CAR_Public/190813.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, August 13, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 161

                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: $5.9MM Luxottica Settlement in Thompson Suit OK'd
20TH STREET PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bautista Suit Says
3M CO: Bair Hugger (TM) Cases in Minnesota State Court Dismissed
3M CO: Bid to Dismiss Firefighter's Class Suit in Ohio Pending
3M CO: Continues to Defend 3 Class Suits in Michigan

3M CO: Delaware Class Suit Goes to Michigan
3M CO: Faces 7 Defective Earplugs-Related Class Suits
3M CO: PFOA Related Class Suit in New York Ongoing
3M COMPANY: Stover Class Action Still On Hold
AA AND K: Valle Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA

ABC FINANCIAL: McKean Granted Leave to File 2nd Amended Suit
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Zhang Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
ADOMANI INC: Hearing on Demurrer in Mollik Set for August 29
ALDER PROTECTION: Sales Reps Hit Deceptive Commission Scheme
APPFOLIO INC: Settlement in Leo Suit Gets Final Approval

BARNES & NOBLE: Ferreiro Files Suit Over Elliott Merger Deal
BLENDTEC: Johnson Files Class Suit in Utah
BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Langley
BP EXPLORATION: Cromwell BELO Suit Dismissal w/o Prejudice Endorsed
CAPITAL ONE: Zosiak Sues over Data Breach

CELGENE CORP: $55MM Settlement Reached in Antitrust Suit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Call Center Agents Seek Unpaid Overtime
CICERO, IL: Court Certifies Class of Female Detainees in Adair Suit
CLEARLAKE VILLAGE: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss V. Matter's Suit
CORECIVIC INC: Court Denies 2nd Deposition Bid in Owino Suit

CURADEN AG: Court Grants Bid for Class Notification in Lyngaas Suit
DEL FRISCO'S: Faces Sabatini Class Suit
DISH NETWORK: 4th Cir. Affirms Krakauer Ruling
DISH NETWORK: Faces Hallandale Beach Police & Firefighters' Suit
DYCK O'NEAL: Robbins Granted Leave to File 1st Amended Suit

EXQUISITE DELICATESSEN: Hadi Files FLSA Suit in New York
FLEX LTD: Sept. 26 Hearing on Bid to Serve as Lead Plaintiff
FORD MOTOR: Tershakovec et al Seek to Certify 11 Classes
FORD MOTOR: Truck Owners Sue Over False Fuel Economy Ratings
GENERAL HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit

GENERAL MOTORS: Sloan et al Seek to Certify Class
GOOGLE INC: $13MM Settlement Reached in Street View Privacy Case
GOOGLE INC: Settles Age Discrimination Class Action for $11MM
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Securities Class Suit in Pennsylvania Ongoing
HELPING U HOMECARE: Douglas Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime

HIGH IMPACT: Conditional Certification Bid in Duggan Partly Granted
HOUSTON, TX: Class in Hernandez Suit Certified
IFIXANDREPAIR LLC: Gomez Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Marketing
IMPINJ INC: Bid to Dismiss W.D. Wash. Securities Suit Pending
IMPINJ INC: Plymouth County Retirement System Suit Still Stayed

IMPLUS FOOTCARE: Williams Seeks to Certify Purchasers Class
INSPERITY INC: Bench Trial in 401(k) Plan Suit Set for March 2
INTEGRITY SERVICE: Moyer, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: D. Bator's ERISA Suit Dismissed
JB HUNT: Settlement in CA Drivers Class Suit Granted Final Approval

JOHN SZOKE GALLERY: Picon Files Class Suit under ADA
JUN-YAN LLC: Bid for Class Certification in Hussein Suit Granted
JUUL LABS: Lawyer Seeks to Enjoin Sale of E-Cigarettes
KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Suit

KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action
KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Schall Files Securities Class Suit
KITCHEN COLLECTION: Cunningham FLSA Suit Deal Has Final Approval
L BRANDS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
L BRANDS: Schall Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of 3 Vehicle Owners Classes Sought
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit
MARU RESTAURANT: $1.45MM Daoust FLSA Suit Deal Has Final Approval
MARY KAY: Reid Alleges Breach of Disabilities Act in New York
MASSAGE ENVY: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in Pirozzi Suit

MEDICAL SYNERGY: M. Papadopoulos Sues Over Illegal Fax Ads
NANTHEALTH INC: Court Certifies IPO stocks Subclassess
NASTYGAL.COM USA: Defranks Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Jarry Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Cir.
NATIONAL GENERAL: Agreement Reached in Consolidated Suit in Calif.

NISOURCE INC: Term Agreement Reached in Greater Lawrence Suit
NISSAN MOTORS: Denial of Class-Action Status Reversed
OFFICE FURNITURE: Bedolla Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Housing Suit
OXNARD SCHOOL: Court Grants Class Certification in J.R. Suit

PFIZER INC: Al Haj Seeks to Certify Class in Robitussin Suit
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Sanders May Resubmit Bid to Certify Class
PRECISION CONCEPTS: Lewis's Bid to Certify FLSA Class Granted
PRIMEFLIGHT: Velez et al Seek Wages for Aircraft Cleaning Crew
PRO TREE SERVICE: Settlement in Hernandez Suit Wins Prelim. Nod

QVC INC: California Court Dismisses Thompson Suit w/o Prejudice
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Lovoi Suit Challenges Proposed Sale to UTC
REFINED PRECIOUS METALS: Acosta Hits Illegal Telemarketing Ads
REJ PROPERTIES: Summary Judgment in Badgerow Suit Appealed
SHARP ELECTRONICS: James Sues Over Defective Microwave Drawers

SJW GROUP: CTWS Merger Related Suits Stayed Until Sept. 11
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: D'Ottavio Counsel's Bid to Withdraw Granted
SOUTH AFRICA: High Court OKs Historic Class Action Settlement
SPRINT CORP: Reaches $125,000 Settlement With 23 Employees
STATE STREET: Still Defends Suit Over Invoicing Practices

TESLA INC: Appeal in Investor Suit over Model 3 Production Ongoing
TESLA INC: Consolidated Stockholder Suit over Musk's Tweets Stayed
TORKZADEH LAW: Cunningham Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
TTEC HEALTHCARE: Class of CSRs in Beattie Conditionally Certified
UNITEK COLLEGE: Lopez Files Class Suit in California

WELCH FOODS: Woman Files Class Suit Over Alleged Lead, Arsenic
YAHOO! INC: Class Action Refused by Quebec Superior Court

                            *********

1-800 CONTACTS: $5.9MM Luxottica Settlement in Thompson Suit OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Tena Campbell preliminarily approves the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement with Defendant Luxottica of America,
Inc. (f/k/a Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.) in the lawsuit
entitled J THOMPSON, et al., Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC., et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-01183-TC-DBP (D. Utah).

