine whether its two other
requirements are met. As to predominance, the court evaluates
whether questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.
The inquiry, while similar to the considerations under Rule 23(a)'s
commonality requirement, is a far more demanding standard that
requires the Court to determine if the proposed class is
sufficiently cohesive that members of the class may use the same
evidence to make a prima facie showing of their claims and those
claims are subject to classwide proof.

Here, the parties do not dispute and the Court agrees that common
questions predominate. Each class member was allegedly improperly
classified as an independent contractor and was subject to certain
wage deductions. No individual inquiry will be necessary regarding
Defendant's liability to each class member. Rather, Defendant
uniformly classified each class member as an independent contractor
in contravention to the IWPCA, and the common proofs required to
demonstrate this violation predominate over individualized
inquiries.

The Court thus finds the class satisfies predominance.

Superiority

Finally, the Court examines the second Rule 23(b)(3) factor:
superiority. To satisfy superiority, a plaintiff must demonstrate
that a class action is superior to other available methods for the
fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. This inquiry
requires the Court to balance, in terms of fairness and efficiency,
the merits of a class action against those of alternative available
methods of adjudication.

The parties again assert that this requirement is satisfied, and
the Court agrees. This case has approximately 200 class members who
likely have little interest or ability to litigate their individual
claims states away in District Court in New Jersey.  Litigating
these claims separately would further unduly burden the judicial
system. Fairness and efficiency accordingly weigh in favor of a
finding that a class action is the superior method of adjudicating
these claims.  

The Certified Class

Here, while the Court only preliminarily certifies the class, it
does so for the following class definition:

     All persons who entered into a Dedicated Contract Carrier
Agreement and/or Transportation Services Agreement individually or
on behalf of another entity for the provision of delivery services
in the State of Illinois and personally provided delivery services
in the State of Illinois for Joseph Cory Holdings LLC during the
period between August 25, 2006 and February 15, 2019.

THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

Here, Court finds the proposed settlement is adequate and fair on
preliminary review. The parties have negotiated at arm's length
with the assistance of an experienced mediator after litigation of
this matter for nearly three years. Defendant has agreed to pay
$2,675,000, from which each class member will receive a pro rata
share of lost wages which, on average amounts to $7,400. Plaintiffs
state that they have conducted a thorough review of Defendant
business records to calculated various deductions, some of which
may not be permissible under Illinois law, and some of which may be
permissible. Plaintiffs' counsel, who have frequently litigated
wage class actions, aver that while individual litigation of each
claim may result in claims significantly more that $7,400, legal
issues may also preclude recover for some class members all
together.  

Accordingly, this settlement adequately accounts for the risk of
further litigation.

NOTICE

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(1) provides that the court
must direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members who
would be bound by the proposal. The Rule 23(e) notice is designed
to summarize the litigation and the settlement and to apprise class
members of the right and opportunity to inspect the complete
settlement documents, papers, and pleadings filed in the
litigation.

The Court has reviewed the settlement notice and finds it
adequate.
  
Accordingly, the motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2khuuyl from Leagle.com.

ALEJANDRO LUPIAN, JUAN LUPIAN, JOSE REYES, EFFRAIN LUCATERO &
ISAIAS LUNA, Plaintiffs, represented by ALEXANDRA KOROPEY PIAZZA --
apiazza@bm.net -- BERGER MONTAGUE PC.

JOSEPH CORY HOLDINGS LLC, Defendant, represented by PETER FRANCIS
BERK -- pberk@genovaburns.com -- Genova Burns LLC.


KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: ACERS Files Suit Over Share Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
ALLEGHENY COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS
INC., MICHAEL G. KAUFFMAN, SHARON SHACHAM, JUSTIN A. RENZ, MICHAEL
F. FALVEY, GAREN G. BOHLIN, MIKAEL DOLSTEN, SCOTT GARLAND, BARRY E.
GREENE, MANSOOR RAZA MIRZA, DEEPA R. PAKIANATHAN, KENNETH E. WEG,
CANTOR FITZGERALD & CO., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, JEFFERIES LLC,
and LEERINK PARTNERS LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-11597 (D. Mass., July
23, 2019), alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The lawsuit arises from the Defendants' material misrepresentations
and omissions regarding results from clinical trials for
selinexor's treatment of patients with certain types of blood
cancer: the Phase 2 SOPRA trial, which evaluated selinexor for
treatment of patients with acute myeloid leukemia ("AML"); and Part
2 of the Phase 2b STORM trial, which evaluated the safety and
efficacy of selinexor in treating patients with multiple myeloma
("MM").  As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class
members/stockholders have suffered significant losses and damages,
the Plaintiff alleges.

Karyopharm is a Delaware corporation with its corporate
headquarters located in Newton, Massachusetts.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.  Defendants
Cantor Fitzgerald, JP Morgan, Jeffries, and Leerink Partners served
as underwriters to the Company's public offerings of common stock.

Karyopharm is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company focused on
the discovery, development and commercialization of drugs for the
treatment of cancer and other major diseases.  During the Class
Period, Karyopharm's lead drug candidate was selinexor, an oral
selective inhibitor of nuclear export for the treatment of cancer
indications with significant unmet clinical need, initially to be
used for the treatment of blood cancers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
                  jake@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Hannah Ross, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: hannah@blbglaw.com
                  avi@blbglaw.com
                  michaelb@blbglaw.com


KIA MOTORS: Faces Smith Class Action C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kia Motors America,
Inc. The case is styled as Alice Smith, Harry Smith, Christina
McCormick, Cynthia Acker, Linda Cooper, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Kia Motors America,
Inc. a California corporation, Hyundai Motor America a California
corporation, FCA US LLC a Delaware limited liability company,
Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc. a Delaware corporation, American
Honda Motor Co., Inc. a California corporation, Acura a Division of
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. a
California corporation, ZF TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 8:19-cv-01515-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.,
Aug. 5, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Kia Motors America, Inc. operates as an automobile dealer.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jonathan A Michaels, Esq.
     Kyle Norman Gurwell, Esq.
     MLG APLC
     151 Kalmus Drive Suite A102
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (949) 527-6900
     Fax: (949) 581-6908
     Email: jmichaels@mlgaplc.com
            kgurwell@mlgaplc.com

          - and -

     Laurence D King, Esq.
     Mario Man-Lung Choi, Esq.
     Matthew B George, Esq.
     Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP
     350 Sansome Street Suite 400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 772-4700
     Fax: (415) 772-4707
     Email: lking@kaplanfox.com
            mchoi@kaplanfox.com
            mgeorge@kaplanfox.com

          - and -

     Ryan David Jones, Esq.
     MLG Automotive Law APLC
     151 Kalmus Drive Suite A-102
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Phone: (949) 581-6900
     Fax: (949) 581-6908
     Email: rjones@mlgaplc.com

          - and -

     Justin B Farar, Esq.
     Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP
     12400 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 820
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Phone: (310) 575-8604
     Fax: (310) 444-1913
     Email: jfarar@kaplanfox.com


KNIGHT ENTERPRISES: Court Strikes Settlement Offer in Weckesser
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina, Charleston Division, issued an Order and Opinion granting
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Settlement Offers and for Entry of a
Protective Order in the case captioned  Patrick Weckesser, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Knight Enterprises S.E., LLC, Defendant. Civil Action No.
2:16-cv-02053-RMG. (D.S.C.).

Plaintiff Patrick Weckesser, a cable installation technician, filed
this class and collective action on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated against Defendant Knight Enterprises
S.E., LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.  

The Plaintiffs contend this communication directly from Defendant
to the Plaintiffs was improper, and asks the Court to strike the
settlement offers, including the three already signed, and enter a
protective order limiting future communications from the Defendant
to the Plaintiffs. Defendant opposes the motion, contending that
Williams, as an employee of Defendant Knight and not counsel, was
entitled to engage in party to party communications and,
regardless, the content of the communications were proper.

The Parties have submitted briefs supported by extensive
documentary evidence and signed affidavits, and have thus provided
the Court with a clear record to find that the Defendant's conduct
was clearly impermissible and the Court must take appropriate
actions to govern the conduct of the Parties.

First, it is undisputed that a particular form of communication has
occurred here. Defendant, through Williams, contacted at least
seventeen of the opt-in plaintiffs via phone and also emailed many
of them the Offer Letters. The Plaintiffs contend that these
communications were improper and warrants a protective order as
they were coercive and misleading.  

Second, the Court finds that the communications complained of were
abusive and threaten the proper functioning of this litigation. The
FLSA was created in recognition of the unequal bargaining power as
between employer and employee. The communications at issue here
highlight the inequality of that bargaining power, inducing
represented plaintiffs, all of whom are current or former workers
of Defendant, to settle their claims based on a threat of potential
future legal action and a potentially inaccurate assurance by
Defendant that the settlement offered represents their maximum
possible compensation even if they proceed to trial.

To begin with, the communication at issue here, as acknowledged by
Defendant, was inherently false, misleading and confusing.
Defendant now concedes that some of the language in the letters,
specifically regarding the nature and term of claims released, may
have been unclear, and now contend that they seek to have the
Opt-In Plaintiffs who wish to settle their claims sign an
additional Proposed Settlement Agreement, which Defendant has not
yet presented to the Opt-In Plaintiffs because of this pending
motion.  

However, the terms of the yet-unsent Proposed Settlement Agreement,
releasing only wage claims through December 31, 2016, are directly
in conflict with the Offer Letters' statement that all claims
arising out of any matter occurring prior to the date of this
letter will be released. These Offer Letters, which Defendant
acknowledges are overbroad, therefore have the coercive effect of
leading the Plaintiffs to believe they can never bring any other
form of claim against Defendant.

Indeed, separate from the Defendant's acknowledgement of the
mistake, this broad release on its own was impermissible and
misleading.  

The Defendant additionally provided the Plaintiffs with the hollow
assurance that the settlement offer amounted to the maximum claim
for overtime compensation and that the settlement offer was merely
to avoid unnecessary litigation costs. Yet, as demonstrated by the
Parties' briefing, the Parties have a genuine dispute regarding the
correct way to calculate work hours, and instead the Defendant
relied on the individual Opt-In Plaintiffs lack of knowledge of the
underlying record, documents in discovery, and applicable law to
attempt to circumvent their decision to have settlement
calculations handled by their chosen counsel. Indeed, while
Defendants attempt to distinguish the case, the court in Potts,
2016 WL 1622015 similarly faulted a defendant attempting to engage
in direct settlement negations with opt-in plaintiffs who failed to
show, or even offer to show, the class members the documents that
he claimed demonstrated they were paid correctly.

Here, too, the Opt-In Plaintiffs had no way to assess their claims
or the truth of Defendant's statements, and Defendant relied on
disputed assertions stated as fact to convince the Plaintiffs into
signing the offer letters.

This misinformation was compounded by a threat contained in second
paragraph of the letter: if the Plaintiffs did not sign the
agreement, and Defendant prevailed at trial, the Defendant would
sue the Plaintiffs for indemnification since their Plaintiffs'
contracts allegedly stated they would not seek employee status.
Multiple courts have recognized that these types of claims,
indemnification for bringing a FLSA action, are impermissible and
erode the protective purpose of the FLSA and deter plaintiffs from
vindicating their rights.

Further, the Fourth Circuit has recognized that such a lawsuit,
ultimately, could constitute unlawful retaliation under the FLSA.
Yet, regardless of whether such an indemnification claim can
ultimately be brought, the issue here is not whether Defendant can
state a cause of action for indemnification. Instead, the Court
finds it coercive that the Defendant, in a letter sent directly to
already-represented Plaintiffs, threatened potentially retaliatory
litigation if the Plaintiffs failed to settle their claims
immediately. This is an independently sufficient ground to find
that communication was impermissibly coercive.

The Court also finds that Defendant's recent actions demonstrate
that, even after this Motion was filed, Defendant continued to
engage in communications that threaten the proper functioning of
the litigation. Notably, after this Motion was filed, and after
Defendant represented that it had delayed sending settlement
agreements to Plaintiffs based on the pending motion, Defendant
sent an additional letter to Opt-In Plaintiffs requesting that they
settle their claims.

Finally, Defendant argues that it was contacting the Opt-In
Plaintiffs, in part, because Defendant was concerned that
Plaintiffs' counsel had not informed their clients of the
settlement offers. Defendant contends this was necessary as Rule
1.2(a) of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct (SCRP)
commits to a client the right to accept an offer of settlement.
Yet, this argument ignores that fact that Comment 3 permits clients
to authorize lawyers to take specific action on their behalf
without further consultatio and Comment 2 to Rule 1.4, specifically
permits attorneys to accept or reject offers on a client's behalf
where the client has previously has authorized the lawyer to accept
or to reject the offer.

Here, the Opt-In Plaintiffs' notice of joinder explicitly permitted
Plaintiffs' counsel to make all decisions with respect to the
conduct and handling of this action, including the settlement
thereof and Plaintiffs' counsel thus comported with their ethical
duties. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs represent that the settlement
determinations were made with a steering committee consisting of
the Named Plaintiff and two Opt-In Plaintiffs. Defendant's ethical
arguments that their communication was mandated by the SCPRC is
therefore without merit.

More fundamentally, the Court is troubled by the nature of the
party to party communications here. Defendant is correct that a
party is permitted to contact another party in a proceeding,
including regarding settlement.Further, a lawyer can provide
assistance to a client regarding the nature of those
communications. Yet, the ABA and this Court are cognizant of
ethical concerns when assisting party to party communications, as
under Rule 4.2 a lawyer is not permitted to contact a represented
party and, similarly, Rule 8.4 prohibits an attorney from using an
agent to breach this rule.

Therefore, the ABA, at the end of its' Formal Opinion cited by
Defendant, advised attorneys that they must at a minimum, advise
the client to encourage the other party to consult with counsel
before entering into obligations, making admissions or disclosing
confidential information.

The Court therefore finds, based on clear evidence in the record,
that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that a particular
communication occurred and that the communication was abusive in
that it threatens the proper functioning of the litigation. The
Court therefore will take appropriate actions to remedy these
communications. First, the Court invalidates and strikes all offer
letters, opt-out forms, and settlement checks submitted to Opt-In
Plaintiffs and invalidates all offer letters, opt-out forms or
settlement checks signed by Opt-In Plaintiffs.

Second, within seven (7) days of this Order, Plaintiffs' counsel
shall draft a corrective notice to all those who signed any
document settling their claims or opting out of the litigation that
informs the Opt-In Plaintiffs that they remain a party to the
litigation and to consult with their counsel if they have questions
regarding this litigation.
  
Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike
settlement offers and for entry of a protective order. The Court
strikes all offer letters, opt-out forms, and settlement checks
submitted to Opt-In Plaintiffs and all offer letters, opt-out
forms, and settlement checks signed by Opt-In Plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6lsazcq from Leagle.com at no
charge.

Patrick Weckesser, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley Long Falls, Falls Legal
& Joseph Scott Falls, Falls Legal, 245 Seven Farms Drive Suite 250,
Charleston, SC 29492.

Knight Enterprises SE LLC, Defendant, represented by Debbie Whittle
Durban, Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough & Matthew Adams Abee,
Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, 1320 Main Street, 17th Floor,
Columbia, SC 29201.


L. PARKER STEPHENSON: Picon Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
YELITZA PICON AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. L. PARKER STEPHENSON PHOTOGRAPHS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07082 (S.D. N.Y., July 30, 2019) is a
civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The 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 Americans with Disabilities Act,
asserts the complaint. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to
cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,.

Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.

Defendant operates its art gallery as well as the Website and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LHC GROUP: Court Grants Leave to File Amended Bledsoe FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Carolyn Bledsoe, Plaintiff, v. LHC Group Incorporated,
Defendant, No. CV-18-02863-PHX-RCC (D. Ariz.), Judge Raner C.
Collins of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint.