Plaintiffs J Thompson, Daniel J. Bartolucci, Alexa Bean, William P.
Duncanson, Leia Pinto, Jill Schulson and Edward Ungvarsky have
entered into and executed the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement with defendant Luxottica of America, Inc. ("Luxottica")
(f/k/a Luxottica Retail North America, Inc.), which, if finally
approved by the Court, will result in the settlement of all claims
against Luxottica.  In full and final settlement of the claims
asserted against it in this action, Luxottica has agreed to pay
$5,900,000 (the "Settlement Amount"), and to provide cooperation as
set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court preliminarily certifies, solely for settlement purposes, a
Settlement Class defined as:

     [A]ll persons in the United States who made at least one
     online purchase of contact lenses from 1-800 Contacts, Inc.
     ("1-800") or Luxottica from December 23, 2013 through
     July 5, 2019, who do not timely exclude himself, herself, or
     themselves from the Class. Excluded from the Settlement
     Class are Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries
     and affiliates, any alleged Advertising Agreement
     Counterparties, governmental entities and instrumentalities
     of government, states and their subdivisions, agencies and
     instrumentalities.

Pursuant to Rule 23(g), Interim Class Counsel are preliminarily
appointed, solely for settlement purposes, as Class Counsel for the
Settlement Class.  Plaintiffs J Thompson, Daniel J. Bartolucci,
Alexa Bean, William P. Duncanson, Leia Pinto, Jill Schulson and
Edward Ungvarsky are preliminarily appointed, solely for settlement
purposes, as class representatives for the Settlement Class.

Judge Campbell also ruled, among other things, that at a later
date, Class Counsel shall submit for the Court's approval a
proposed Plan of Distribution of the Settlement Fund.  The Court
approves the Plaintiffs' designation of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP as Escrow Agent.  The Court approves the establishment of
an Escrow Account under the Settlement Agreement as a Qualified
Settlement Fund ("QSF") pursuant to Internal Revenue Code and the
Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, and retains continuing
jurisdiction as to any issue that may arise in connection with the
formulation or administration of the QSF.  All funds held by the
Escrow Agent shall be deemed and considered to be in custodia
legis, and shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court,
until such time as such funds shall be distributed pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement and further order(s) of the Court.

In the event that the Settlement Agreement is terminated, is
vacated, is not approved, or the Effective Date fails to occur for
any reason, then the parties to the Settlement Agreement shall be
deemed to have reverted to their respective status in the Action as
of the Execution Date.[CC]


20TH STREET PIZZA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bautista Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
ENEDINO FRANCO BAUTISTA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. 20TH STREET PIZZA CORP (D/B/A LUNETTA),
KHALIL ABUALI, MIKE DOE, and KENNY DOE, Case No. 1:19-cv-07008
(S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2019), alleges that the Plaintiff worked for
the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that he worked, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

20th Street Pizza Corp. (d/b/a Lunetta) is a domestic corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and
maintains its principal place of business in New York City.  The
Individual Defendants serve or served as owners, managers,
principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporation.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a pizzeria, located
at 245 3rd Ave., in New York City, under the name "Lunetta."  The
Defendants operate the pizzeria located in the Gramercy Park
section of Manhattan in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3M CO: Bair Hugger (TM) Cases in Minnesota State Court Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that a dismissal order was entered in the
Minnesota state court cases related to Bair Hugger (TM).

As of June 30, 2019, the Company is a named defendant in lawsuits
involving approximately 5,170 plaintiffs (compared to approximately
5,015 plaintiffs at December 31, 2018) who allege the Bair
Hugger(TM) patient warming system caused a surgical site infection.
Nearly all of the lawsuits are pending in federal court in
Minnesota.

The plaintiffs claim they underwent various joint arthroplasty,
cardiovascular, and other surgeries and later developed surgical
site infections due to the use of the Bair Hugger(TM) patient
warming system (the Bair Hugger(TM) product line was acquired by 3M
as part of the 2010 acquisition of Arizant, Inc., a leading
manufacturer of patient warming solutions designed to prevent
hypothermia and maintain normal body temperature in surgical
settings).

The plaintiffs seek damages and other relief based on theories of
strict liability, negligence, breach of express and implied
warranties, failure to warn, design and manufacturing defect,
fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation/concealment, unjust
enrichment, and violations of various state consumer fraud,
deceptive or unlawful trade practices and/or false advertising
acts.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) granted
the plaintiffs' motion to transfer and consolidate all cases
pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota to be managed in a multi-district litigation
(MDL) proceeding.

In 2017, the U.S. District Court and the Minnesota state courts
denied the plaintiffs' motions to amend their complaints to add
claims for punitive damages.

At a joint hearing before the U.S. District Court and the Minnesota
State court, on the parties' motion to exclude each other's
experts, and 3M's motion for summary judgment with respect to
general causation, the federal court did not exclude the
plaintiffs' experts and denied 3M's motion for summary judgment on
general causation. The U.S. District Court is reconsidering that
decision.

In June 2019, the MDL judge heard oral argument on 3M's motion for
reconsideration. A decision is expected in approximately 60 days.

In January 2018, the state court, after hearing the same arguments,
excluded plaintiffs' experts and granted 3M's motion for summary
judgment on general causation, dismissing all 61 cases pending
before the state court in Minnesota. Plaintiffs appealed that
ruling and the state court’s punitive damages ruling.

In January 2019, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the
Minnesota state court orders in their entirety. The Minnesota
Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' petition for review. Dismissal was
entered in April 2019, effectively ending the Minnesota state court
cases.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Bid to Dismiss Firefighter's Class Suit in Ohio Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the class action
suit initiated by a firefighter in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio remains pending.

In October 2018, 3M and other defendants, including DuPont and
Chemours, were named in a putative class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

The named plaintiff, a firefighter allegedly exposed to PFAS
chemicals through his use of firefighting foam, purports to
represent a class of "all individuals residing within the United
States who, at the time a class is certified in this case, have
detectable levels of PFAS materials in their blood serum."

The plaintiff brings claims for negligence, battery, and
conspiracy, but does not seek damages for personal injury, medical
monitoring, or property damage.