The Petitioner states that she wants to amend her Complaint to
allege that although she and the other similarly situated home
health Clinicians were considered 'non-exempt' and eligible for
overtime pay, the Defendant nevertheless failed to pay them 1.5
times their regular rate of pay for recorded hours worked in excess
of 40 per workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 ("FLSA").

The Defendant contends the Court should deny the amendment because
the pleaded facts are insufficient to state a claim under the
heightened pleading standards of  Landers v. Quality Commc'ns, Inc.
It alleges that the amendment is futile under the Landers standard
and should be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Moreover, the Defendant suggests that the Plaintiff's amendment is
without evidentiary support.  It alleges Plaintiff incorrectly
assumed that the Defendant classified Plaintiff Bledsoe and other
similarly situated employees as exempt when they are "non-exempt,"
and that the Plaintiff's payroll history and pay stubs should have
been available to the Plaintiff's counsel before ever filing the
original Complaint.

The Plaintiff addresses the Defendant's futility argument by
including additional facts within her Reply in Support of Her
Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.  She includes a
supplementary paragraph which would fulfill the requirements of the
Landers FLSA pleading standard.  The Plaintiff states that she was
not previously able to provide an example of a workweek in which
the FLSA was violated because the Defendant did not submit
information in a timely manner as required by Court order.  The
Plaintiff further claims that she did not have access to her
payroll history and pay stubs due to the Defendant's restriction of
her access to its online portal.

The Plaintiff outlines the timeline of discovery thus far, stating
that Defendant did not disclose certain evidence regarding her
compensation until March 25, 2019, five months after the
Defendant's Answer was filed on Oct. 22, 2018.  She also states she
did not have access to her payroll history and pay stubs through
the Defendant's online portal because her access to that
information was restricted by the Defendant when her employment
ended in July 2018.

The Plaintiff maintains she therefore could not have amended her
complaint to cure this deficiency within 21 days of serving her
original complaint, allowable as a matter of course under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A).  With the information disclosed in March, the
Plaintiff asserts she can now provide an example of a given work
week in which she alleges she was not adequately compensated for
overtime.

Judge Collins finds that the Plaintiff alleges the defects in her
complaint are due to the Defendant's control of relevant material.
As the court in Landers pointed out, most (if not all) of the
detailed information concerning a plaintiff-employee's compensation
and schedule is in the control of the defendants.  The employment
documents upon which the Plaintiff has based her Amended Complaint
would be considered relevant to her claims, and the Defendant
should have produced those documents within 30 days of filing its
responsive pleading on Oct. 22, 2018, as is compulsory under the
Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot.   The Defendant's disregard of
this General Order further delayed the Plaintiff's ability to cure
the deficiencies of her complaint.

The Judge holds that the amendment would not, as the Defendant
claims, be "futile," but rather would cure the deficiencies of the
complaint under the pleading standards set forth in the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Supreme Court precedent, and Landers.
Additionally, the deficiencies are, in part, due to the Defendant's
disregard for Court rules.  However, because an amended motion
supersedes an original motion and after amendment, the Court treats
an original motion as nonexistent, the Judge will require the
Plaintiff to add the factual assertions in the Reply to the First
Amended Complaint.  Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave
to File Amended Complaint will be granted with the addition of the
factual assertions stated in her Reply.

Accordingly, Jude Collins granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave
to File Amended Complaint.  Within seven days of the date of the
Order, the Plaintiff will file her Amended Complaint, including her
factual assertions stated in Document 32.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1Xpjjs from Leagle.com.

Carolyn Bledsoe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Catherine T. Mitchell, Stephan
Zouras LLP, Daniel Lee Bonnett -- info@martinbonnett.com -- Martin
& Bonnett PLLC, James B. Zouras -- jzouras@stephanzouras.com --
Stephan Zouras LLP, Michael Martin Licata , Martin & Bonnett PLLC,
Ryan F. Stephan, Stephan Zouras LLP & Teresa M. Becvar --
tbecvar@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras LLP.

LHC Group Incorporated, Defendant, represented by David T. Barton
-- david@burnsbarton.com -- Burns Barton LLP & Glenn G. Patton --
glenn.patton@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP.


LIFE TIME: Court Grants $725K Settlement in J. Roth Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement in the case captioned JENNIFER ROTH, on behalf of
herself Civil and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIFE
TIME FITNESS, INC., LTF CLUB OPERATIONS COMPANY, INC., LTF CLUB
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, and LTF YOGA COMPANY, LLC Defendants. No.
16-2476 (JRT). (D. Minn.).

This matter came before the Court is Plaintiff Jennifer Roth.
First, Roth moved for final approval of settlement, certification
of class, and appointment of class representative and class
counsel.  

Roth brought this action on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated against Defendants Life Time Fitness, Inc., LTF
Club Operations Company, Inc., LTF Club Management Company, LLC,
and LTF Yoga Company, LLC (Life Time) for violating the Ohio Prompt
Pay Act or, alternatively, for unjust enrichment. Roth alleged that
Life Time failed to compensate group fitness instructors for work
done before and after they taught fitness classes.  

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 the Court finds that
certification of a class is appropriate and hereby certifies the
class as set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Preliminary Approval
Order.

The Court further finds that the transmission of Notice of Proposed
Class Action Settlement by U.S. mail was appropriate in the
circumstances of this case and that such notice satisfied the
requirements of due process and Rule 23.

The Court appoints Karon LLC, Shindler, Anderson, Goplerud & Weese,
P.C. RoscaLaw LLC, and Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield as Joint
Settlement Class Counsel. The Court appoints Jennifer Roth as Class
Representative.

Finally, the Court finds that the settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable, and hereby approves the Class Settlement Agreement
submitted by the parties. This includes the creation of Settlement
Fund by Defendants in the amount of $725,000. The first portion of
the Settlement Fund is a Class Member Fund of up to $276,743.40 to
be distributed to Settlement Class Members. The Class Member Fund
is comprised of (1) up to $269,243.40 allocable to eligible
Settlement Class Members who timely file a claim and (2) $7,500
allocable to Jennifer Roth, the named plaintiff, as a service
award. The second portion of the Settlement Fund is a Fees and
Costs Fund of up to $448,256.60 for payment of attorneys' fees and
costs and claims administration expense.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6lqyqx9 from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Roth, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Alan L. Rosca, Rosca Law, 23250 Chagrin
Blvd, Suite 100, Beachwood, OH 44122, pro hac vice, Brant D. Penney
-- penney@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Daniel
R. Karon -- arosca@prwlegal.com -- Karon LLC, pro hac vice, Garrett
D. Blanchfield, Jr. -- g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com --  Reinhardt
Wendorf & Blanchfield, J. Barton Goplerud, Hudson, Mallaney,
Shindler & Anderson P.C., pro hac vice & Roberta A. Yard, Reinhardt
Wendorf & Blanchfield, 5015 Grand Ridge Drive Suite 100West Des
Moines, IA

Life Time Fitness, Inc., LTF Club Operations Company, Inc., LTF
Club Management Company, LLC & LTF Yoga Comapny, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Elizabeth S. Gerling --
Elizabeth.Gerling@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Eric R.
Magnus -- Eric.Magnus@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP, pro
hac vice.


LOCATIONSMART: To Fight Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------
Joseph Cox, writing for Vice, reports that a broker that helped
sell AT&T customers' real-time location data says it will fight a
class action lawsuit against it. The broker, called LocationSmart,
was involved in a number of data selling and cybersecurity
incidents, including selling location data that ended up in the
hands of bounty hunters.

"LocationSmart will fight this lawsuit because the allegations of
wrongdoing are meritless and rest on recycled falsehoods," a
LocationSmart spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
LocationSmart did not point to any specific part of the lawsuit to
support these claims.

On July 16, activist group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
and law firm Pierce Bainbridge filed a class action lawsuit against
LocationSmart, another data broker called Zumigo, and telecom giant
AT&T. The lawsuit's plaintiffs are three California residents who
say they did not consent to AT&T selling their real-time location
data through the data brokers. The lawsuit alleges all three
companies violated the California Constitutional Right to Privacy,
and seeks monetary damages as well as an injunction against AT&T to
ensure the deletion of any sold data.

"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," Abbye Klamann Ognibene, Esq. --
aognibene@piercebainbridge.com -- an attorney at Pierce Bainbridge
said in a statement at the time of the lawsuit's filing.

Zumigo did not respond to a request for comment.

In February, Motherboard reported that AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint
sold their customers' location data to LocationSmart, which then
resold it to a secret company called CerCareOne. CerCareOne
provided that data to around 250 bounty hunters and bail bondsman,
according to leaked documents obtained by Motherboard.
LocationSmart confirmed it was part of that supply chain of data at
the time.

In another incident, LocationSmart sold access to the real-time
location data of AT&T and other telecom customers to a company
called Securus. Securus sold that data to prison officials who used
it to track people without their consent. Shortly after the New
York Times broke that story, Motherboard reported a hacker had
stolen data from Securus.

On that same day, multiple outlets reported a security researcher
had found a serious security vulnerability in LocationSmart's
website, which allowed anyone to access the real-time location
information of AT&T and other telecom customers.

In its statement, LocationSmart emphasised some of the other use
cases of its location data.

"LocationSmart's API platform facilitates life-saving and other
vital location-based services, which require end-user consent," the
statement added.

After Motherboard's initial investigation, in which we paid a
bounty hunter $300 to track a T-Mobile phone, AT&T, T-Mobile, and
Sprint said they would stop the sale of location data to third
parties. All of the telecoms have since told Motherboard that
service has been cut. [GN]


MAG PITT LLC: Reyes Hits Misclassification; Seeks Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCHESCA REYES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MAG PITT, LLC.; MAG PITT L.P.
D/B/A CHEERLEADERS GENTLEMEN'S CLUB; and JOHN MEEHAN, Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00911-LPL (W.D. Pa., July 26, 2019) is
a collective action against the Defendants' conduct which violates
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") minimum wage provision, by
failing to pay tipped employees. Defendant's conduct also violates
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") which similarly requires
the payment for all hours worked in a workweek.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required Plaintiff to
work as an exotic dancer at its adult entertainment club, but
refused to compensate her at the applicable minimum wage. In fact,
Defendants refused to compensate Plaintiff whatsoever for any hours
worked. Plaintiff's only compensation was in the form of tips from
club patrons. Plaintiff was also required to divide her tips with
Defendants and other employees who do not customarily receive tips.
The Defendants misclassify dancers as independent contractors, and
therefore, have failed to compensate Plaintiff at the federally
mandated minimum wage rate, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed as an exotic dancer at Defendants' adult
entertainment club from approximately August 2016 until July 2017.

Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania under the name of "Cheerleaders Gentlemen's
Club".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christi Wallace, Esq.
     RUPPERT, MANES & NARAHARI
     U.S. Steel Tower, 48th Floor
     600 Grant Street, Suite 4875
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 626-5575
     Fax: (412) 206-0834
     Email: Cw@rmn-law.com

          - and -

     Gabriel A. Assaad, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
     Email: gassaad@kennedyhodges.com


MARATHON REFINING: Removes Wood Case to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Refining Logistics Services LLC removes case captioned as
JANICE WOOD, ANTHONY ALFARO, and AARON DIETRICH on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
MARATHON REFINING LOGISTICS SERVICE LLC'S and DOES 1 THROUGH 25,
the Defendants, Case No. C19-2701261 (Filed June 24, 2019), from
the Contra Costa Superior Court, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on July 25, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:19-cv-04287-LB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs alleges that Defendants failed to pay reporting time
pay, failed to pay all wages earned at termination, and failed to
provide accurate itemized wage statements under the California
Labor Code.[BN]

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

           William J. Dritsas, Esq.
           Timothy M. Rusche, Esq.
           Mary D. Manesis, Esq.
           Amanda I. Fry, Esq.
           Michael W. Kopp, Esq.
           SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
           560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
           San Francisco, CA 94105-2930
           Telephone: 415 397 2823
           Facsimile: 415 397 8549
           E-mail: dritsas@seyfarth.com
           trusche@seyfarth.com
           mmanesis@seyfarth.com
           afry@seyfarth.com
           mkopp@seyfarth.com

MARBLECAST OF MICHIGAN: 6th Cir. Appeal Filed in Garner TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Garner Properties & Management, LLC, filed an appeal from
a Court ruling in its lawsuit entitled Garner Properties &
Management v. Marblecast of Michigan, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:17-cv-11439, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan at Detroit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Victoria
A. Roberts granted Defendant American Woodmark Corp.'s motion for
summary judgment.

On May 4, 2017, Garner, individually and as a representative of
similarly-situated persons, filed suit against Defendants
Marblecast and American Woodmark.  Garner says the Defendants
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), by sending
it and the similarly-situated persons unsolicited fax
advertisements.

The appellate case is captioned as Garner Properties & Management
v. Marblecast of Michigan, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-1802, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant GARNER PROPERTIES & MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, is represented by:

          David Max Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS, & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          E-mail: david@classlawyers.com

Defendant-Appellee AMERICAN WOODMARK CORPORATION is represented
by:

          David L. Hartsell, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 4100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 849-8100
          E-mail: dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com


MDL 2179: 5th Cir. Flips Policy 495 Decision Implementation
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: DEEPWATER HORIZON. LAKE EUGENIE LAND &
DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED; BON SECOUR FISHERIES, INCORPORATED; FORT
MORGAN REALTY, INCORPORATED; LFBP 1, L.L.C., doing business as GW
Fins; PANAMA CITY BEACH DOLPHIN TOURS & MORE, L.L.C.; ZEKES CHARTER
FLEET, L.L.C.; WILLIAM SELLERS; KATHLEEN IRWIN; RONALD LUNDY;
CORLISS GALLO; JOHN TESVICH; MICHAEL GUIDRY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated; HENRY HUTTO; BRAD
FRILOUX; JERRY J. KEE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP,
P.L.C., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 17-30727 (5th Cir.), Judge
Andrew S. Oldham of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the district court's orders on how to implement the
Appellate's Policy 495 decision.

On April 20, 2010, Deepwater Horizon exploded and began leaking oil
into the Gulf of Mexico.  Two years later, the district court
simultaneously certified a class of Plaintiffs and approved a class
action Settlement Agreement.  The Court ultimately affirmed the
district court's decision.

The "settlement" settled little.  To the contrary, it sparked
vehement disputes over its terms and the amounts claimants were
entitled to recover.  The Settlement Agreement establishes a Court
Supervised Settlement Program ("CSSP"): A Claims Administrator
oversees third-party accountants who process individual claims in
the first instance.  Either party can appeal an initial claim
determination to a three-person Claims Administration Panel.  At
the back end, the district court has discretion to review any
disputes over the settlement's implementation -- including claim
determinations.  From there, either party can appeal to the Court.
And while the district court's review is discretionary, the Court's
apparently is not.

Underlying the elaborate apparatus are myriad claims for money.
The appeal involves only one -- a "Business Economic Loss" ("BEL")
claim.  BEL claims provide compensation for the difference between
a business's actual profits during a three-month period after the
oil spill and its expected profits over that same period.  Expected
profits are calculated based on actual profits during a
"comparable" period before the spill.  The claimant provides the
comparators by designating a post-spill Compensation Period --
"three or more consecutive months between May and December 2010" --
and a pre-spill Benchmark Period -- those same months in 2009,
averaged over 2008-2009, or averaged over 2007-2009.  In relevant
part, the Claims Administrator then determines the variable profits
for both periods and subtracts the Compensation Period profits from
the Benchmark Period profits.

The parties' disputes over the seemingly simple formula have
generated an entire body of federal common law in the Circuit.

In the beginning, the Claims Administrator announced he would
typically consider both revenue and expenses in the period in which
those revenues and expenses were recorded no matter how the
claimant recorded them; he "would not typically re-allocate such
revenues or expenses to different periods.  BP objected that this
approach would give some claimants inflated awards simply because
they recorded associated revenues and expenses at different times.
It argued the Settlement Agreement required the Claims
Administrator to reallocate or "match" a business's expenses to any
associated revenues when calculating profits for the Benchmark
Period and the Compensation Period.  The district court disagreed.


In the Matching Decision, the Court reversed in part and vacated in
part.  Insofar as the Claims Administrator asserted the power to
disaggregate revenues and expenses that a claimant had already
matched, it instructed the district court to make certain that it
is not occurring.  With respect to those claimants who did not
match their expenses to revenues, the Court suggested the
Settlement Agreement might require the Claims Administrator to
match those claims as well. But it ultimately elected not to decide
whether a matching principle should apply to all claims.  Instead,
the Court directed the district court to address that question in
the first instance after developing a more complete factual
record.

On remand, the district court did just that.  After revisiting the
Settlement Agreement's language, the court concluded that the
provision for subtracting corresponding variable expenses requires
that revenue must be matched with the variable expenses incurred by
a claimant in conducting its business, and that does not
necessarily coincide with when revenue and variable expenses are
recorded.  It then instructed the Claims Administrator to develop a
policy implementing that view.

The result was Policy 495.  In it, the Claims Administrator
established different methods for correcting unmatched financial
statements.  First, it created an "Annual Variable Margin
Methodology ("AVMM") -- the default method for any claims that were
insufficiently matched.  Second, it created Industry-Specific
Methodologies ("ISMs") for claimants working in construction,
agriculture, education, and professional services.

On appeal, the Court upheld the AVMM but rejected the ISMs.  The
AVMM appropriately required the Claims Administrator to ensure that
costs are registered in the same month as corresponding revenue,
regardless of when those costs were incurred.  The ISMs, however,
went too far by requiring smoothing profits in addition to
"matching" revenues and expenses.  Accordingly, the Court held that
all claimants shall, on remand, be subject to the AVMM.  Its
decretal language reiterated the point: For the reasons set out,
the Court affirmed as to the AVMM, reversed as to the ISMs, and
remanded for further proceedings consistent with its Opinion.

On remand, the district court issued orders to implement the
Court's decision.  In them, it instructed the Claims Administrator
to apply the AVMM to all Business Economic Loss claims.  But it
also said, the Claims Administrator will not reallocate revenues,
except for the purpose of correcting errors.  A later order said
that revenue will not be reallocated, restated, smoothed, or moved
unless done to correct an error.  BP appealed, believing these
orders deviated from the Court instructions to apply the AVMM.

Judge Oldham agree with BP.  The district court's orders are
inconsistent with the Court's mandate in the Policy 495 Decision.
He finds that neither the Matching Decision nor the Policy 495
Decision broadly prohibited the movement of revenue.  To the
contrary, the Court's latter decision affirmed the AVMM, which
expressly requires moving "revenue and/or variable expenses" where
necessary to ensure matching.  The Court simply held once the
Claims Administrator is satisfied that revenues and expenses for a
particular claimant are properly matched, he cannot take the
additional step of "smoothing" the claimant's profits using an
industry-wide formula.

The next question is whether the district court deviated from that
mandate.  In its first order, the Court instructed the Claims
Administrator to "apply the AVMM."  But it also said "not to
reallocate revenues, except for the purpose of correcting errors."
A subsequent order said something similar: The Claims Administrator
should apply the AVMM, "except that revenue will not be
reallocated, restated, smoothed, or moved unless done to correct an
error."  The district court refused to reconsider the orders after
BP challenged them.

The Judge finds that both parties agree these orders are
inconsistent with the AVMM.  The Appellees even distinguish them
from the "original" AVMM.  But the AVMM admits of no sequels or
substitutes.  There is only one.  The Court affirmed it in the
Policy 495 Decision.  The AVMM affirmed by the Court permits the
Claims Administrator to move "revenue and/or variable expenses" not
only "to correct an error" but also to correct any "matching
issues."

Based on the foregoing, Judge Oldham reversed and remanded for
further proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2019 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/ZDBJtk from Leagle.com.

Michael R. Allweiss -- mallweiss@lowestein.com -- for
Claimant-Appellant.

Don Keller Haycraft -- dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Joseph F. Rice -- mallweiss@lowestein.com -- for
Claimant-Appellant.

James Andrew Langan -- andrew.langan@kirkland.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Stephen Jay Herman -- sherman@hhklawfirm.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard Cartier Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.


MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT: Court Dismisses Longmire's Pro Se Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan, Northern Division, issued an Opinion dismissing the civil
rights action styled TRAVIS SANTELL LONGMIRE, Plaintiff, v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. Case No.
2:19-cv-103. (W.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff Travis Santell Longmire is presently incarcerated with
the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Chippewa
Correctional Facility (URF) in Kincheloe, Chippewa County,
Michigan, where the events giving rise to his complaint occurred.
Plaintiff sues the MDOC and the following MDOC employees at URF:
Warden Connie Horton; GOA7, Randy Masker; Account Technician Dawn
Brown; and Business Manager Edron Forrester. He also sues Grievance
Manager Richard D. Russell, who works for the MDOC at its central
office in Lansing, Michigan.

Class Action

The Plaintiffs also purports to bring a claim on behalf of a class
of individuals comprising the intended mail recipients of his
letters to his friends and family. The Court construes this
assertion as a request for class certification.

For a case to proceed as a class action, the Court must be
satisfied on a number of grounds, including the adequacy of class
representation. It is well established that pro se litigants are
inappropriate representatives of the interests of others.
Furthermore, Plaintiff is not a member of the class that he intends
to represent. He is not an intended recipient of his own letters.

Accordingly, for both of these reasons, he is not an appropriate
representative of the asserted class. Therefore, the Court will not
grant Plaintiff's implied request for class certification.

Immunity

The Plaintiff may not maintain an action against the MDOC.
Regardless of the form of relief requested, the states and their
departments are immune under the Eleventh Amendment from suit in
the federal courts, unless the state has waived immunity or
Congress has expressly abrogated Eleventh Amendment immunity by
statute. Congress has not expressly abrogated Eleventh Amendment
immunity by statute and the State of Michigan has not consented to
civil rights suits in federal court. In numerous opinions, the
Sixth Circuit has specifically held that the MDOC is absolutely
immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. In addition, the
State of Michigan (acting through the MDOC) is not a person who may
be sued under Section 1983 for money damages.  

Therefore, the Court will dismiss the MDOC because it is immune
from suit.

Failure to state a claim

A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it
fails  to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests. While a complaint need not contain
detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's allegations must
include more than labels and conclusions.  

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, a plaintiff must
allege the violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution
or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed by a
person acting under color of state law.  Because Section 1983 is a
method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive
rights itself, the first step in an action under Section 1983 is to
identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed.  

Defendants Masker, Brown, Forrester, Horton, and Russell

The Plaintiff does not allege specific facts about Defendants
Masker, Brown, Forrester, Horton, and Russell. He merely contends
that they were deliberately indifferent to his rights, that
Defendants Masker and Brown supervised other officials who handled
Plaintiff's mail and his requests for disbursement of funds, and
that Defendant Russell acted with final decision-making authority
when acting with deliberate indifference. The exhibits to the
complaint provide a few more details.

Apparently, Defendants Masker, Brown, Forrester, Horton, and
Russell all responded to Plaintiff's grievances about the handling
of his mail, as part of the prison grievance process. Such conduct
is not sufficient to give rise to liability under Section 1983.

Government officials may not be held liable for the
unconstitutional conduct of their subordinates under a theory of
respondeat superior or vicarious liability. A claimed
constitutional violation must be based upon active unconstitutional
behavior. The acts of one's subordinates are not enough, nor can
supervisory liability be based upon the mere failure to act.
Moreover, Section 1983 liability may not be imposed simply because
a supervisor denied an administrative grievance or failed to act
based upon information contained in a grievance.
   
The Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendants Masker, Brown,
Forrester, Horton, and Russell engaged in any active
unconstitutional behavior. He does not allege that they were
personally involved in searching or otherwise interfering with his
mail. Accordingly, he fails to state a claim against them.

Violation of Prison Policy

The Plaintiff further contends that Defendants did not comply with
paragraphs VV and WW of MDOC Policy Directive 05.03.118, or with
Michigan Administrative Rule 791.331, when they filed to provide
notice or procedural safeguards in connection with Plaintiff's
apparently inability to send or receive mail to and from his
friends and family.  

Claims under Section 1983 can only be brought for deprivation of
rights secured by the constitution and laws of the United States.
Section 1983 does not provide redress for a violation of a state
law or prison policy. Plaintiff's assertion that Defendants
violated state policies and rules therefore does not state a claim
under Section 1983.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to invoke this Court's
supplemental jurisdiction over a state-law claim, the Court
declines to exercise jurisdiction. In determining whether to retain
supplemental jurisdiction, a district court should consider the
interests of judicial economy and the avoidance of multiplicity of
litigation and balance those interests against needlessly deciding
state law issues. Ordinarily, where a district court has exercised
jurisdiction over a state-law claim solely by virtue of
supplemental jurisdiction and the federal claims are dismissed
prior to trial, the court will dismiss the remaining state-law
claims. Id. Dismissal, however, remains purely discretionary.

Here, the balance of the relevant considerations weighs against the
continued exercise of supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly,
Plaintiff's state-law claims, if any, will be dismissed without
prejudice.

Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, the Court determines that the claims arising under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 will be dismissed with prejudice under 28
U.S.C. Sections 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. Section
1997e(c), because Defendant MDOC is immune from suit and Plaintiff
fails to state a claim against the other defendants.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3pzncnh from Leagle.com.

Travis Santell Longmire #337629, Class Action Plaintiffs, "Free
U.S. Citizens" Also named plaintiffs, but did not sign complaint:
Tiffany Williams, Priscilla Morgan, D'Laura Smith, Betty Glenn,
Randell Longmire, Eula Tucker, Jerry Tucker, Amyre Longmire et al,
plaintiff, pro se.


MMT HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Appeal from Tax Funds Ruling Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF DUBLIN SCHOOL DISTRICT, v. MMT HOLDINGS, LLC
et al., Case No. A18A0506 (Ga. App.), Judge M. Yvette Miller of the
Court of Appeals of Georgia for the First Division granted MMT's
motion to dismiss the School District's appeal from the trial
court's order denying the School District's request to order the
City of Dublin to release to it the tax funds the City is currently
holding pursuant to a previous court order.

In 2016, at the request of the City of Dublin Board of Education,
the City of Dublin, Georgia levied an ad valorem tax at a rate of
2.25 mills for the purpose of paying the principal and interest on
General Obligation Bonds that the School District had issued in
2008, 2010 and 2011.  MMT, a payer of the ad valorem tax, filed the
instant putative class action against the City and the School
District, arguing that it was entitled to a refund because the tax
was not authorized under the terms of the resolutions approving the
various bonds.  In addition to its claim for a tax refund pursuant
to OCGA § 48-5-380, MMT requested an interlocutory injunction (and
a later permanent injunction) against the City prohibiting it from
paying any proceeds from the tax over to the School District.

On March 29, 2017, the trial court granted MMT's motion for partial
summary judgment.  The trial court concluded that the 2016 ad
valorem tax was "illegally and erroneously assessed and collected"
and that MMT was entitled to a refund as a matter of law against
both defendants.  The trial court further concluded that sovereign
immunity did not bar MMT's request for injunctive relief.  It also
granted injuntive relief, ordering that the City of Dublin is
prohibited from paying the 2.25 mil property tax proceeds levied at
the request of the Dublin City Board of Education to the City
School District.  Pursuant to a consent order, the trial court
later directed that the City could not disburse any of the tax
proceeds it collected until further Order of the Court.

The School District appealed the partial summary judgment order to
the Court.  It argued on appeal that the ad valorem tax was
properly and legally assessed and that sovereign immunity barred
MMT's claims against the School District.  The Court agreed with
the School District that sovereign immunity barred MMT's claim
against the School District for a tax refund under OCGA Section
48-5-380.  In light of that holding, it declined to address the
School District's other claims of error.  It also noted, nothing in
its opinion is intended to address MMT's claims against the City as
the City did not move for summary judgment and is not party to the
appeal.

Following remand, the School District filed a motion to implement
the decision of the Court of Appeals and disburse the proceeds of
the property tax collected by the City of Dublin.  The School
District argued that, due to the Court's conclusion that it was
entitled to sovereign immunity on MMT's claims against it, the
School District was now clearly entitled to the funds being held by
the City.  The School District thus requested the trial court to
implement the decision of the Court of Appeals by granting summary
judgment authorizing the release of the tax proceeds by the City to
the School District.

On July 27, 2018, the trial court entered an order adopting the
Court's judgment as its own and granting summary judgment to the
School District on the basis of sovereign immunity.  The trial
court, however, concluded that the School District's interpretation
of relief to be granted is too expansive.  Instead, the trial court
concluded that, because the Court's opinion did not affect MMT's
claims against the City, its injunction order prohibiting the City
from disbursing the funds would remain in effect.  The School
District timely filed a direct appeal from the July 27, 2018
order.

The School District argues that the 2016 ad valorem tax at issue
was properly and legally assessed and that the trial court
improperly refused to release the tax proceeds to the School
District, which it argues is a violation of the Court's previous
holding that the School District was entitled to sovereign immunity
from MMT Holdings's claim for a tax refund.

MMT moves to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction
because the trial court's order denying the School District's
request to release the tax proceeds is not final or otherwise
directly appealable.  

Judge Miller agrees.  She concludes that the Court lack
jurisdiction over the School District's direct appeal from the
trial court's July 27, 2018 order because (1) it was not a final
order; (2) the School District does not have standing to appeal
from a grant of summary judgment to itself; (3) the order is not
appealable as an order refusing an application for an injunction;
and (4) the School District did not obtain a certificate of
immediate review from the trial court under OCGA Section 5-6-34(b).
She therefore granted MMT's motion to dismiss the appeal because
there are no remaining issues ripe before the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/iMTF8p from Leagle.com.

Phillip L. Hartley, for Appellant.

Hieu Minh Nguyen, for Appellant.

Charles Mitchell Warnock, Jr., for Appellant.

Jerry A. Lumley, for Appellee.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Christensens Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David H. Christensen and Rachel A. Berg-Christensen, the
Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-01932 (D. Minn., July 23, 2019), 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. Plaintiffs',
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.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony J. Nemo, Esq.
          Andrew L. Davick, Esq.
          Ashleigh E. Raso, Esq.
          2519 Commerce Drive NW, Suite 120
          Rochester, MN 55901
          Telephone: (507) 280-8090
          Facsimile: (507) 280-0807
          E-mail: tnemo@meshbesher.com
                  adavick@meshbesher.com
                  araso@meshbesher.com

MONSANTO COMPANY: Huang et al Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN HUANG and STACEY JOHNSON, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02120 (E.D. Mo., July 23,
2019), 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. Brian Huang
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.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Prices Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES and ANGELIQUE PRICE, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02128 (E.D. Mo., July 23, 2019),
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. Charles
Price' 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.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Solises Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
MATEO SOLIS and AURORA SOLIS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02129 (E.D. Mo., July 23, 2019),
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. Mateo Solis'
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.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MONSANTO COMPANY: Thomases Sue over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSIE THOMAS and NORTORIA THOMAS, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02130 (E.D. Mo., July 23,
2019), 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. Jessie
Thomas' 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.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

NEW BRUNSWICK: Class Status Sought for Therapist Voyeur Case
------------------------------------------------------------
City News 1130 reports that a proposed class action lawsuit has
been filed against a Fredericton massage therapist who allegedly
recorded secret videos of more than 100 female patients in various
states of undress.