Instead, the plaintiff seeks an order finding the defendants "are
liable and responsible for the PFAS in Plaintiff's and the class
members' blood and/or bodies" and an order "establishing an
independent panel of scientists" to be "tasked with independently
studying, evaluating, reviewing, identifying, publishing, and
notifying/informing the Class" of research results.

3M and other entities jointly filed a motion to dismiss in February
2019. The motion is fully briefed and remains pending.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.



3M CO: Continues to Defend 3 Class Suits in Michigan
----------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend three
putative class action suits in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Michigan.

In Michigan, three putative class actions are pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan against 3M and
Wolverine World Wide (Wolverine) and other defendants.

The complaints include some or all of the following claims:
negligence, trespass, intentional and negligent infliction of
emotional distress, battery, products liability, public and private
nuisance, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment.

The actions arise from Wolverine's allegedly improper disposal of
materials and wastes related to their shoe manufacturing
operations.

Plaintiffs allege Wolverine used 3M Scotchgard in its manufacturing
process and that chemicals from 3M's product have contaminated the
environment after being disposed of near drinking water sources.

In addition to the three federal court putative class actions, as
of June 30, 2019, 3M has been named as a defendant in 236 private
individual actions in Michigan state court based on similar
allegations.

Wolverine also filed a third-party complaint against 3M in a suit
by the State of Michigan against Wolverine seeking to compel
Wolverine to investigate and address contamination associated with
its historic disposal activity.

3M filed an answer and counterclaims to Wolverine's third-party
complaint in June 2019.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Delaware Class Suit Goes to Michigan
-------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that a putative class action lawsuit filed
against 3M in federal court in Delaware, relating to Wolverine, was
transferred to Michigan in May 2019.

In Delaware, 3M is defending one putative class action filed in
federal court relating to alleged contamination allegedly caused by
waste from Wolverine World Wide, which used Scotchgard in its
manufacture of leather products.

3M allegedly supplied Scotchgard to Wolverine.

A second putative class action lawsuit filed against 3M in federal
court in Delaware, relating to Wolverine, was transferred to
Michigan in May 2019.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: Faces 7 Defective Earplugs-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the Company is a named defendant in seven
putative class action suits in various state and federal courts
related to Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2 earplugs

Aearo Technologies sold Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2
earplugs starting in about 2003. 3M acquired Aearo Technologies in
2008 and sold these earplugs from 2008 through 2015, when the
product was discontinued.

In December 2018, a military veteran filed an individual lawsuit
against 3M in the San Bernardino Superior Court in California
alleging that he sustained personal injuries while serving in the
military caused by 3M's Dual-Ended Combat Arms earplugs – Version
2.

The plaintiff asserts claims of product liability and fraudulent
misrepresentation and concealment.

The plaintiff seeks various damages, including medical and related
expenses, loss of income, and punitive damages.

As of June 30, 2019, the Company is a named defendant in
approximately 1,050 lawsuits (including seven putative class
actions) in various state and federal courts that purport to
represent approximately 2,230 individual claimants making similar
allegations.

In April 2019, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted motions to transfer and consolidate all cases pending in
federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida to be managed in a multi-district litigation (MDL)
proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings.

The court conducted a case management conference in June 2019 on a
discovery plan and scheduling.

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

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M CO: PFOA Related Class Suit in New York Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York, related to perfluorooctanoate (PFOA)
that was used for manufacturing purposes at Saint-Gobain's and
Honeywell's facilities located in the Village of Hoosick Falls and
the Town of Hoosick.

In New York, 3M is defending 46 individual cases and one putative
class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of New York and four additional cases filed in New York
state court against 3M, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
("Saint-Gobain"), Honeywell International Inc. and E.I. DuPont De
Nemours and Company.

Plaintiffs allege that 3M manufactured and sold perfluorooctanoate
(PFOA) that was used for manufacturing purposes at Saint-Gobain's
and Honeywell's facilities located in the Village of Hoosick Falls
and the Town of Hoosick.

Plaintiffs claim that the drinking water around Hoosick Falls
became contaminated with unsafe levels of PFOA due to the
activities of the defendants and allege that they suffered bodily
injury due to the ingestion and inhalation of PFOA.

Plaintiffs seek unstated compensatory, consequential, and punitive
damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


3M COMPANY: Stover Class Action Still On Hold
---------------------------------------------
3M Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the "Stover" class action suit is still
on hold pending the resolution of the class certification issues in
the St. John case.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County (the "Stover case") seeking compensatory damages and
injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur utility's
wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment sludge to
farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly contain
perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and
other perfluorochemicals.

The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons
within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property.

In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case
transferred from Franklin County to Morgan County.

In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters, the
Morgan County Circuit Court abated this case, putting it on hold
pending the resolution of the class certification issues in the St.
John case.

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

3M Company operates as a technology company worldwide. The
company's Industrial segment offers tapes, abrasives, adhesives,
ceramics, sealants, specialty materials, purification products,
closure systems, acoustic systems products, automotive components,
abrasion-resistant films, and paint finishing and detailing
products. The company was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in
St. Paul, Minnesota.


AA AND K: Valle Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Ramon
Valle, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
AA and K Restoration Group, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; Katherine M. Biscardi, individually; Alfred Miller,
individually; Ceres Environmental Services Inc., a Minnesota
corporation; and, Environmental Restoration Group, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company, Case No. 1:19-cv-20873-KMM (S.D. Fla.),
moves the Court for an order:

   (1) granting conditional certification of the case as a
       collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   (2) expediting discovery production by the Defendants, within
       15 days of the Court's order, of a complete list of each
       and every person -- and their last known home address,
       telephone number, and email addresses -- who was ever
       contracted or employed directly or indirectly in
       connection with post-Hurricane debris clean-up during the
       fall of 2018 hurricane season.  This includes all persons
       who provided labor directly or indirectly to Defendants,
       including putative Defendants and their subcontractors
       during the hurricane season of 2018; at a minimum, this
       includes all laborers who responded to the rendezvous
       point in Marianna, Florida and for whom Defendant Ceres
       Environmental Services, Inc. would be responsible for
       collecting "Time & Material Sheet[s]" and related data
       pertaining to all laborers and any and all subcontractors;

   (3) requiring the Defendants to format and produce on an
       expedited basis said list, both in hard copy and
       electronically in an editable Excel spreadsheet, organized
       alphabetically from "A" to "Z" and with each person's last
       known home address, telephone number, and email addresses
       in a separate field corresponding with each name; and

   (4) permitting the Plaintiffs' counsel to mail a
       Court-Approved Notice to all such persons about their
       rights to opt into this collective action by filing a
       Consent to Join Lawsuit.

On March 6, 2019, Plaintiff Ramon Valle filed this lawsuit as a
collective action under the FLSA and under common law theory of
breach of agreement to pay wages against the original Defendants:
Katherine Biscardi, Alfred Miller, and AA&K Restoration Group, LLC.
Plaintiff and Opt-in Plaintiffs Yasmany Garcia, Francisco Segui,
Gabriel Santini, Abby Madrid, and Daniel Perez filed respective
"Consent to Join" forms in accordance with the collective action
procedure set forth under the FLSA.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 665-9211
          Facsimile: (305) 328-4842
          E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com

Defendants AA& K Restoration Group, LLC; Katherine Biscardi; and,
Alfred Miller are represented by:

          Richard D. Tuschman, Esq.
          RICHARD D. TUSCHMAN, P.A.
          8551 W. Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 303
          Plantation, FL 33322
          Telephone: (954) 369-1050
          Facsimile: (954) 380-8938
          E-mail: rtuschman@gtemploymentlawyers.com

Defendant Ceres Environmental Services, Inc. is represented by:

          Parker A. Lewton, Esq.
          SMITH, CURRIE & HANCOCK LLP
          2700 Marquis One Tower
          245 Peachtree Center Avenue NE
          Atlanta, GA 30303-1222
          Telephone: (404) 521-3800
          Facsimile: (404) 688-0671
          E-mail: palewton@smithcurrie.com

Defendant Ceres Environmental Services, Inc. is represented by:

          Joseph R. Young, Esq.
          SMITH, CURRIE & HANCOCK LLP
          101 N.E. Third Avenue, Suite 1920
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 761-8700
          Facsimile: (954) 524-6927
          E-mail: jryoung@smithcurrie.com


ABC FINANCIAL: McKean Granted Leave to File 2nd Amended Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JACOB MCKEAN, individually, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABC FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., an Arkansas Corporation; THE ARENA MARTIAL ARTS, a
business entity form unknown, Defendants, Case No.
3:18-cv-00923-WQH-RBB (S.D. Cal.), Judge William Q. Hayes of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted
the Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Granting Plaintiff Leave to
File Second Amended Complaint.

On May 7, 2019, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendant ABC Financial.  On May 28, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a
Motion for an Order Granting Plaintiff Leave to File Second Amended
Complaint.  On June 18, 2019, the Defendant filed a Notice of
Non-Opposition.

Judge Hayes finds that the Defendant does not oppose the
Plaintiff's Motion, and there has been no showing that any of the
Foman v. Davis factors warrants deviating from the presumption
under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.  Accordingly,
he granted the Plaintiff's Motion.  The Plaintiff may file the
proposed Second Amended Class Action Complaint within 14 days of
the entry of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/L9scwt from Leagle.com.

Jacob McKean, individually, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Shinoff --
dshinoff@as7law.com -- Artiano Shinoff, Gil Abed --
GABED@AS7LAW.COM -- Artiano Shinoff, Paul Vincent Carelli, IV --
PCARELLI@AS7LAW.COM -- Artiano Shinoff & Sheldon A. Ostroff, Law
Offices of Sheldon A Ostroff.

ABC Financial Services, Inc., a Arkansas corporation, Defendant,
represented by Aneiko L. Hickerson -- ahickerson@burnhambrown.com
-- enkins Goodman Neuman & Hamilton LLP & Robert M. Bodzin --
rbodzin@burnhambrown.com -- Burnham Brown.


ACER THERAPEUTICS: Zhang Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Zhang Investor Law announces a class action lawsuit on behalf of
shareholders who bought shares of Acer Therapeutics Inc. (NASDAQ:
ACER) from September 25, 2017 through June 24, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Acer
investors under the federal securities laws.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 30, 2019.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to obtain a recovery is not dependent upon
being a lead plaintiff. If you wish to join the
https://tinyurl.com/y4nx767a or to discuss your rights or interests
regarding this class action, please contact Sophie Zhang, Esq. or
Spencer Lee toll-free at 800-991-3756 or email
info@zhanginvestorlaw.com and slee@zhanginvestorlaw.com for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Acer lacked sufficient data to support filing EDSIVO's
New Drug Application ("NDA") with the FDA for the treatment of
vEDS; (ii) the Ong Trial, a 2004 study Acer heavily relied on its
submission of EDSIVO's NDA, was an inadequate and ill-controlled
clinical study by FDA standards, and was comprised of an
insufficiently small group size to support EDSIVO's NDA; (iii)
consequently, the FDA would likely reject EDSIVO's NDA; and (iv) as
a result, defendants' statements about Acer'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 represents investors worldwide.

Contact:

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


ADOMANI INC: Hearing on Demurrer in Mollik Set for August 29
------------------------------------------------------------
ADOMANI, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a hearing on the
demurrer filed in M.D. Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., is
scheduled for August 29, 2019.

On August 23, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit captioned M.D.
Ariful Mollik v. ADOMANI, Inc. et al., Case No. RIC 1817493, was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Riverside against the company, certain of its executive
officers, and the two underwriters of the company's offering of
common stock under Regulation A in June 2017.

This complaint alleges that documents related to our offering of
common stock under Regulation A in June 2017 contained materially
false and misleading statements and that all defendants violated
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act"), and that we and the individual defendants
violated Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection therewith.


The plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and all class members: (i)
certification of a class under California substantive law and
procedure; (ii) compensatory damages and interest in an amount to
be proven at trial; (iii) reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; (iv) awarding
of rescission or rescissionary damages; and (v) equitable relief at
the discretion of the Court.

On November 9, 2018, in response to a demurrer filed by defendant
Network 1 Financial Securities, Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint, which was substantially similar to the original
complaint but refined certain allegations regarding the alleged
material omissions that form the basis of the complaint. Defendants
demurred to the first amended complaint.

The court heard defendants' demurrers to the first amended
complaint on January 30, 2019. At this hearing the court granted
plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 31, 2019. The
second amended complaint attempts to substitute in two putative
class plaintiffs.

Defendants jointly demurred to the second amended complaint on
March 4, 2019. On May 7, 2019, the Court held a hearing and
tentatively issued a ruling indicating that the Second Amended
Complaint should be dismissed, without prejudice.

A subsequent written order confirmed the dismissal, without
prejudice. On June 29, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended
Complaint, seeking to address the issues raised in the Court's oral
ruling. Defendants will be filing a Joint demurrer on July 29,
2019, and a hearing on that demurrer is scheduled for August 29,
2019.