The videos were only discovered by the executor of Pierre Charles
Wust's estate after he died in January, and no charges were ever
laid.

The documents, filed July 19 with the New Brunswick Court of
Queen's Bench, say Wust secretly videotaped patients between 2008
and 2017, including some minors.

Fredericton police will only say they are investigating a complaint
of voyeurism against a deceased individual and there is no further
risk to the public.

The College of Massage Therapists of New Brunswick hired its own
private investigator, who determined no other current or former
therapists were aware of Wust's conduct.

Jolanta Kurz, who was owner of the Myoflex Massage and Rejuvenation
Clinic when Wust worked there, said July 18 she was unaware of the
alleged videotaping.

Pamela Moxon and Bridget Thornton, two of Wust's clients, say they
decided to come forward to be the representative plaintiffs in the
case after police showed them their videos.

Lawyer John McKiggan, Esq. -- john@mckigganhebert.com -- and the
two women are urging other clients to come forward to police and
the law firm to become part of the possible class action. [GN]


NINTENDO CO: US Law Firm Opens Class Action Investigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Liam Doolan, writing for NintendoLife, reports that anger over
Joy-Con drifting issues appears to have finally boiled over, with a
US law firm reportedly preparing to file a class action lawsuit
against Nintendo.

Details about this come straight from Chimicles, Schwartz Kriner &
Donaldson-Smith -- the firm currently looking into the possibility
of a such a lawsuit. Here are some additional details from its
website:

CSK&D is investigating a potential class action based upon reports
that the Nintendo Joy-Con controller for their Nintendo Switch
gaming console can experience joystick drift issues. Specifically,
it is reported that the joystick on the Joy-Con will automatically
register movement when the joystick is not being controlled and
interfere with gameplay.

This obviously isn't the first time something like this has
happened. Nintendo's legal section has had to deal with plenty of
patent claims over the years. The firm currently making headlines
is asking anyone experiencing Joy-Con drift issues to contact its
attorneys, by filling out an online form. [GN]


OLIN CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Caustic Soda Price-fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
PRECIOUS PLATE, INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. OLIN CORPORATION; K.A. STEEL CHEMICALS,
INC.; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL
CORPORATION (D/B/A OXYCHEM); WESTLAKE CHEMICAL CORPORATION;
SHIN-ETSU CHEMICAL CO. LTD.; SHINTECH INCORPORATED; FORMOSA
PLASTICS CORPORATION; FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, U.S.A.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00990 (W.D. N.Y., July 29, 2019) is a
civil antitrust action seeking damages and injunctive relief
arising out of the collusive and concerted restraint of trade in
sodium hydroxide, commonly known as Caustic Soda, by the Defendants
during a period spanning from at least October 1, 2015, to the
present.

Defendants are direct competitors and leading manufacturers of
Caustic Soda in the United States. Plaintiff  indirectly purchased
Caustic Soda manufactured by one or more of the Defendants during
the class period.

Caustic Soda is a commodity chemical sold in solid and liquid forms
that is produced as a co-product of chlorine production from the
electrolysis of brine or salt water. From approximately 2012 until
the fourth quarter of 2015, Caustic Soda prices were either
declining or flat, and industry margins were poor, given industry
overcapacity and flat demand. These conditions motivated the
Defendants to conspire and combine to restrict domestic supply; to
fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price at which Caustic Soda
was and continues to be sold; and to allocate customers in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, asserts the complaint.

Specifically, says the complaint, beginning in the fourth quarter
of 2015, the Defendants announced Caustic Soda price increases in a
coordinated fashion and began increasing Caustic Soda prices
despite sluggish demand, stable or declining costs, and excess
capacity. They also at times refused to supply customers, put them
on allocation, or refused to bid on contracts while falsely
claiming supply was tight or scarce. The alleged conspiracy was
facilitated by secret co-producer supply agreements; by exchanges
of nonpublic, commercially sensitive information (including future
strategy, supply, capacity, and price information) between and
among Defendants and their agents, both directly with each other,
and indirectly through third parties; by manipulation of a price
index; and by the characteristics of the industry: high market
concentration, high barriers to entry, interchangeability of
Defendants' products, inelastic demand, weak demand, a larger
number of purchasers with limited buying power, and relatively easy
information exchanges among the Defendants.

As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, and their transition
from passive members of an oligopoly to active coordinators of
supply and pricing, Caustic Soda prices in the United States paid
by Plaintiff and other members of the Class have been artificially
increased by a substantial amount, and maintained during the Class
Period above levels that would be expected due to supply and demand
conditions. Therefore, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class
have been injured and have suffered damages, and they continue to
suffer such injuries as a direct and proximate result of
Defendants' actions, says the complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Justin N. Boley, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312-346-2222
     Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
            jnb@wexlerwallace.com

          - and -

     Ryan L. Gellman, Esq.
     COLUCCI & GALLAHER, P.C.
     2000 Liberty Building
     424 Main Street
     Buffalo, NY 14202
     Phone: 716-853-4080
     Email: rlg@cgbuffalo.com


OPEN DEALER: Thornburg Class Settlement Has Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, St. Joseph Division, issued an Order and Opinion granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in
the case captioned JOHN THORNBURG, Plaintiff, v. OPEN DEALER
EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a 700Credit, Defendant/Third-Party
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Third-Party
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. Case No. 17-06056-CV-SJ-ODS. (W.D.
Mo.)

The Court held the Final Approval Hearing. Counsel for all parties
appeared, and provided information and legal arguments related to
the pending motions. At the hearing, the Court expressed concerns
about Plaintiff's motion for incentive award and attorneys' fees
and costs, and asked for supplemental briefing on the issues raised
by the Court.  

The terms of the Agreement and the settlement provided therein are
finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
Settlement. The consideration provided under the Agreement
constitutes reasonable and fair value given in exchange for the
release of claims against the Released Parties considering the
disputed issues, circumstances, defenses, and the potential risks
and likelihood of success of pursuing litigation. The legal and
factual posture of this case and the fact that the Settlement was
the result of arms' length negotiations between the parties,
including negotiations presided over by Francis X. Neuner, Jr.,
support these findings. The Court further finds that these facts,
combined with the lack of other indicators of collusion and the
Court's observation throughout the litigation, demonstrate there
was no collusion, implicit or otherwise, present in reaching the
Agreement.

The Court finds final certification of the Settlement Class is
appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. First, the party opposing the class has acted...on
grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive
relief...is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. Second, no
monetary relief is sought by the Settlement Class, and the remedy
obtained by the Settlement Class is indivisible because it accrues
to all members of the Settlement Class.  

The Court finally certifies the Settlement Class, which is defined
as follows:

     All consumers in the United States who were the subject of an
Open Dealer consumer report issued between April 4, 2015, and the
date this Court enters its Final Judgment and Order, and which
included the notation Chg-Off or Repo.Excluded from the Settlement
Class are (a) Open Dealer Exchange, Trans Union LLC, and their
employees; (b) the Judge to whom the matter is assigned; and (c)
any member of the Judge's staff or immediate family.

Any person who previously settled or released all claims covered by
this settlement, or any person who previously was paid or received
awards through civil or administrative actions for all claims
covered by this settlement, or any person who excludes him/herself
from the class shall not be a member of the Settlement Class.

With regard to the settlement in this matter, the Court finds the
following:

   a. The putative members of the Settlement Class are so numerous
that joinder of all members was impracticable.

   b. There are questions of law or fact common to the Settlement
Class that predominate over questions affecting only individual
members of the Settlement Class.

   c. The Named Plaintiff's claims are typical of the Settlement
Class members' claims.

   d. The Named Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel fairly and
adequately represented and protected the interests of the
Settlement Class members.

   e. Certification of the Settlement Class is an appropriate
method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversies
between the Settlement Class Members and Open Dealer.

Thornburg asks for an incentive award of $15,000.00 to be paid by
Open Dealer, which does not object to Thornburg's request. When
deciding whether a service award is warranted, the Court considers
(1) actions the plaintiffs took to protect the class's interests
(2) the degree to which the class has benefitted from those
actions, and (3) the amount of time and effort the plaintiffs
expended in pursuing litigation.

According to Thornburg, he spent much time participating in and
litigating this matter, which included his deposition, responding
to discovery requests, participating in two mediations,
communicating with Class Counsel, and retrieving information.
During the course of litigation, Thornburg had to disclose details
of his personal life to Open Dealer and answer difficult questions
about his life choices. Thornburg missed work to prepare for his
deposition, be deposed, and attend two out-of-town mediations.
Thornburg's employer purportedly informed him that additional
missed work due to participation in the lawsuit would result in the
loss of his job.

According to Thornburg, the incentive award also serves as
consideration for his general release of any and all claims he has
or may have against the Released Parties. Unlike the other
Settlement Class members, Thornburg is also releasing any and all
claims, individually or on the basis of a class, against Open
Dealer.

District courts in the Eighth Circuit regularly grant service
awards of $10,000 or greater. The Court has considered the relevant
factors, and finds an incentive award is warranted, and finds the
amount requested by Thornburg is appropriate in these
circumstances. Accordingly, Thornbrug's request for an incentive
award in the amount of $15,000.00 is granted.

The Court finally appoints Charles Jason Brown and Jayson Watkins
of the law firm of Brown and Watkins LLC as Class Counsel.

Class Counsel asks the Court to award $1,000,000.00 in attorneys'
fees and costs. When a district court has certified a class action,
the court may award reasonable attorney's fees and nontaxable costs
that are authorized by law or by the parties' agreement.

Finally, Class Counsel seeks an award of $19,882.32 in nontaxable
costs. The Court grants Class Counsel's request for an award of
these costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Order and
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6nv5ql9 from
Leagle.com.

John Thornburg, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jason Brown --
brown@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown & Watkins, LLC & Jayson A.
Watkins -- watkins@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown & Watkins, LLC.

Open Dealer Exchange, LLC, doing business as 700Credit, Defendant,
represented by Ronald A. Norwood -- rnorwood@lewisrice.com -- Lewis
Rice LLC & Philip J. Mackey -- pmackey@lewisrice.com -- Lewis Rice
LLC.

Open Dealer Exchange, LLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by
Ronald A. Norwood, Lewis Rice LLC & Philip J. Mackey, Lewis Rice
LLC.

Trans Union, LLC, Third Party Defendant, represented by Albert E.
Hartmann -- ahartmann@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, pro hac
vice, Bruce Van Baren -- bvanbaren@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP,
pro hac vice, Michael Charles O'Neil -- bvanbaren@reedsmith.com --
Reed Smith LLP, pro hac vice, Todd A. Lubben – tludden@bjpc.com
-- Brown & James, PC & Christopher J. Seibold – cseibold@bjpc.com
-- Brown & James, PC.

Trans Union, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Albert E.
Hartmann, Reed Smith LLP, Bruce Van Baren, Reed Smith LLP, Michael
Charles O'Neil, Reed Smith LLP, Todd A. Lubben, Brown & James, PC &
Christopher J. Seibold, Brown & James, PC.

Open Dealer Exchange, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Ronald
A. Norwood, Lewis Rice LLC & Philip J. Mackey, Lewis Rice LLC.


PCM INC: Rosenblatt Files Suit Over Insight Merger Deal  
---------------------------------------------------------
JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PCM, INC., FRANK F. KHULUSI,
THOMAS A. MALOOF, RONALD B. RECK, and PAUL C. HEESCHEN, Defendants,
Case No. 1:19-cv-01417-UNA (D. Del., July 30, 2019) is an action
stemming from a proposed transaction announced on June 24, 2019,
pursuant to which PCM, Inc. will be acquired by Insight
Enterprises, Inc. and Trojan Acquisition Corp.

On June 23, 2019, PCM's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Insight. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, PCM's stockholders will
receive $35.00 in cash for each share of PCM common stock they own.
On July 26, 2019, defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the
Proposed Transaction for August 26, 2019.

The complaint asserts that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violate Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff is the owner of PCM common stock.

PCM, through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, is a leading
multi-vendor provider of technology solutions, including hardware,
software, and services to small, medium, and enterprise businesses,
state, local and federal governments, and educational institutions
across the United States, Canada, and the UK.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


POST MOTORS: Does not Pay Workers Proper Wages, Lemus Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATYA LEMUS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. POST MOTORS, INC. (d/b/a Lexus of
Watertown), and MURRAY S. PATKIN, Defendants, Case No. 19-2211
(Commonwealth of Mass., July 30, 2019) is a Class Action Complaint
against Defendants seeking damages for failure to pay wages.

The Defendants' company-wide compensation structure for salespeople
was based on a 100% commission/draw model. Employees' pay each week
was based on a percentage of the profit Post earned for each sale
made by the employee. To the extent an employee's pay for any given
week fell below a certain threshold, Defendants would advance the
employee a "draw" on future commissions. Pursuant to this pay
policy, draws and commissions were ostensibly applied to hours
worked over 40 hours per week, and to hours worked on Sundays and
holidays.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in
at least one week during the class period. Plaintiff also worked on
at least one Sunday or covered holiday. The Defendants did not base
their pay to Plaintiff, or members of the Class, on the amount of
overtime hours, or the amount of hours worked on Sundays and
holidays. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff or members of the
Class, overtime pay. The Defendants also did not pay Plaintiff, or
members of the Class, premium pay for Sundays and holidays.

Plaintiff worked as a salesperson for Defendants from approximately
April 2016 through July 2017.

Defendants operate a car dealership located in Watertown,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Gardner, Esq.
     Nicholas J. Rosenberg, Esq.
     GARDNER & ROSENBERG P.C.
     One State Street. Fourth Floor
     Boston, MA 02109
     Phone: 617-390-7570
     Email: josh@gardnerrosenberg.com


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Tiefenthaler Suit Asserts TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
HANS TIEFENTHALER, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-11632 (D. Mass., July 29, 2019) is an
action to enforce the consumer-privacy provisions of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), a federal statute enacted in 1991
in response to widespread public outrage about the proliferation of
intrusive, nuisance telemarketing practices.

Mr. Tiefenthaler and class members never consented to receive calls
from the Defendant, says the complaint. In fact, Mr. Tiefenthaler
even registered his number on the National Do Not Call Registry to
avoid unwanted telemarketing calls. Progressive, nonetheless,
engaged in a nationwide telemarketing campaign designed to sell
insurance to consumers. Because this telemarketing campaign placed
calls to many thousands of potential customers en masse, Mr.
Tiefenthaler brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide
class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls
from or on behalf of Progressive.

Plaintiff Hans Tiefenthaler is a resident of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and this District.

Progressive Direct Insurance Company is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony Paronich, Esq.
     PARONICH LAW, P.C.
     350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
     Hingham, MA 02043
     Phone: (617) 485-0018
     Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com


PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED: 9th Cir. Flips Insurance Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued a
Memorandum reversing the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion for Dismiss in the case captioned SEBERAINO
JIMENEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 18-16411. (9th  Cir.).

Seberaino Jimenez appeals from the district court's order
dismissing his putative class action against Progressive Preferred
Insurance Company (Progressive) on the basis that Jimenez lacked
standing.  

Jimenez purchased an auto insurance policy from Progressive in
which Progressive agreed to pay reasonable expenses incurred for
necessary medical services received because of bodily injury
sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Jimenez was in a motor
vehicle accident, received medical treatment, and was billed for
the services by his medical providers in an amount exceeding the
policy limits of $5,000. However, Progressive paid Jimenez an
amount less than $5,000. Jimenez then brought this action for the
difference.

Progressive asserted that Jimenez lacked standing because, due to
its contracts with others, he was not obligated to pay his medical
providers more than it had already forwarded to him. Thus, it
argued, Jimenez had not really incurred the expenses billed to him
by the providers.

Jimenez responded that under Arizona law, he had, indeed, incurred
the expenses billed to him; that, as relevant here, the insurance
policy itself made no mention of exceptions; and that under Arizona
law, Progressive still had to pay him the full amount that he
actually incurred (as long as it was reasonable and within the
policy limits.

The district court agreed with Progressive and decided that Jimenez
did not have standing.
In that it erred.  

The irreducible constitutional minimum' of standing consists of
three elements. The plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in
fact (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the
defendant and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.

In the case at hand, there is no real dispute that the latter two
elements exist. If Jimenez is correct, his injury is traceable to
Progressive's actions or inaction, and his injury will be redressed
by a decision in his favor. Moreover, he has suffered an invasion
of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized
and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.

He argues that under Arizona law, Progressive was required to pay
him the medical expenses he had incurred and that it flatly refused
to do so. That economic injury could hardly be more concrete.   

Nor is that a mere procedural defect,3 or a speculative injury. He
asserts that he was entitled to payment of $5,000 from Progressive,
period. Progressive disputes that, but this is not the time or
place for a full merits argument.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 22, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y62r8utj from Leagle.com.


R.T.G FURNITURE: Court Denies Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as ROBERT BLOBNER, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
R.T.G FURNITURE CORP., the Defendant, Case No.
8:17-cv-01676-JSM-SPF (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge James S. Moody
Jr. entered an order on July 24, 2019:

   1. denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
      Plaintiff's motion to exclude declarations filed in
      opposition to class certification; and

   2. directing the Parties within 14 days of the Order, to file
      briefs that shall not exceed 10 pages in length,
      explaining the basis for the Court's subject matter
      jurisdiction.

The Court said, "With respect to damages, Blobner failed to
establish how any damages associated with the allegedly defective
BLF could be determined on a class-wide basis. There is no record
evidence that the BLF was valueless or worthless. The record
instead reflects that purchasers used their BLF to some extent,
generally for years. So there was some value attributed to the BLF.
And, it is worth repeating that Blobner's proposed class would
naturally include purchasers (a vast majority) who suffered no
damages. The damages inquiry is also complicated by RTG's practice
of offering credits to those purchasers who complained about their
items even after the one-year warranty period. The credit could be
used toward new furniture and was not restricted to BLF. The record
reflects that 76% of purchasers (during the proposed class period)
who complained about BLF after the warranty period expired accepted
credit offers. So additional individual issues exist for them. In
sum, the Court must deny Blobner's motion for class certification.
The Court notes that its denial of Blobner's motion for class
certification has resulted in the absence of CAFA subject matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)."[BN]

RANDY'S TRUCKING: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Randy's Trucking,
Inc. The case is styled as JACOB SANCHEZ, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Randy's
Trucking, Inc. a California corporation, Randy Gene Griffith,
Defendants, Case No. BCV-19-102194 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty.,
Aug. 5, 2019).

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

Randy's Trucking Inc is a privately held company in Taft, CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by ZACHARY M. CROSNER, ESQ.



RAYTHEON COMPANY: Wolf Sues Over False and Misleading Statement
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACK WOLF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY, 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., ROBERT O.
WORK, THOMAS A. KENNEDY, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATON, AND LIGHT
MERGER SUB CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01386-UNA (D. Del.,
July 26, 2019) is an action stemming from a proposed transaction
announced on June 9, 2019, pursuant to which Raytheon Company will
be acquired by United Technologies Corporation and Light Merger Sub
Corp.

On June 9, 2019, Raytheon's Board of Directors caused the Company
to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with United
Technologies. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Raytheon's stockholders will receive 2.3348 shares of Parent stock
for each share of Raytheon common stock they own. On July 17, 2019,
defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.
Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants violate Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff is the owner of Raytheon common stock.

Raytheon is a technology and innovation leader specializing in
defense, civil government, and cybersecurity solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


REAL HOSPITALITY: Duncan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Hospitality
Group, LLC. The case is styled as EUGENE DUNCAN AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Real Hospitality
Group, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07288 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 5,
2019).

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

Real Hospitality Group is one of the fastest growing hotel
management companies in the United States. The company's line of
business includes providing management services on a contract or
fee basis.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
     The Marks Law Firm PC
     175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
     New York, NY 10014
     Phone: (646) 770-3775
     Fax: (646) 867-2639
     Email: bmarkslaw@gmail.com


RECKITT BENCKISER: Zhang Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces the filing of a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who bought shares of Reckitt Benckiser
Group plc (OTC: RBGLY) from July 28, 2014 through April 9, 2019,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Reckitt investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the class action, go to https://tinyurl.com/yytts26q or
call Sophie Zhang, Esq., toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants failed to disclosed or
misstated that: (1) defendants had engaged in a scheme to
artificially inflate the sales of Suboxone Film by more than $3
billion by falsely touting the drug's purportedly superior efficacy
and safety as compared to tablets; (2) contrary to defendants'
public statements, the FDA and internal Company documents had
concluded that Suboxone Film posed a potentially greater risk of
abuse and child endangerment than other available treatments; (3)
defendants had fabricated a safety scare involving Suboxone Tablets
in order to unlawfully delay and prevent generic competition; (4)
defendants had engaged in a massive marketing campaign that had
misrepresented the purported benefits of Suboxone Film as compared
to Suboxone Tablets to doctors, healthcare providers, government
regulators and investors; (5) defendants had encouraged Suboxone
sales through medical providers that they knew were overprescribing
the drug, facilitating the drug's abuse and/or prescribing it in a
careless and clinically unwarranted manner, often to hundreds of
individuals at a time; (6) as a result, Reckitt's revenues, net
income and earnings were artificially inflated and the product of
illicit business practices; (6) Reckitt and Reckitt Pharma were
exposed to extraordinary undisclosed legal and reputational risks
that could result in billions of dollars in fines, lost business
and legal judgments or other monetary penalties; and (7) as a
result, defendants' statements about Reckitt's business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class has not been certified.  You may retain counsel of your
choice.  You may take no action at this time and be an absent class
member.  Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff.  

         Zhang Investor Law P.C.
         99 Wall Street, Suite 232
         New York, New York 10005
         Tel: (800) 991-3756
         Email: info@zhanginvestorlaw.com [GN]


RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT: Court Extends Briefing Schedule in Newell
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order extending Briefing Schedule in
the case captioned JOUREY NEWELL and FELIPE MACHADO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT, INC., a Washington company, Defendant. Case
No. 2:19-cv-00662. (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiffs Jourey Newell and Felipe Machado filed their original
complaint in this putative class action against defendant
Recreational Equipment, Inc. (REP). REI filed a motion to dismiss.


The Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint (Amended
Complaint). The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the
Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), as amended by the Credit Card
Accountability and Disclosure Act (CARD) and Washington's gift
certificate statute.

The Court denied REI's motion to dismiss the original complaint as
moot. RET. filed a renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint
with a Noting Date of July 26, 2019.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2qe9lyg from Leagle.com.

Jourey Newell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated & Felipe Machado, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony Paronich --
anthony@broderick-law.com -- PARONICH LAW PC, pro hac vice, Avi R.
Kaufman -- kaufman@kaufmanpa.com -- KAUFMAN PA, pro hac vice &
Samuel J. Strauss -- sam@turkestrauss.com -- Turke & Strauss LLP.

Recreational Equipment Inc, a Washington company, Defendant,
represented by David Ian Freeburg, DLA PIPER US LLP, Anthony
Todaro, DLA PIPER US LLP & Virginia A. Weeks, DLA PIPER US LLP.


RELATED MGMT: Doaks Sues Over Unpaid Interest on Security Deposit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN DOAKS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. RELATED MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.P., & SHERIDAN PARK PRESERVATION,
L.P., Case No. 2019CH08614 (Ill. Cir., Cook Cty., July 23, 2019),
alleges that the Defendants violate the Chicago Residential
Landlord and Tenant Ordinance by, among other things, failing to
pay any security deposit interest to the Plaintiff and other
tenants in any amount within 30 days after the end of the Tenant's
rental period.

Mr. Doaks entered into two rental agreements with the
Defendant/Landlord for a dwelling unit 204 ("Unit") at the building
at 4540 N. Magnolia, in Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.

Related Management Company, L.P. is a landlord of residential
dwelling units in Chicago, Illinois, including the Unit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Silverman, Esq.
          MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD.
          225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 775-1015
          Facsimile: (312) 256-2055
          E-mail: mark@depositlaw.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Bronson's Partial Summary Judgment Bid Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALEXIS BRONSON and CRYSTAL HARDIN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., Defendants, Case No. C 3:18-cv-02300-WHA (N.D. Cal.), Judge
William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California granted Bronson's motion for partial summary
judgment.

Bronson purchased a Samsung 51-inch plasma Smart 3D HDTV television
in August 2013.  The television turned out to be defective in that
it displayed colored-lines on the screen.  The putative class
action lawsuit against Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. followed in April 2018.  The
Plaintiff amended the complaint in June 2018.

In October 2018, Bronson went to an authorized service and repair
facility and asked whether a replacement part for the television
screen was "available."  The employee at the facility told him it
was not.  After the completion of Rule 12 motion practice, in
January 2019, an order granted Plaintiff Bronson leave to amend a
second amended complaint which included the new fact from October
2018.  The newly amended complaint alleged two claims: first, a
violation of California Civil Code Section 1793.03(b).  Second, a
derivative violation of "unlawfulness" under Section 17200 of
California's Business and Professions Code for the alleged
violation of Section 1793.03(b).  A new plaintiff, Crystal Hardin,
also intervened.

In April 2019, Samsung moved for summary judgment against Plaintiff
Bronson (not Plaintiff Hardin).  A hearing was held in May 2019.
The motion was subsequently denied.

Plaintiff Bronson now moves for partial summary judgment against
Samsung.  The motion for partial summary judgment raises two
issues. First, whether Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a
manufacturer under the Act.  Second, whether Samsung made the spare
parts for Plaintiff Bronson's television available to the
authorized service and repair facility.

Jude Alsup finds that Plaintiff Bronson's deposition and Samsung
employee call records sufficiently demonstrate that Samsung at
least twice did not make part number BN96-28902A available to its
service centers.  This began at least in March 2016 and continued
until August 2018.  Both sets of evidence are admissible under FRE
801(d)(2)(D).  Plaintiff Bronson has accordingly met his initial
burden to satisfy the elements.

The Judge then finds that the provision expressly requires that the
part be made "available to service and repair facilities."  This
does not mean the manufacture must own the part.  Neither does this
mean the manufacturer can skate by merely making the part available
to customers.  Rather, the part must be made available to the
service and repair facility.  Plaintiff Bronson has demonstrated
two instances where repair facilities had asserted that the exact
part at issue had not been available to them.  Samsung never
rebutted this evidence.  Accordingly, the facts alleged compel the
finding that the part had not been made available to the authorized
service and repair facility in October 2018.

To the foregoing extent, Judge Alsup granted Bronson's partial
motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/zbxnHY from Leagle.com.

Alexis Bronson, Plaintiff, represented by Kyla V. Alexander --
Kyla.tm@rothsteinforjustice.com -- pro hac vice, Peter Y. Lee,
Attorney Peter Y. Lee, pro hac vice, Paul Rothstein --
PSR@Rothsteinforjustice.com -- pro hac vice & Alan J. Sherwood --
alansherwood@earthlink.net -- Law Office of of Alan J. Sherwood.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. & Samsung Electronics Co., LTD.,
Defendants, represented by Shannon Suzanne Broome --
sbroome@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Beth Sharon
Coplowitz -- bcoplowitz@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP,
Michael J. Mueller -- mmueller@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton Andrews Kurth
LLP & Thomas Richard Waskom -- twaskom@HuntonAK.com -- Hunton
Andrews Kurth LLP.


SANKARA NY LLC: Conner Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sankara NY, LLC. The
case is styled as Mary Conner, On behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sankara NY, LLC d/b/a
Castle Resort and Spa, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07290 (S.D.
N.Y., Aug. 5, 2019).

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

Castle Hill Resort and Spa is a luxury resort in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zare Khorozian
     Zare Khorozian Law, LLC
     1047 Anderson Avenue
     Fort Lee, NJ 07024
     Phone: (201) 957-7269
     Email: zare@zkhorozianlaw.com


SHEPPARD PERFORMANCE: Robinson Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
RANDALL ROBINSON, on behalf of Himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SHEPPARD PERFORMANCE GROUP, INC., A Foreign
Profit Corporation, JAMES A. SHEPPARD, and MELISSA GUY,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-12228-PDB-SDD (E.D.
Mich., July 29, 2019) is a collective action complaint brought
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to recover unpaid
overtime, lost wages, damages for emotional distress, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, as well as obtain declaratory
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours within a
given workweek. However, Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiff
at a rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate of
pay. Defendants' failure and/or refusal to properly compensate
Plaintiff at the rates and amounts required by the FLSA were
willful, says the complaint.

Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a non-exempt manual
laborer in approximately January 2019.

SPG is a light manufacturing company that, inter alia, provides
rework to automotive body parts that have been over-sprayed with
paint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     JOHN A. SCHIPPER (P68770)
     Disability & Benefits Associates of Michigan, PLC
     200 E. Big Beaver Road
     Troy, MI 48083
     Phone/Fax: (248) 729-2414
     Email: jschipper@disabilitybenefitsmi.com


SHUTTERFLY INC: Wolf Files Suit Over Apollo Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
JACK WOLF, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. SHUTTERFLY, INC., RYAN O'HARA, THOMAS D.
HUGHES, WILL LANSING, EVA MANOLIS, ANN MATHER, ELIZABETH RAFAEL,
ELIZABETH SARTAIN, H. TAYLOE STANSBURY, BRIAN SWETTE, and MICHAEL
ZEISSER, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01387-UNA (D. Del., July 26,
2019) is an action stemming from a proposed transaction announced
on June 10, 2019, pursuant to which Shutterfly, Inc. will be
acquired by affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC, Photo
Holdings, LLC and Photo Holdings Merger Sub, Inc.

On June 10, 2019, Shutterfly's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Apollo.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Shutterfly's
stockholders will receive $51.00 in cash for each share of
Shutterfly common stock they own. On July 19, 2019, defendants
filed a proxy statement with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Proposed
Transaction.

The complaint asserts that the Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders
the Proxy Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") in
connection with the Proxy Statement.

Plaintiff is the owner of Shutterfly common stock.

Shutterfly is a leading retailer and manufacturing platform for
personalized products and communications.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


SOLI-BOND INC: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SOLI-BOND, INC. The
case is styled as JACOB SANCHEZ, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. SOLI-BOND, INC., A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-102195 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Aug. 5, 2019).

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

Soli-Bond Inc. provides oil and gas services. The Company offers
chemical stabilization technologies applied to contaminated soils,
industrial sludges, oil and gas exploration, and production wastes
containing soluble metals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by ZACHARY M. CROSNER, ESQ.



SRAH BAKERY: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KELLY POLANCO, ANA MENDEZ,
and ADELINA MELARA on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. SRAH BAKERY, INC. d/b/a STRAUSS
BAKERY, G.E.S. BAKERY, INC., TZVI GOLDSTEIN, and ELLIOT BERMAN, the
Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02530 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs
will move the Court for an order granting final approval to the
parties' class action settlement.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Jeffrey Goldman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN
          260 Madison Avenue, 15th Fl
          New York, NY 10016

STARK METAL: Lewis Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
DILLON LEWIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. STARK METAL SALES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 5:19-cv-01724 (N.D. Ohio, July 30, 2019) is a case challenging
the policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Collective Class
members were not paid all of their overtime compensation earned as
a result of Defendant's companywide improper time rounding
practice. Specifically, even though Defendant's electronic
timekeeping system tracks the exact minute Plaintiff and the
Collective Class members clock in and out, Defendant has a
companywide policy that improperly rounds their punch in and punch
out times. This uniform companywide policy has the net effect of
almost always undercompensating Plaintiff and the Collective Class
members. This results in Plaintiff and the Collective Class members
being underpaid for overtime hours worked on a weekly basis, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt employee.