ADOMANI said, "We believe that the purported class action lawsuit
is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action."

ADOMANI, Inc. provides zero-emission electric and hybrid drivetrain
systems for integration in new and existing school buses and medium
to heavy-duty commercial fleet vehicles. ADOMANI, Inc. was founded
in 2012 and is headquartered in Corona, California.


ALDER PROTECTION: Sales Reps Hit Deceptive Commission Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Shadrach Ennis, Shawn Harding, Nicolaas Vanleeuwen and Terrance
Jesclard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alder Protection Holdings, LLC, Adam
Schanz, Adam Christian, Kyle Demordaunt, Dane McCartney and Does
I-X, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-00512 (D. Utah, July 22, 2019),
seeks redress for breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for violation of Utah's
labor and compensation laws.

Alder is engaged in the business of selling, installing, and
servicing electronic security equipment where Plaintiffs worked as
sales managers. It relies on door-to-door and individual sales
representatives to sell its alarm services and products on a
commission basis to residential consumers.

Alder allegedly misrepresents its commission scheme to it sales
representatives as loans and then uses them to retaliate against
sales representatives who leave the company and coerce sales
representatives into continuing to work for Alder for minimal
benefits and compensation. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew A. Steward, Esq.
      Shaunda L. McNeill, Esq.
      Victoria B. Finlinson, Esq.
      CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS
      One Utah Center, Suite 1300
      201 South Main Street
      Salt Lake City, UT 84111
      Telephone: (801) 322-2516
      Fax No.: (801) 521-6280
      Email: mas@clydesnow.com
             slm@clydesnow.com
             vbf@clydesnow.com


APPFOLIO INC: Settlement in Leo Suit Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------
AppFolio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court has entered
its final approval order in connection with the settlement of the
case, Leo v. AppFolio, Inc.

In September 2017, a putative federal class action styled Leo v.
AppFolio, Inc. (Civ. No. 3:17-cv-05771; W.D. Wash.) was filed
naming the company as a defendant and alleging certain violations
of the FCRA in connection with the company's tenant screening
Value+ service (the "Leo Litigation").

The parties reached an agreement to settle the Leo Litigation on a
class-wide basis in the fourth quarter of 2018.

The court entered its final approval order in connection with the
settlement on July 18, 2019, and the parties continue to work
through the class settlement process.

AppFolio said, "We have not admitted and do not intend to admit any
liability whatsoever in connection with the claims and allegations
in the Leo Litigation."

AppFolio, Inc. provides industry-specific cloud-based software
solutions for small and medium-sized businesses in the property
management and legal industries. AppFolio, Inc. was founded in 2006
and is headquartered in Santa Barbara, California.


BARNES & NOBLE: Ferreiro Files Suit Over Elliott Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Ferreiro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Leonard Riggio,
George Campbell Jr., Mark D. Carleton, Scott S. Cowen, William T.
Dillard II, Al Ferrara, Paul B. Guenther, Patricia L. Higgins,
Irwin D. Simon and Kimberly A. Van Der Zon, Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-06809 (S.D. N.Y., July 22, 2019), seeks to enjoin defendants
and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the acquisition of Barnes & Noble, Inc. by
affiliates of Elliott Advisors (UK) Limited, Chapters HoldCo Inc.
and Chapters Merger Sub, Inc. for $6.50 per share in cash;
rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
in the event defendants consummate the merger; as well as costs of
this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to the Barnes
& Nobles shareholders by agreeing to an undervalued Barnes & Noble
share price. Ferreiro also alleges that certain Barnes & Noble
directors and other insiders will also be the recipients of
lucrative change-in-control agreements, triggered upon the
termination of their employment as a consequence of the
consummation of the said merger. Papers filed detailing the
proposed transaction also omitted material information concerning
Barnes' financial projections, the sales process of the company and
the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses
that purport to support the fairness opinions provided by the
Barnes' financial advisors, Evercore Group L.L.C. and Guggenheim
Securities, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Phone: (610) 667-6200
      Facsimile: (610) 667-9029
      Email: esmith@brodskysmith.com


BLENDTEC: Johnson Files Class Suit in Utah
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blendtec. The case is
styled as Maryleen Johnson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blendtec and K-Tech
Holdings, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00083-PMW (D. Utah, Aug. 1,
2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other-Fraud
asserting Diversity-Product Liability.

Blendtec is a company that sells commercial and residential
blenders. It is a division of K-TEC, Inc. The founder of Blendtec
is Tom Dickson. The company was founded in 1975 and as of 2016
still operates primarily from Orem, Utah, United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Heather M. Sneddon, Esq.
   ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
   50 W BROADWAY STE 700
   SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
   Tel: (801) 534-1700
   Email: hsneddon@aklawfirm.com

      - and -

   Jared D. Scott, Esq.
   ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
   50 W BROADWAY STE 700
   SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
   Tel: (801) 534-1700
   Email: jscott@aklawfirm.com

      - and -

   Jason E. Greene, Esq.
   ANDERSON & KARRENBERG
   50 W BROADWAY STE 700
   SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101
   Tel: (801) 534-1700
   Email: jgreene@aklawfirm.com


BOOZ ALLEN: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Langley
--------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 29, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2019, that the court in Langley v. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding
Corp., has dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety without
prejudice.

On June 19, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia styled Langley v. Booz Allen
Hamilton Holding Corp., No. 17-cv-00696 naming the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer as
defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
securities from May 19, 2016 through June 15, 2017.

On September 5, 2017, the court named two lead plaintiffs, and on
October 20, 2017, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging
misrepresentations or omissions by the Company purporting to relate
to matters that are the subject of the DOJ investigation.

The plaintiffs seek to recover from the Company and the individual
defendants an unspecified amount of damages.

The Company believes the suit lacks merit and intends to defend
against the lawsuit.

Motions to dismiss were argued on January 12, 2018, and on February
8, 2018, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety
without prejudice.

Booz Allen said, "At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company is not
able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or
any loss associated with the lawsuit."

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

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation provides management and
technology consulting, engineering, analytics, digital, mission
operations, and cyber solutions to governments, corporations, and
not-for-profit organizations in the United States and
internationally. Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation was
founded in 1914 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia.


BP EXPLORATION: Cromwell BELO Suit Dismissal w/o Prejudice Endorsed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CARL CROMWELL, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC. ET
AL., SECTION "J" (2). Related to 12-968 BELO in MDL 10-2179, Civil
Action No. 19-10461 (E.D. La.), Magistrate Judge Joseph C.
Wilkinson, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana recommended that (i) the Defendants' motion to dismiss
be granted, and (ii) the Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without
prejudice.