Defendant is an Ohio corporation that conducts business in
Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



STEVE CROMAN: Landlord Faces Claims From More Than 100 Tenants
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown, writing for NY Daily News, reports that a
loathed landlord who spent nearly a year behind bars for fraud is
facing new legal trouble, the Daily News has learned.

Steve Croman can now be sued by more than 100 East Harlem tenants
who say they were edged out of rent-stabilized apartments in his
building, according to court papers.

The suit over the 92-unit building on E. 100 St. charges that
Croman illegally leased apartments at market-rents, never gave
leases to tenants and failed to register the apartments with the
state as required by law. Croman collected tax benefits from the
state for fully rent-regulated buildings when in fact he
deregulated 70% of the units, the suit charges.

In a new decision granting the suit class action status, Manhattan
Supreme Court Justice Franc Perry estimated Croman's alleged
trickery affected more than 100 current and former tenants.

"Class members share a common goal in ensuring they are charged the
legal maximum rent," Perry wrote.

The watchdog group Housing Rights Initiative, which filed the suit,
said rent refunds could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars,
in addition to offers of new rent stabilized leases.

Housing Rights Initiative has filed 56 other lawsuits seeking class
action status. Aaron Carr, the organization's executive director
proclaimed "the floodgates have been opened" for claims against
unscrupulous landlords. The group has also sued Kushner Companies,
among other major landlords.

Croman has long faced allegations that he waged coordinated
harassment campaigns on rent-regulated tenants. He was sentenced to
one year in jail in 2017 for multiple tax and mortgage fraud
charges related to many of his 140 Manhattan buildings.

Nicole Sosnowski, Esq., an attorney for Croman, did not respond to
a request for comment.

In court papers she argued, "Allegations regarding ‘Croman's past
conduct' are more prejudicial than probative."

She also said that the state Division of Homes and Community
Renewal should handle the rent overcharge claims, rather than the
court.

Carr said the alleged scheme he uncovered at the Croman property
was proof the state wasn't doing enough to police landlords.

"If Gov. Cuomo isn't willing to enforce the law against a convicted
criminal like Steven Croman, then what on earth is he willing to
do?" Carr said.

An HCR spokesman took issue with the criticism.

"It was the hard work of Gov. Cuomo's Tenant Protection Unit that
first initiated the investigation and uncovered wrongdoing by this
individual, and that made the criminal referral to the Attorney
General that led to his indictment and conviction," the spokesman
said. [GN]


STRIPES LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Workers, Sanchez Suit Asserts
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID SANCHEZ, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. STRIPES LLC, d/b/a STRIPES,
Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-00185 (W.D. Tex., July 26, 2019) files
this Collective and Class Action Complaint against Defendant
seeking all available relief for Defendant's unlawful conduct under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The complaint alleges that Stripes violated the FLSA by failing to
pay Plaintiff regular pay of hours worked and overtime premium
compensation for hours worked over 40 in any workweek. Furthermore,
Defendant has uniformly failed to accurately track or record actual
hours worked by Plaintiff and has failed to provide him with a
method to accurately record the hours actually worked, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Sanchez was employed by Stripes from December 2012 to
June 2017.

Stripes operates and continues to operate over 700 retail locations
in Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Centre
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Facsimile: (713) 222-6739

          - and -

     Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
     Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
     David A. Roth, Esq.
     Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
     HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
     192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212)545-1199
     Fax: (212)532-380


SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Johnson Fistel Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP, announces that a
class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of
Sunlands Technology Group ("Sunlands") (NYSE: STG). The class
action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Sunlands common
stock pursuant or traceable to the March 2018 initial public stock
offering (the "IPO"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in
this class action, you must move the Court no later than August 26,
2019.

On or about March 23, 2018, Sunlands sold 13 million shares of
stock in its initial public stock offering (the "IPO"), at $11.50 a
share raising $149,500,000 in new capital. The lawsuit alleges
that, the Registration Statement was false and contained misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Sunlands' student
enrollment was declining; (2) Sunlands' gross billings were
declining; (3) Sunlands' marketing tactics were not as robust as
described in the Registration Statement; and (4) as a result,
defendants statements about Sunlands' business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. The lawsuit claims that
investors suffered damages as Sunlands securities are trading
significantly below the IPO price.

If you are interested in learning more about your legal rights and
remedies, please contact Jim Baker, Esq. -- jimb@johnsonfistel.com
-- at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone
number.

Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more
information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonfistel.com

         Contact:
         Jim Baker, Esq.
         Johnson Fistel, LLP
         Tel.No.: 619-814-4471
         Email: jimb@johnsonfistel.com [GN]


SUNLANDS TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Sunlands Technology Group (NYSE:
STG) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement")
issued in connection with Sunlands's March 2018 initial public
stock offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering") of the important
August 26, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class
action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Sunlands investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Sunlands class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1598.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Sunlands's student enrollment was declining; (2)
Sunlands's gross billings were declining; (3) Sunlands's marketing
tactics were not as robust as described in the Registration
Statement; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about
Sunlands's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 26,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1598.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of
millions of dollars for investors. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Contact Information:

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


TEEKAY OFFSHORE: Shareholders File Suit Over Unfair Takeover Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J. Deal Partnership I, L.P., Noster Capital Master Fund, And
Aquamarine Master Fund LP, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated unitholders of Teekay Offshore Partners, L.P.,
v. Teekay Offshore Partners, L.P., Teekay Offshore GP, LLC, William
Utt, Ian Craig, Kenneth Hvid, Craig Laurie, David Lemmon, Jim Reid,
Denis Turcotte, Greg Morrison, Bill Transier, Brookfield Asset
Management, Inc., Brookfield Business Partners, L.P., Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-06483, (S.D. N.Y., July 12, 2019), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs together with
other relief.

Brookfield Business Partners and its affiliates control Teekay
Offshore Partners. They allegedly schemed to depress Teekay's
market value in order ease out the minority unitholders at a low
price by initiating a buyout deal at $1.05 per unit.

Teekay is an international energy shipping and storage company.
When it suffered financially, Brookfield initially provided the
much-needed capital to withstand the downturn and to finance its
long-term capital spending projects, but eventually acquired the
entire business for an unfair price only after a year since its
equity investment, notes the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Harris, Esq.
      Joseph Gallagher, Esq.
      Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
      HARRIS ST. LAURENT LLP
      40 Wall Street, 53rd Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 397-3370
      Fax: (212) 202-6206
      Email: jon@sc-harris.com
             jgallagher@sc-harris.com
             ckamin@sc-harris.com


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Court OKs Individual Arbitration in Blevins
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District Missouri,
Southern Division, issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Compel Individual Arbitration in the case captioned ALLEN RAY
BLEVINS, Plaintiff, v. TELETECH HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a TTEC,
Defendant. No. 19-03121-CV-S-DPR. (W.D. Mo.).

Blevins filed a class action complaint against TTEC on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated alleging the company sent
him unsolicited text messages in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Pursuant to the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA), TTEC responded with its motion to compel individual
arbitration based on its arbitration agreement with Blevins.

Blevins argues in response he should not be compelled to arbitrate
his individual TCPA claims, because (1) the arbitration agreement
as a whole is procedurally unconscionable (2) the agreement's class
action waiver is substantively unconscionable and (3) even if the
agreement is found to be enforceable, his TCPA claims are not
within the scope of the agreement.

The FAA establishes a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration
agreements.  Accordingly, courts must rigorously enforce
arbitration agreements according to their terms. Section 2 of the
FAA provides tht arbitration agreements shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at
law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.

In deciding a motion to compel arbitration under the FAA, courts
ask (1) whether the parties entered a valid arbitration agreement
and (2) if so, whether the parties' particular dispute falls within
the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Whether There is a Valid and Enforceable Agreement

State contract law governs whether the parties have entered into a
valid arbitration agreement. The question here is which state's law
should apply. In its motion, TTEC points to the agreement's choice
of law provision which provides that both parties should reasonably
expect to be and are subject to the laws of Colorado related to
this Agreement. While Blevins does not explicitly argue that
Colorado law should not apply, he largely cites Missouri state
cases and federal cases applying Missouri law to advance his
procedural unconscionability argument. Nevertheless, the Court will
not engage in a rigorous conflict-of-laws analysis to determine
which law should apply, because the Court finds that the result is
the same whether Colorado or Missouri law is applied.  

Contract Elements

Under Colorado law, a valid contract exists when one party makes an
offer, the other accepts it, and the agreement is supported by
consideration. Likewise under Missouri law, the essential elements
of any contract, including one for arbitration, are offer,
acceptance, and bargained for consideration.  

As set forth in the Background above, offer and acceptance are met
here because TTEC provided the arbitration agreement to Blevins,
and Blevins Accepted its terms. Furthermore, the parties' mutual
promises to arbitrate, as well as Blevins' employment, constituted
sufficient consideration for the agreement. Therefore, a valid
contract was formed unless the agreement is found unconscionable,
as Blevins argues.

The unconscionability doctrine, being a generally applicable
contract defense may be used to invalidate an otherwise enforceable
arbitration agreement. Blevins argues that the arbitration
agreement is unenforceable because the agreement as a whole is
procedurally unconscionable, and the agreement's class action
waiver is substantively unconscionable. As noted above, the outcome
is the same whether Colorado or Missouri law is applied, and the
Court finds that the arbitration agreement is neither procedurally
not substantively unconscionable.

Procedural Unconscionability Under Colorado Law

In Colorado, for a contract to be unconscionable, it must be both
substantively and procedurally unconscionable. The Colorado Supreme
Court recognized in Davis seven relevant factors to determine
whether a contract is unconscionable: (1) a standardized agreement
executed by parties of unequal bargaining strength (2) lack of
opportunity to read or become familiar with the document before
signing it (3) use of fine print in the portion of the contract
containing the provision (4) absence of evidence that the provision
was commercially reasonable or should reasonably have been
anticipated (5) the terms of the contract, including substantive
unfairness (6) the relationship of the parties, including factors
of assent, unfair surprise and notice and (7) all the circumstances
surrounding the formation of the contract, including its commercial
setting, purpose and effect.

The first, second, third, sixth, and seventh factors relate to
procedural unconscionability. The fourth and fifth factors relate
to substantive unconscionability.  

Blevins himself concedes that mere inequality in bargaining power
does not make the contract automatically unenforceable.  However,
Blevins specifically claims the agreement was presented on a take
it or leave-it' basis because it had no opt-out provision and
because he had no ability to ask questions, discuss the agreement
or negotiate its terms. The Court disagrees. The agreement clearly
states in paragraph 12.0, "The employee understands and agrees that
Employee has been advised to consult with an attorney of Employee's
own choosing before signing this Agreement and will let the Company
know if any changes are requested. Assuming Blevins read the
agreement, it appears he simply did not attempt to ask any
questions or request any changes at the time. Furthermore, Blevins
could have chosen to Decline the agreement and not opted-in in the
first place.

Therefore, while the agreement does appear to be a standardized
arbitration agreement sent to all TTEC employees, the Court is not
convinced that the agreement was presented on a take-itor-leave-it
basis, as Blevins argues. And because unequal bargaining power
alone will not suffice to invalidate the agreement, the Court is
hard-pressed to find procedural unconscionability under Colorado
law.

Procedural Unconscionability Under Missouri Law

Missouri law, which Blevins cites for procedural unconscionability,
is no more favorable to Blevins. Missouri courts look at the
procedural and substantive aspects together to determine
unconscionability.Unconscionability, as defined in Missouri, is an
inequality so strong, gross, and manifest that it must be
impossible to state it to one with common sense without producing
an exclamation at the inequality of it. Missouri courts have also
described an unconscionable agreement as one in which `no man in
his senses and not under delusion would make, on the one hand, and
as no honest and fair man would accept on the other. Common
procedural factors include high pressure sales tactics, unreadable
fine print, misrepresentation, and unequal bargaining positions.  

Blevins' only argument on procedural unconscionability is that
there was unequal bargaining power at formation. This alone cannot
invalidate the arbitration agreement.

Likewise, the other common procedural factors identified by
Missouri were not present at formation. Blevins does not allege
high pressure sales tactics, unreadable fine print,
misrepresentation, or any sort of fraud or duress. It certainly
cannot be said that the agreement was one in which no man in his
senses and not under delusion would make or that there was an
inequality so strong, gross, and manifest that it would be
impossible for a person not to exclaim its inequality.  

Therefore, the agreement is not procedurally unconscionable under
Missouri law.

Substantive Unconscionability

Even if the agreement was found to be procedurally unconscionable,
Colorado law would still require it to be substantively
unconscionable. Missouri law would also require a showing of
substantive unconscionability, given that mere inequality in
bargaining power is not enough in itself. Blevins' only argument on
substantive unconscionability is that the agreement's class action
waiver is so unfairly one-sided and unjustly oppressive to him.

This argument fails.

Blevins rightly concedes that the mere presence of a class action
waiver [does not render] the agreement unconscionable.
Nevertheless, he insists that the class action waiver in this
agreement is unfairly one-sided and thus substantively
unconscionable, because only employees of Teletech would have an
interest in suing Teletech on a class action basis and not the
other way around.  In support, Blevins cites a 2004 California
appellate court case, which is neither directly on point nor
binding here.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly enforced arbitration agreements
according to their terms. An agreement with terms providing for
individualized proceedings rather than class-wide proceedings is no
different. Therefore, not only are arbitration agreements that
provide for individualized proceedings conscionable, they are the
default.

Here, the parties have mutually agreed to individualized
arbitration, and such an agreement must be enforced according to
its terms. The argument that this particular class action waiver is
unfairly one-sided is without merit. Plaintiffs implicitly argue
that the class and collection action waivers are unfair, Epic
Systems precludes that argument. There is no reason to believe that
the employers in Epic Systems had any more interest in suing their
employees on a class-wide basis than TTEC does now.

Therefore, the class action waiver here is not substantively
unconscionable.

Whether Plaintiff's Claims are Within the Scope of the Agreement

Having decided there is a valid arbitration agreement, the question
is whether Blevins' TCPA claims are within the scope of the
arbitration agreement. Although Blevins argues that the question is
for this Court to decide the Supreme Court recently and unanimously
reaffirmed that threshold questions of arbitrability are properly
left to the arbitrator when the parties explicitly delegate it to
the arbitrator.

Here, the agreement provides in paragraph 4.1, Whether such claims
or disputes are subject to arbitration shall be decided by the
arbitrator. Accordingly, this explicit delegation of the
arbitrability question to the arbitrator should be enforced, and
the Court possesses no power to decide the issue.

The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists between
Blevins and TTEC, and the agreement must be enforced according to
its terms. As for whether Blevins' TCPA claims are subject to
arbitration, the arbitrator will decide that issue. Accordingly,
the Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y64th45o from Leagle.com.

Allen Ray Blevins, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda J. Allen, The
Consumer Protection Firm, 4030 Henveerson Boulevard, Tampa, Fl
33629, pro hac vice, Seyed Abbas Kazerounian --  ak@kazlg.com --
pro hac vice & D. Todd Mathews -- todd@gorijulianlaw.com -- Gori
Julian & Associates PC.

Teletech Holdings, Inc., doing business as TTEC, Defendant,
represented by Anthony C. Sallah -- asallah@beneschlaw.com --
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP, pro hac vice, David
Richard Adair -- dadair@hcblawfirm.com -- Haden, Cowherd & Bullock,
L.L.C., David M. Krueger -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- pro hac vice
& Eric Larson Zalud -- ezalud@beneschlaw.com -- pro hac vice.


THYSSENKRUPP MATERIALS: Court Dismisses A. Rael Class Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District
California issued an Order dismissing Class Action Claims in the
case captioned ANGELA RAEL, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THYSSENKRUPP MATERIALS
NA, INC., THYSSENKRUPP INDUSTRIAL SERVICES NA, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-01683-MCE-AC.
(E.D. Cal.).

In her complaint, the Plaintiff asserts individual and class action
wage and hour claims against the Defendant based on the central
allegation that Defendant engages in uneven rounding practices.

Following receipt of information from Defendant regarding the
effect of its rounding practices, the Plaintiff decided to abandon
her class action claims and pursue instead only individual claims
against the Defendant.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement with respect to the
Plaintiff's individual claims against the Defendant.

In light of this, the parties agree and request the Court to order
that the Plaintiff's class action claims against the Defendant be
dismissed without prejudice, the Plaintiff's individual claims
against Defendant be dismissed with prejudice, and each party shall
bear its own respective costs and fees.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's class action claims against Defendant
are dismissed without prejudice 2. The Plaintiff's individual
claims against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y66y7pxc from Leagle.com.

Angela Rael, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory N. Karasik --
greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- Karasik Law Firm & Emil Davtyan --
emil@davtyanlaw.com -- Davtyan Professional Law Corporation.

Thyssenkrupp Materials NA, Inc. & Thyssenkrupp Industrial Services,
NA, Inc., Defendants, represented by Laura Reathaford --
lreathaford@blankrome.com -- Blank Rome LLP.


TOCK INC: Walker Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------
RICARDO WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TOCK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 712941/2019
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., July 26, 2019) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for failing to design, construct, and/or
own or operate a website that is fully accessible to, and
independently usable by, blind people.

The Defendant's Website https://www.exploretock.com/ provides to
the public a wide array of the goods, services, online date and
time restaurant reservation availability and other programs. Yet,
the Website contains access barriers that make it difficult, if not
impossible, for blind customers to use it, says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a blind individual.

Defendant is an American for-profit corporation under the laws of
Delaware, with a principal address at 951 West Fulton Market,
Chicago, IL.[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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court OKs $345K Settlement in Dulberg
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of a Revised Settlement Agreement in the case
captioned MARTIN DULBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and
RASIER, LLC, Defendants. No. 17-00850 WHA. (N.D. Cal.).

In this breach-of-contract class action, the plaintiff moves for
preliminary approval of a revised settlement agreement. The
Defendants do not oppose.  

Martin Dulberg brought this class action on behalf of Uber drivers
against defendants Uber Technologies and Rasier, LLC (Uber),
asserting Uber breached its contract with Uber drivers. Uber's
policy changed in late 2016. Plaintiff alleged the new policy
violated his contract with Uber because Uber calculated costs to
passengers by estimating time and distance amounts before the ride
and then compensated drivers based on actual time and distance
amounts keeping the difference for itself.

The Plaintiff moved for preliminary approval of a proposed class
settlement in the amount of $345,622 Defendants did not oppose.  

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) provides that the claims,
issues, or defenses of a certified class may be settled only with
the court's approval. Preliminary approval is appropriate if the
proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed,
non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not
improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or
segments of the class, and falls within the range of possible
approval.

BENEFIT TO CLASS MEMBERS

The issue raised at the final approval hearing stemmed from the
mere pennies that would be sent to approximately 25% of the class.
This proposed settlement agreement establishes a maximum settlement
amount of approximately $395,000 paid directly to a maximum number
of 4,594 class members. Under the revised settlement, the
settlement amount remains $345,622. After the expenses and fees
have been taken out of the settlement, Uber will add approximately
$50,000 to ensure no class member will receive less than $20. This
cash infusion will go only to the class who would have received
less than $20 after the fees and expenses have been taken out.
Because no class member will now receive less than $20, this
solution falls within the range of possible approval.

This is still a low-end recovery for the class. Evidently, this is
because the case itself has turned out to be a low-end theory. It
might be better for the average class member to roll the dice and
see if they could hit big with a jury rather than accept a mere
twenty or so dollars. But even a hit would not push the average
award into three figures, now that we see how little the case was
built on. It is hard to justify the burden on the jury to try this
case.

For this reason, at least enough has been provided to warrant
preliminary approval and an opportunity for comment from the class
members.

SCOPE OF THE RELEASE.

The revised settlement agreement contains the same release of
claims previously preliminarily approved. The release of claims
remains defined as:

     All causes of action and claims that were or could have been
asserted against any of the Released Parties for alleged breach of
Paragraph 4.1 of the TSA based on Uber's upfront pricing practices
that are alleged in this Action on behalf of the Settlement Class.

Despite the appearance of broad language, the parties had
previously assured the Court at the prior preliminary approval
hearing that this release is limited to the certified claims. On
this condition, the release falls within the range of possible
approval.

ATTORNEY'S FEES AND INCENTIVE AWARD.

The Plaintiff's attorneys are Danielle Marlow and Salvatore Badala
of Napoli Shkolnik PLLC. The settlement provides that plaintiff's
attorneys will move for fees and expenses. The settlement agreement
allows the Court to decide how much to compensate counsel in terms
of their fees and expenses. Yet, plaintiff's counsel have pledged
they will move for 25% of the net settlement amount. This amount
generally suffices. Additionally, all further expenses in sending
the fresh class notices will not come out of the settlement fund,
Uber will pay. This will allow for greater recovery to the class..

Accordingly, the terms of the parties' settlement agreement are
preliminarily approved as being fair, reasonable and adequate to
the members of the class, subject to further consideration at the
final approval hearing.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy5l25ad from Leagle.com.

Martin Dulberg, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer R. Liakos --
jliakos@napolilaw.com -- Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Danielle Jan Marlow,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, 360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor, New York,
NY 10017, pro hac vice, Salvatore C. Badala, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC,
360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10017, pro hac vice
& Samuel Joseph Moorhead, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, 360 Lexington
Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10017

Uber Technologies, Inc. & Rasier, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Randall W. Edwards -- redwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Adam Manes Kaplan -- akaplan@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Damali A. Taylor -- dtaylor@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers & Matthew
David Powers -- mpowers@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


VELOCITY CONSTRUCTION: Richard Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
THEODORE RICHARD, Individually and Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. VELOCITY CONSTRUCTION & INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00041 (W.D. Tex., July 26, 2019)
is a lawsuit arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime wages from Defendant.

During Plaintiff's employment with Velocity, he regularly worked in
excess of forty hours per week. However, Velocity did not pay
Plaintiff overtime "at a rate not less than one and one-half times
the regular rate at which he was employed." Instead, Velocity paid
Plaintiff a fixed sum of money regardless of the number of hours he
worked. Accordingly, Velocity is liable to Plaintiff for his unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the FLSA, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Theodore Richard was employed by Velocity as a lead
technician from approximately December 2018 to July 2019.

Velocity is a construction company for civil, commercial and
industrial projects.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     Curt Hesse, Esq.
     Bridget Davidson, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     Lyric Centre
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 222-6775
     Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


VERMILION COUNTY, IL: Farrow Can't Proceed as Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harold A. Baker of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of Illinois has issued merit review and case management
order in the case, PAUL FARROW, et al., Plaintiff, v. VERMILION
COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT., et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-2109 (C.D.
Ill.).

Plaintiffs Farrow and William Morgan, proceeding pro se, and
currently detained at Vermilion County Public Safety Building, were
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.  The case is now before
the Court for a merit review of their claims.  

The Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they are both housed
in isolation without access to legal material, eyeglasses, medical
treatment, pain medication, legal assistance, phone books, and all
necessities except for clean clothing, showers and food.  They also
allege that, in December 2018, a John Doe Defendant correctional
officer sprayed Plaintiff Morgan in the face and genital area with
mace, and that the same John Doe officer slammed Plaintiff Farrow's
head into an elevator.  Plaintiff Farrow also alleges that members
of the Danville Police Department attacked him in March 2015.

As an initial matter, the Plaintiffs intend for the lawsuit to be a
class action; however, Judge Baker holds that the unrepresented
Plaintiffs are not allowed to act as class representatives.  They
cannot act on each other's behalf.  To the extent that Plaintiffs
seek to litigate the matter as a class action, the request is
denied.

The Plaintiffs state a Fourteenth Amendment claim based on the
alleged use of unreasonable force in December 2018.  Because they
name only a Doe Defendant, the Judge will retain Defendant
Hartshorn, the sheriff, as a Defendant solely for purposes of
identifying the Doe defendant.

The Plaintiffs, however, do not state any further claims at this
time.  Plaintiff Farrow's claim related to the 2015 use of force is
likely time-barred.  Even if it is not, Plaintiff Farrow describes
an incident that occurred several years prior to his present
detention, does not involve Plaintiff Morgan, and names different
defendants.  Accordingly, the claims belong in a separate lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs also do not allege sufficient information to state a
conditions-of-confinement claim based upon the alleged conditions
in isolation.  They, at the very least, must describe their
respective medical conditions, how lack of access to legal
assistance has prejudiced an otherwise meritorious claim, what
steps they have taken to notify jail officials, and the officials'
responses.  For these reasons, the Judge holds that Plaintiff
Farrow's 2015 claim and the Plaintiffs' conditions-of-confinement
claim will be dismissed without prejudice.

Finally, a third detainee at the jail, Jeremy Marack, filed a
Motion to Amend Complaint, seeking to join the lawsuit as a
Plaintiff.  As the Judge discussed, the matter cannot proceed as a
class action.  Further, Mr. Marack alleges that he was not detained
at the jail until after the December 2018 incident, and, therefore,
he could not have been involved.  If Mr. Marack desires to pursue
the allegations he alleged in his motion, he must do so in a
separate lawsuit.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Baker finds that the Plaintiffs state
a Fourteenth Amendment claim for the use of unreasonable force
against Defendant John Doe "Allen."  Defendant Hartshorn shall
remain a Defendant solely for purposes of identifying the Doe
Defendants. Any additional claims shall not be included in the
case, except at the Court's discretion on motion by a party for
good cause shown or pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15.

The case is now in the process of service.  The Judge advised the
Plaintiff to wait until the counsel has appeared for the Defendants
before filing any motions, in order to give the Defendants notice
and an opportunity to respond to those motions.  Motions filed
before the Defendants' counsel has filed an appearance will
generally be denied as premature.  The Plaintiff need not submit
any evidence to the court at this time, unless otherwise directed
by the court.

The Court will attempt service on the Defendants by mailing each
defendant a waiver of service.  The Defendants have 60 days from
the date the waiver is sent to file an answer.  If they have not
filed answers or appeared through counsel within 90 days of the
entry of the Order, the Plaintiff may file a motion requesting the
status of service.  After the Defendants have been served, the
Court will enter an order setting discovery and dispositive motion
deadlines.

With respect to a Defendant who no longer works at the address
provided by the Plaintiff, the entity for whom that Defendant
worked while at that address shall provide to the clerk said
Defendant's current work address, or, if not known, said
Defendant's forwarding address.  This information shall be used
only for effectuating service.  Documentation of forwarding
addresses shall be retained only by the clerk and shall not be
maintained in the public docket nor disclosed by the clerk.

The Defendants shall file an answer within 60 days of the date the
waiver is sent by the clerk.  A motion to dismiss is not an answer.
The answer should include all defenses appropriate under the
Federal Rules.  The answer and subsequent pleadings shall be to the
issues and claims stated in the opinion.  In general, an answer
sets forth the Defendants' positions.  The court does not rule on
the merits of those positions unless and until a motion is filed by
the Defendants.  Therefore, no response to the answer is necessary
or will be considered.

The district uses electronic filing, which means that, after the
defense counsel has filed an appearance, the defense counsel will
automatically receive electronic notice of any motion or other
paper filed by the Plaintiff with the clerk.  The Plaintiff does
not need to mail to the defense counsel copies of motions and other
papers that the Plaintiff has filed with the clerk.  However, this
does not apply to discovery requests and responses.  Discovery
requests and responses are not filed with the clerk.  The Plaintiff
must mail his discovery requests and responses directly to the
Defendants' counsel.  Discovery requests or responses sent to the
clerk will be returned unfiled, unless they are attached to and the
subject of a motion to compel.  Discovery does not begin until
defense counsel has filed an appearance and the Court has entered a
scheduling order, which will explain the discovery process in more
detail.

The Judge granted the counsel for the Defendants leave to depose
the Plaintiff at his place of confinement.  The counsel for the
Defendants shall arrange the time for the deposition.

The Plaintiff shall immediately notify the Court, in writing, of
any change in his mailing address and telephone number.  The
Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of a change in mailing
address or phone number will result in dismissal of the lawsuit,
with prejudice.

If a Defendant fails to sign and return a waiver of service to the
clerk within 30 days after the waiver is sent, the Court will take
appropriate steps to effect formal service through the U.S.
Marshals service on that the Defendant and will require that the
Defendant to pay the full costs of formal service pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2).

The clerk is directed to enter the standard qualified protective
order pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.  The clerk is directed to terminate Vermilion
County Sheriff's Department, Danville Police Department, Nursing
Department, Nurse Jane Doe, John Doe #1, Larry Thompson, and
Various Unknowns as Defendants.  The clerk is directed to attempt
service on Pat Hartshorn pursuant to the standard procedures.

The Plaintiffs' motion for counsel is denied, with leave to renew.
The Plaintiffs attached exhibits indicating that they made a
reasonable effort to obtain counsel on their own, and, therefore,
the Judge finds that he has satisfied the first prong of the
analysis.  The Plaintiffs, however, have personal knowledge of the
facts, they have been able to adequately convey those facts to the
Court, they should be able to obtain relevant documents via the
discovery process, and these claims do not appear overly complex at
the time.  Therefore, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs are
capable of representing themselves at this time.

The Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint for the reasons stated.  He denied as moot the
Plaintiff's Motion for Status.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/CKs4GP from Leagle.com.

Paul Farrow, Plaintiff, pro se.

William M. Morgan, Plaintiff, pro se.


VERTICAL SCREEN: Court OKs Conditional Certification in Garcia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting in part and denying in
part Plaintiff's Motion for Order Authorizing Notice to Similarly
Situated Persons in the case captioned WILLIAM GARCIA, for himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VERTICAL SCREEN,
INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-4718. (E.D. Pa.).

This is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).  The Plaintiff was formerly employed as a Researcher by
defendant Vertical Screen, Inc., and asserts claims individually
and on behalf of similarly situated former and current Researchers
and Team Leaders employed by defendant.

The Plaintiff alleges defendant violated the FLSA by (1) failing to
pay Researchers and Team Leaders for the ten to fifteen minutes it
took to log in to defendant's timekeeping system each work day and
(2) shaving one to two unapproved overtime hours off Researchers'
and Team Leaders' recorded work time each month.

Conditional Certification

The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a collective class
consisting of all persons who have worked as a full-time,
hourly-paid Vertical Screen Researcher or Team Leader during the
past three years. Plaintiff asserts that the proposed class was
subject to two policies by defendant that violate the FLSA: (1)
failure to pay for time spent logging into defendant's timekeeping
system and (2) shaving one to two unapproved overtime hours from
employees' recorded work time each month.  

The Court concludes that plaintiff has made the requisite modest
factual showing that the proposed collective class is similarly
situated and, therefore, conditionally certifies the proposed
class.