Cromwell, was employed as a clean-up worker along the 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 26, 2017, almost two
years before the instant lawsuit was filed.  His Notice of Intent
to Sue was signed by Yolanda Cromwell, purporting to be acting as
the Plaintiff's authorized representative, but Yolanda Cromwell is
not the named Plaintiff and has not appeared in the action.

BP 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 Yolanda Cromwell's legal authority
to file a lawsuit and proceed on his behalf has not been provided.


Magistrate Judge Wilkinson finds that the Plaintiff's purported
Authorized Representative Yolanda Cromwell 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 only documentation provided by
Yolanda Cromwell is the death certificate, which merely identifies
the marital relationship between Yolanda Cromwell and the Plaintiff
at the time of his death.  Yolanda Cromwell's signature as
"Authorized Representative" and the death certificate assure
neither BP nor the Court that she has the legal authority to file
the BELO lawsuit on behalf of plaintiff.

Because the Plaintiff is deceased and his purported Authorized
Representative has neglected to submit documentation of her legal
authority to act on his 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, Magistrate Judge Wilkinson
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 Report and Recommendation
filed by the Plaintiff's counsel should attach the required
documentation establishing that Yolanda Cromwell is in fact the
Plaintiff's legally Authorized Representative to pursue thie
claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2019 Report &
Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/zpHVsN from
Leagle.com.

Carl Cromwell, 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.


CAPITAL ONE: Zosiak Sues over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------
KEVIN ZOSIAK, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
CAPITAL ONE, N.A., and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02265 (July 30, 2019), alleges that
Defendants failed to protect confidential information of millions
of consumers and small businesses -- including financial
information (e.g., bank account numbers, fragments of transaction
history, self-reported income, and credit scores), and/or personal
information (e.g., Social Security Numbers, names, addresses, phone
numbers, email addresses, and dates of birth) (Data Breach).

The Data Breach that had occurred on March 22 and 23, 2019, was
discovered by the Defendants only in July 19, 2019 and publicly
disclosed on July 29, 2019, over four months after the Sensitive
Information of over 100 million customers and credit card
applicants were breached. The Defendants apparently continued to
allow the hacker to intrude their systems at least until April 21,
2019, the lawsuit says.

The Defendants' wrongful disclosure has harmed Plaintiff and the
Class, believed to include approximately 106 million card customers
and applicants.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

           Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
           Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
           NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
           1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
           New York, NY 10036-8718
           Telephone: (917) 438-9189
           E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
           bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

                - and -

           Adam Frankel, Esq.
           GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC
           881 Lake Avenue
           Greenwich, CT 06831
           Telephone: (203) 622-6001
           E-mail: adam@grwlegal.com

CELGENE CORP: $55MM Settlement Reached in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, a nationally recognized
plaintiffs' law firm dedicated to handling complex litigation,
announced that it has reached a $55 million settlement with Celgene
Corporation (NASDAQ: CELG) in a long-running class action, In re
Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Litigation.  The settlement is one
of the largest pharmaceutical settlements on behalf of end payors
(consumers, insurers, union health and welfare funds,
municipalities, and others) in an antitrust case in the last
decade.

Founding partner, Frank Schirripa, said, "We are very pleased to
have achieved such a sizable settlement on behalf of cancer
patients and our Taft-Hartley Health and Welfare clients who have
shouldered the cost of these life-saving medications."

Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie filed this class action suit in
2014, alleging that Celgene had monopolized the market for two
drugs, Thalomid and Revlimid, which are primarily used to treat
multiple myeloma, a cancer that forms in the blood.  Specifically,
the plaintiffs alleged that Celgene kept generic versions of these
two drugs off the market, in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws.  Throughout the litigation, the end payor
plaintiffs asserted that prices for the two drugs were higher than
they would have been in a competitive market.

The parties agreed to resolve the case following the close of
discovery and during the pendency of the plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class.  Any person or entity that paid for some or all
of the purchase price of Thalomid or Revlimid in California, the
District of Columbia, Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Rhode Island, or Tennessee, for use by themselves, their families,
or their members, employees, insureds, participants, or
beneficiaries, will be invited to file a claim to participate in
the settlement.

Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie attorneys working on this case
include Frank Schirripa, Daniel Rehns, Seth Pavsner and Kathryn
Hettler.  The other lead counsel in the case were Hausfeld LLP and
Block & Leviton LLP.

For further information or to arrange interviews please contact:

         Frank Schirripa, Esq.
         Tel.No.:212-213-8311
         Email: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com [GN]

Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes:

     Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
     Walter D. Kelley, Jr., Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Tel: (202) 540-7200
     Email: mcoolidge@hausfeld.com
            wkelley@hausfeld.com

        --  and --

     Brett W. Landau, Esq.
     Katie R. Beran, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Tel: (215) 985-3270
     Email: blandau@hausfeld.com
            kberan@hausfeld.com

        --  and --

     Whitney E. Street, Esq.
     Matthew Smith, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     610 16th Street, Suite 214
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Tel: (415) 968-1852
     Email: wstreet@blockesq.com
            msmith@blockesq.com

        --  and --

     Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
     Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
     John A. Blyth, Esq.
     HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
     112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     (212) 213-8311
     Email: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
            drehns@hrsclaw.com
            jblyth@hrsclaw.com

Additional Plaintiffs' Counsel:

     James Notis, Esq.
     Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     560 Sylvan Avenue
     Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
     Email: jnotis@gardylaw.com
            jsarnelli@gardylaw.com

        --  and --

     Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
     BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
     330 Two Commerce Square
     2001 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Email: jgittleman@barrack.com

        --  and --

     Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
     BERMAN TABACCO
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415) 433-3200
     Email: tseaver@bermantabacco.com


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Call Center Agents Seek Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Barrs, Ashley Mitchell, Brittany Salyers and Toinette
Winston, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Charter Communications, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-00247 (S.D. Tex., July 22, 2019), seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Kentucky Wage
and Hour Act, the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, Ohio's Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Charter sells television, internet, and voice services to customers
through its "Spectrum" brand. Plaintiffs worked as call center
agents who provide customer support and sales services to its
customers. They claim to have been denied overtime for all hours
worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq,
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 452-1279
      Fax: (361) 452-1284
      Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com
             carter@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com


CICERO, IL: Court Certifies Class of Female Detainees in Adair Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LESIA ADAIR, ANITA DONATO, JORDAN GARCIA, VERONICA
GARCIA, and ARECELI VEGA, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF CICERO, Defendant, Case
No. 18 C 3526 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division, granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs are five women who were detained at a lock-up
facility operated by the police department of the Town of Cicero.
They have sued Cicero, alleging that the configuration of the
lock-up facility required them to use the bathroom (and thereby
expose their genitals) in full view of male lock-up employees and
male detainees.  The Plaintiffs contend that Cicero is liable under
Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York,
because the facility's configuration constitutes an official policy
that causes male lock-up employees to engage in unreasonable
searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

The Plaintiffs have moved to certify a class of similarly situated
individuals.  The proposed class would comprise all female
detainees who were or will be in the future detained at the Town of
Cicero Police Department lock-up facility for eight hours or more
during the time period of May 18, 2016, to the present.  They seek
class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)
and (b)(3).