Unpaid Log-In Time

The Plaintiff asserts that defendant failed to pay wages for the
ten to fifteen minutes per day that hourly-paid Researchers and
Team Leaders spent logging into the ADP timekeeping system, which
added up to roughly two to four hours per month.  

In support, plaintiff submits two declarations by full-time, hourly
paid Researchers  himself and Julia Santana as well as defendant's
2011 Employee Handbook. Santana and plaintiff aver that Researchers
are all subject to the same log-in and timekeeping policies, which
required them to log in to the ADP timekeeping system at the start
of each work day to track their time.  

The Plaintiff and Santana state that logging into the ADP system
took about ten minutes each day due to hardware and software
problems, such as waiting for other employees to log-out of the ADP
system before I could log in, waiting for the computer to load,
waiting for the ADP system to load, updating or reconfiguring my
password, [and] experiencing a failed log-in and having to re-start
the log-in process.

The Plaintiff and Santana state that they spoke to their
supervisors, department managers, and defendant's human resources
department about problems with defendant's log-in procedure and not
being paid for log-in time. Plaintiff avers that other Researchers
and Team Leaders did the same, and that he knew this because of his
regular interaction with his coworkers. Both declarants maintain
that nothing was done to resolve the problem.  

The Defendant argues that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of
showing all hourly-paid Researchers and Team Leaders were subject
to the same policies. However, the Employee Handbook refers to all
hourly employees, not specific job titles, evidence that
hourly-paid Researchers and Team Leaders are subject to the same
timekeeping policies. Defendant provides no evidence to the
contrary.  

Next, defendant argues that neither plaintiff nor Santana provided
specific examples of instances on which they experienced log-in
issues and were not paid for that time.  The Court disagrees. Both
plaintiff and Santana assert that it took roughly ten to fifteen
minutes per day to log in and provided specific examples of the
time-consuming issues they faced, such as waiting for the computer
to load or reconfiguring my password. These specifics are
sufficient to go beyond pure speculation. The Court is also not
persuaded by defendant's argument that Santana's declaration
provides insufficient evidence, given her statement that while she
worked for defendant, she felt she was probably paid for all the
hours she worked.  

The Court concludes plaintiff has made the requisite modest factual
showing that defendant's policies required all full-time,
hourly-paid Researchers and Team Leaders to spend ten to fifteen
minutes logging into its timekeeping system, for which they were
not paid. The Court grants plaintiff's motion insofar as it seeks
to conditionally certify a class with respect to the claim of
unpaid log-in time.

Shaved Overtime Hours

The Plaintiff claims that defendant had a policy of shaving one to
two unapproved overtime hours from full-time, hourly Researchers'
and Team Leaders' recorded work time each month.  

In support, plaintiff submits three declarations by hourly-paid
Researchers himself, Santana, and Kristin Chirichiello as well as
defendant's Employee Handbook. The Handbook provides, Prior
approval of a supervisor is required before any hourly employee
works overtime. Non-exempt/hourly employees working overtime
without approval will be subject to disciplinary action. The
Handbook does not contain a policy for seeking retroactive approval
for overtime hours worked.  

Chirichiello explains that in her experience, it was often
difficult, if not impossible, to get a supervisor's advance
approval for overtime work because events that cause overtime work
often happen when supervisors are not readily available, like
during meal breaks or at the end of a shift. Additionally,
Chirichiello avers that on some occasions she had to work overtime
hours unexpectedly because of my workload, system issues, a
co-worker calling out sick, or other reasons and on those occasions
she could not get approval from a supervisor.  

First, defendant's arguments addressing the merits of plaintiff's
claim, such as the claim that plaintiff should have utilized
defendant's Error in Pay policy, are inappropriate at this stage of
the proceedings.  

Next, defendant contends that Chirichiello's description of not
being paid for unapproved overtime hours is totally different from
the policy plaintiff describes in the Complaint and his
declaration. The Court disagrees. Although the Complaint broadly
states that defendant regularly shaved' about one to two hours per
month off his weekly work time, plaintiff's motion, declaration,
and reply, describe the same policy as Chirichiello: removal of
unapproved overtime hours from through managers' and supervisors'
weekly review of hourly employees' work time.  

The Court agrees that Santana's declaration is weak. Even the
strongest language of Santana's declaration is tenuous: "Looking
back at the time I worked for Vertical Screen and the wages it
paid, I think my managers or supervisors may have used the review
process to cut 1-2 overtime hours from my pay each month. However,
even without Santana's declaration, plaintiff has made a modest
factual showing that defendant had a policy of shaving one to two
unapproved overtime hours from hourly-paid Researchers' and Team
Leaders' work time each month. The Employee Handbook, which applies
to all hourly employees, provides that overtime hours must be
approved and that employees who work unapproved overtime will be
subject to disciplinary action. Plaintiff and Chirichiello both
aver knowledge that other Researchers and Team Leaders were subject
to the same policies."

The Court thus grants plaintiff's motion insofar as it seeks to
conditionally certify a class with respect to the claim of shaved
overtime hours.

Overbreadth

Finally, defendant argues that the collective class plaintiff
proposes is overbroad and includes employees in different divisions
with varied scheduled working hours and dissimilar managers and
supervisors. The Court has already concluded that plaintiff made a
modest factual showing that the members of the proposed class all
persons who have worked as a full-time, hourly-paid Vertical Screen
Researcher or Team Leader during the past three years are similarly
situated and subject to the same policies and practices by
defendant. Defendant has not identified any key differences between
the individuals included in this class. Moreover, concerns about
the size and scope of an FLSA collective class are best addressed
at the final certification stage.  

Plaintiff's Proposed Class Notice and Consent Form

The Court now turns to plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent
Form. The Supreme Court has held that district courts have
discretion, in appropriate cases, to implement by facilitating
notice to potential plaintiffs. Defendant objects to plaintiff's
proposed means of disseminating the Notice and Consent Form, as
well as to the content of the Notice and Consent Form. The Court
addresses each argument in turn.

Defendant's Objections to Dissemination of Notice

The Defendant challenges two of plaintiff's proposed means of
dissemination: (1) requiring defendant to conspicuously post" the
Notice in its headquarters in Warminster, Pennsylvania, and (2)
allowing plaintiff to send a reminder mailing and emails during the
opt-in period.  

First, defendant argues that posting the Notice in its headquarters
is unnecessary given that it is cooperating in the litigation
process. Second, defendant maintains that reminder communications
would suggest to potential plaintiffs that the Court is encouraging
them to join the lawsuit. Plaintiff maintains that both of these
practices are routine in the Third Circuit.    

The Court agrees with plaintiff. Courts in this Circuit regularly
permit follow-up notices and posting of the notice at work sites of
the defendant. Defendant's objections to the means of disseminating
the Notice and Consent Form are therefore overruled.

Defendant's Objections to the Content of the Notice and Consent
Form

The Defendant also objects to the content of plaintiff's proposed
Notice and Consent Form. The Plaintiff consented to two of
defendant's proposed amendments in his Reply and has thus agreed to
amend the Notice to (1) advise opt-ins of their right to counsel
under the section titled Your Legal Representation If You Join and
(2) add a statement that plaintiff seeks wages for unpaid time to
the section titled "What Is the Lawsuit About?"

First, defendant argues that the Notice should advise opt-in
plaintiffs that they may be required to attend depositions and
testify at trial. The proposed Notice already informs potential
plaintiffs that if they opt in, they may be required to provide
Defendant with documents, information, or testimony relating to
your claim. This provision sufficiently informs potential
plaintiffs of their potential obligations in the case. Defendant's
objection is overruled on this ground.

Second, defendant argues that the Notice should include a warning
that opt-in plaintiffs' employee and payroll records may become
publicly accessible during the litigation. The Court concludes that
this warning would unnecessarily run the risk of chilling opt-in
participation. If concerns about the release of private information
arise during the litigation, plaintiffs' information can be
protected through other means. This objection is overruled.

Third, defendant argues that the Notice should also warn that if
plaintiffs do not prevail in the case, court costs and expenses may
possibly be assessed against you. This warning is unwarranted,
given plaintiff's averment that plaintiff's counsel has agreed to
indemnify plaintiffs against payment of costs. This objection is
overruled.

Fourth, defendant argues that the Notice should advise potential
plaintiffs of the amount of fees that will be deducted from their
potential recovery if they choose to opt-in and be represented by
Plaintiff's Counsel. Plaintiff maintains that there is no basis for
mentioning a percentage counsel fee in the Notice, because counsel
does not have a fixed-percentage fee agreement with plaintiff, so
his fee has not been established.   

The Court agrees that the Notice need not mention a fixed
percentage fee in the absence of a fixed fee agreement. However,
the Notice should state that if the opt-in plaintiffs are
successful, counsel's contingency fee will be paid from their
recovery. The proposed Notice states, These attorneys have taken
this case on a contingency basis meaning that, if this lawsuit
results in a payment to the Class, they will ask the Court to
approve a fee for their work and reimbursement of their
case-related costs. Defendant's objection is sustained in part. The
Notice shall be amended to state that counsel's fee and
reimbursement of costs will be paid from plaintiffs' recovery.

Fifth, defendant argues that the description of plaintiff's log-in
time claim included in the Notice should be amended to add, and by
refusing to pay Researchers and Team Leaders for any such time they
worked. The Court agrees. The Notice currently states that
plaintiff alleges defendant violated the FLSA by requiring
Researchers and Team Leaders to spend ten to fifteen minutes
logging into the timekeeping system but not that employees were not
paid for that time. See Notice, at 1. Defendant's objection on this
issue is sustained.

Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiff's motion insofar as it
seeks conditional certification of a collective class of "all
persons who have worked as full-time, hourly-paid Researchers or
Team Leaders for defendant during the past three years," based on
plaintiff's claims of unpaid log-in time and shaved overtime hours.
Stephan Zouras LLP is appointed to serve as class counsel.

A full-text copy of the District Court's July 22, 2019 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2llvoly from Leagle.com.

WILLIAM GARCIA, FOR HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff, represented by ANDREW C. FICZKO, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP,
DAVID J. COHEN, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, JAMES B. ZOURAS, STEPHAN ZOURAS
LLP & RYAN F. STEPHAN, STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP, 100 N Riverside Plaza,
Suite 2150, Chicago, IL 60606.

VERTICAL SCREEN, INC., Defendant, represented by LARRY BESNOFF --
larry.besnoff@bipc.com -- Buchanan & Ingersoll PC & SARA E. HOFFMAN
-- sara.hoffman@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY P.C.


XPRESSION OF AWARENESS: Dhesi Files Suit Over Junk Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
DR. SARBJIT DHESI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. XPRESSION OF AWARENESS, INC., d/b/a "RETHINK
CBD," a/k/a "CBD RETHINK," Case No. 3:19-cv-04210-LB (N.D. Cal.,
July 23, 2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, which forbids sending of unsolicited
advertisements for goods or services via facsimile ("Junk Faxes").

Headquartered in Miami, Florida, Xpression of Awareness, Inc., is a
for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of Florida.  The
Defendant does business in California and throughout the United
States.

The Defendant's business is selling cannabis-based products that it
claims treat pain.  The Defendant's business model includes
marketing through fax advertisements.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon B. Fougner, Esq.
          600 California Street, 11th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 577-5829
          Facsimile: (206) 338-0783
          E-mail: jon@fougnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Heidarpour, Esq.
          HEIDARPOUR LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 190-318
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 234-2727
          E-mail: aheidarpour@hlfirm.com


YUBA COUNTY, CA: Court Dismisses 2nd Amended Green Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN GREEN, individually and doing business as GREEN
SOLUTIONS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF YUBA; JEREMY STRANG,
individually and in his official capacity; JOHN JACENICH,
individually and in his official capacity; MELANIE MARQUEZ,
individually and in her official capacity; and DOES 1-10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02234-JAM-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge John
A. Mendez of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

The case arises from the abatement of an alleged public nuisance
related to unpermitted structures and marijuana cultivation on
property owned by Green.  Green sued the County and several Yuba
County employees alleging the unlawful seizure and destruction of
property.  

In the prior order, the Court dismissed Green's First, Fifth,
Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action and granted him leave to amend
his Monell claims against the County.  Green then amended his
complaint with additional allegations.

The Defendants now move to dismiss Green's amended Fourth Amendment
Monell claim and his reference to suing the individual Defendants
in their official capacities.  Green has filed an opposition, to
which the Defendants have replied.

The Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of four state
court actions and one federal court actions.  The SAC references
these cases as factual evidence in support of Green's Monell claim.
Green does not oppose and joins in the request.  Accordingly, Jdge
Mendez grants the Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice of the
relevant state and federal court actions.

In his Opposition, Green concedes that it is redundant to name an
individual Defendant in his or her official capacity while
simultaneously suing the public entity.  He, however, also argues
that the Court may only dismiss redundant claims like this if the
defendant is named only in an official capacity.  The Judge does
not agree with Green's contorted reading of Center for Bio-Ethical
Reform and will dismiss the official capacity claims as redundant.
Green's individual capacity claims remain.

Green names the County as a Defendant in each of his constitutional
claims.  The County moves to dismiss Green's Fourth Amendment
Monell claim for failure to allege a municipal custom or practice.
The Judge finds that Green's listing of data from the Yuba County
Code Enforcement website does not provide a basis upon which to
assert that the County had a persistent and widespread custom of
violating the Fourth Amendment.  He also finds that Green's has had
several opportunities to amend his Monell claims, yet he has failed
to provide sufficient factual allegations upon which to state a
claim.  The Judge finds that granting him further leave to amend
his Fourth Amendment Monell claim would be futile and will dismiss
this claim with prejudice.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Mendez granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss as follows: He granted the Motion as to the
naming of individual Defendants in their official capacities; and
as to the Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment Monell claims against the
County, which is dismissed with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/57Nh5O from Leagle.com.

Justin Green, Doing business as Green Solutions, Plaintiff,
represented by Samuel David Berns -- sam@bernslegal.com -- Law
Office of Samuel D. Berns, Inc & Michael C. Mapes --
mike@mapeslegal.com -- Mapes Legal PC.

County of Yuba, Jeremy Strang, individually and in his official
capacity, John Jacenich, individually and in his official capacity
& Melanie Marquez, individually and in her official capacity,
Defendants, represented by John Robert Whitefleet --
jwhitefleet@porterscott.com -- Porter Scott, APC.


ZUORA INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that less than one month remains to make a motion
to serve as a lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit
against Zuora, Inc. (NYSE: ZUO) on behalf of those who purchased
Zuora securities between April 12, 2018 and May 30, 2019, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit, filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, seeks to recover damages for Zuora investors under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company would focus on implementing its
revenue recognition program, RevPro, for new customers ahead of the
deadline to comply with accounting standard ASC 606; (2) that, as a
result, the Company lacked adequate resources to integrate RevPro
with the core business; (3) that the Company would focus on RevPro
integration; (4) that delays in integrating RevPro would materially
impact the business; (5) that the market for RevPro was limited to
customers seeking to implement new accounting standards such as ASC
606; (6) that, after the deadline for ASC 606 compliance passed,
demand for RevPro was reasonably likely to decline; and (7) that,
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 30, 2019, the Company lowered its fiscal 2020 revenue
guidance to a range of $268 million to $278 million, from prior
guidance of $289 million to $293.5 million, citing problems
integrating RevPro, as well as sales execution problems.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $5.91, or nearly 30%,
to close at $13.99 on May 31, 2019, thereby injuring investors.  

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Zuora class action,
you must move the court no later than August 13, 2019. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class
members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Zuora securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options, please visit
https://tinyurl.com/y2rxqluf or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact:

         Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         Website: http://www.bernlieb.com   
         Tel.No.: (877) 779-1414
         Email: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [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 ***