Cicero's sole argument against class certification is that the
Plaintiffs have not introduced evidence to substantiate their
claims under the Fourth Amendment.  Specifically, it argues that
the configuration of the lockup facility did not allow guards or
other inmates to view female inmates while they used the bathroom.


Cicero has submitted photographs that it contends show that a
36-inch-long brick wall blocks any direct view of a person using
the toilet.  It also points to a video recording which, it
contends, demonstrates that the surveillance camera did not offer a
view of the Plaintiffs' genitalia.  Finally, it has submitted
numerous declarations from police officers who worked in the
facility who state that they never intentionally or unintentionally
viewed female inmates' genitals.

Judge Kennelly finds that Cicero's argument does not constitute a
basis on which to deny class certification.  The Supreme Court has
explained that when the concern about the proposed class is not
that it exhibits some fatal dissimilarity but, rather, a fatal
similarity -- an alleged failure of proof as to an element of the
Plaintiffs' cause of action -- courts should engage that question
as a matter of summary judgment, not class certification.

Cicero's arguments about the viability of the class' claims do not
warrant denial of class certification because its arguments concern
the merits of the claims of the class as a whole.  Indeed, Cicero
contends that the evidence regarding the layout of the facility and
the scope of the surveillance footage categorically defeats the
entire class's claims.  Cicero's arguments are thus appropriately
considered at the summary judgment stage, not during class
certification proceedings.

The Judge concludes that the proposed class satisfies Rule 23's
requirements for class certification: numerosity, commonality,
typicality, and adequacy.  The proposed class also meets the
predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).
Finally, he finds that the Plaintiffs' attorneys will fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class because they have
investigated and identified the claims in the case, possess
sufficient experience and knowledge, and have adequate resources to
appropriately litigate the case.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kennelly certified the class,
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), of all female
detainees who were or will be in the future detained at the Town of
Cicero Police Department lock-up facility for eight hours or more
during the time period of May 18, 2016 to the present.   He
appointed attorneys Adele D. Nicholas, Mark G. Weinberg, and
Richard Dvorak as the class counsel.

The status hearing set for Aug. 13, 2019 is vacated and advanced to
July 22, 2019 at 9:30 a.m.  The parties are directed to confer
regarding the form of an appropriate notice to the class and are to
file a joint status report including a joint proposal or separate
proposals by July 18, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/j9wRze from Leagle.com.

Lesia Adair, Anita Donato, Veronica Garcia, Jordan Garcia & Areceli
Vega, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Richard J. Dvorak, Dvorak Law Offices,
LLC, Adele D. Nicholas -- adele@civilrightschicago.com -- Law
Office of Adele D. Nicholas, Adrian J. Bleifuss Prados --
ableifuss@gmail.com -- Dvorak Law Offices, LLC & Mark G. Weinberg
-- mweinberg@sbcglobal.net -- Attorney at Law.

ZPD+A, LLC, an Illinois limited liability corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by Katherine Amelotte Jones, Kanaris, Stubenvoll &
Heiss, P.C.

Town Of Cicero, a municipal corporation, Defendant, represented by
K. Austin Zimmer -- zimmer@dlglawgroup.com -- Del Galdo Law Group,
LLC & Cynthia Sara Grandfield -- grandfield@dlglawgroup.com -- Del
Galdo Law Group, LLC.

Dekker/Perich/Sabatini, a New Mexico domestic profit corporation,
Third Party Defendant, represented by David John OConnell, Goldberg
Segalla, LLP.

McClaren, Wilson & Lawrie, an Arizona corporation, Third Party
Defendant, represented by Joseph B. Carini, III, Johnson & Bell,
Ltd. & Michael J. Lizzadro, Johnson & Bell, Ltd.

ZPD+A, LLC, an Illinois limited liability corporation, Third Party
Defendant, represented by Katherine Amelotte Jones, Kanaris,
Stubenvoll & Heiss, P.C., Eric D. Stubenvoll, Kanaris, Stubenvoll &
Heiss, P.C. & Iga Wiktoria Cyganczuk, Kanaris, Stubenvoll & Heiss,
P.C.

Town Of Cicero, a municipal corporation, ThirdParty Plaintiff,
represented by K. Austin Zimmer, Del Galdo Law Group, LLC & Cynthia
Sara Grandfield, Del Galdo Law Group, LLC.


CLEARLAKE VILLAGE: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss V. Matter's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, VERNON MATTER and ELVIRA MATTER, Plaintiffs, v.
CLEARLAKE VILLAGE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC. and ASSOCIATION
FINANCIAL SERVICES LC, Defendants, Case No. 6:19-cv-777-Orl-31TBS
(M.D. Fla.), Judge Gregory A. Presnell of the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, denied the
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.

The Plaintiffs purchased 1514 Clearlake Road # 4 in Cocoa, Florida
at a foreclosure auction on June 2, 2013.  The property is subject
to the Clearlake Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, which
states that subsequent purchasers are not responsible for
delinquent assessment fees of any previous owner.

The Plaintiffs allege that they have been repeatedly billed for the
previous owner's delinquent assessment fees.  They pay their
monthly assessment fees, but because they are being held
responsible for the previous owner's delinquent fees, their fees
are applied to that balance, which results in their own assessment
fees being considered delinquent.  The Plaintiffs disputed the
delinquent assessment fees for the first time just one month after
purchasing the subject property, but, according to them, they
continue to be billed for the previous owner's balance, fees, and
interest.  The Plaintiffs explain that collection attempts were
made by AFS in Clearlake's name, because AFS was collecting as
Clearlake's agent.  In September of 2016, a lien was filed in
Clearlake's name.

The Plaintiffs sued Clearlake to quiet title in December of 2016,
and about one year after they filed suit, Clearlake disclosed to
the Plaintiffs that it had contracted with AFS to collect the
delinquent fees.  That contract assigned the Plaintiff's allegedly
delinquent fees to AFS.  Although AFS has controlled the allegedly
delinquent fees since January of 2014, AFS attempted to collect
fees from the Plaintiffs in Clearlake's name.

On March 13, 2019, the Plaintiffs added AFS as a Defendant and
added class allegations in filing their First Amended Class Action
Complaint.  Clearlake filed a motion to dismiss in state court.
AFS removed the case to federal court and subsequently moved to
dismiss on April 29, 2019.

The Plaintiffs argue that Defendant Clearlake's Motion to Dismiss
is moot due to the filing of a contemporaneous answer.  However, a
partial answer does not moot a partial motion to dismiss when the
two involve different counts of the same complaint.  Further, the
Court notes that permitting such a partial answer before a partial
motion to dismiss is filed or while it is pending serves its goal
of efficient litigation.

Judge Presnell declines to address Clearlake's argument that Counts
II and IV are deficient because they fail to comply with Florida
state procedural rules.  In federal court, federal procedural rules
apply.  Clearlake argues that Count II, which alleges that
Clearlake violated the FCCPA, should be dismissed because Clearlake
is not a debt collector.  However, the FCCPA is not restricted to
debt collectors.

As to AFS' Motion to Dismiss, the Judge finds that the Plaintiffs
have no obligation to negate an affirmative defense in their
complaint.  It is not beyond doubt that the Plaintiffs can prove no
set of facts that permit their claims to survive.  Indeed, in the
Plaintiffs' Response, they articulate several theories as to why
their suit is not time-barred, including an argument that their
claims against AFS relate back to the original Complaint filing, a
continuing violation theory, and a tolling theory based on the
discovery rule.  It is not apparent that any of these theories fail
on the face of the complaint.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Presnell denied both Clearlake's
Motion to Dismiss and AFS' Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/2wxpjt from Leagle.com.

Vernon Matter, on behalf of themselves an all others similarly
situated & Elvira Matter, on behalf of themselves an all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian W. Warwick --
bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick, PA,
Christopher W. Wickersham, Jr. -- chris@chriswickersham.com -- Law
Office of Christopher W. Wickersham Jr., Esq. & Janet R. Varnell --
JVarnell@VarnellandWarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick, PA.

Clearlake Village Homeowner's Association, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Eric C. Sprechman, Cole, Scott & Kissane, PA & S.
Jonathan Vine -- jonathan.vine@csklegal.com -- Cole, Scott &
Kissane, PA.

Association Financial Services LC, Defendant, represented by Mary
Grace Dyleski -- mdyleski@shepardfirm.com -- Shepard, Smith,
Kohlmyer & Hand, P.A., Rachel Malkowski Ortiz --
rortiz@shepardfirm.com -- Shepard, Smith, Kohlmyer & Hand, P.A. &
Ernest H. Kohlmyer, III -- skohlmyer@shepardfirm.com -- Shepard,
Smith, Kohlmyer & Hand, P.A..


CORECIVIC INC: Court Denies 2nd Deposition Bid in Owino Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SYLVESTER OWINO, JONATHAN GOMEZ, on behalf of
themselves, and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CORECIVIC, INC., a Maryland corporation, Defendant. AND RELATED
CROSS ACTION, Case No. 3:17-cv-1112-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Nita L. Stormes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion for leave to proceed with and/or an order compelling a
second deposition of the Defendant pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6).

The case presents a putative class action regarding the Defendant's
use of civil immigration detainees for labor at their facilities,
either unpaid entirely or underpaid in the "one dollar a day"
program.  The Plaintiffs timely filed a motion to certify five
proposed classes: (1) a California Labor Law Class; (2) a
California Forced Labor Class; (3) a California Basic Necessities
Class; (4) a National Forced Labor class; and (5) a National Basic
Necessities Class.

While the motion to certify the classes is pending before the
District Judge, the parties have reached disagreement on the
continued scope of discovery, specifically 30(b)(6) depositions of
Defendant while the parties await a decision on class
certification.  The Plaintiffs argue that because discovery was not
bifurcated, following the conclusion of class discovery they have
turned to merits discovery.  

They seek to depose the Defendant regarding its negotiations and
other financial considerations and profitability of its contracts
with I.C.E.  The Plaintiffs assert that the topic was not
previously covered because the deposition that occurred was focused
on class discovery.  Thus, they seek, to the extent necessary,
leave of Court to conduct a second deposition of a 30(b)(6) witness
regarding financial information relevant to the Defendant's unjust
enrichment defense.

The Defendant counters that the Plaintiff already deposed its
30(b)(6) representative and did so for an extended period of time
as permitted by the Court in response to Discovery Dispute No. 2.
They submit that leave is required to take a second deposition
under these circumstances, and that the Court should not permit any
further deposition to proceed because the discovery would be
cumulative, duplicative, available via other less burdensome means
of discovery, and should have been pursued in the prior deposition.
The Defendant also avers that the deposition notice topics are
overbroad, vague, and fail to identify relevant information.

Magistrate Judge Stormes finds that the discovery sought is
relevant to "a claim or defense," specifically the counterclaims
and affirmative defenses alleged.  However, the scope of these
claims may change depending upon the outcome of the class
certification motion. Defendant is also correct that, to some
extent, a deposition is cumulative and/or duplicative of the
contracts produced and budgeting questions already asked.  In
addition, the topics listed in the notice do not have date
limitations or a tailored, limited scope.  The Defendants also
represent that responses to pending written discovery will address
some of the listed topics.

Under these circumstances, the Judge will exercise her discretion
to deny without prejudice a second deposition at the
pre-certification juncture as not proportional to the needs of the
case at this time.  She does not foreclose the possibility of a
second deposition in the future, which may be appropriate if the
first deposition was primarily focused on class discovery and to
ask follow-up questions that are not available via written
discovery.

However, the scope of any second deposition is likely to be
affected by the decision on class certification; for instance, only
the contracts and financial information for the facilities where
the named Plaintiffs stayed would fall within Rule 26.  In the
meantime, and as the Defendant suggests, the Plaintiffs may
continue to pursue written discovery.  Finally, waiting for a
decision on the class certification motion prevents the possibility
that as the case progresses, any additional topics for deposition
may arise that could lead to a third request to depose a corporate
representative.

In light of the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Stormes denied without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for leave to take a second
deposition.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/I7bCgL from Leagle.com.

Sylvester Owino, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly
situated & Jonathan Gomez, on behalf of themselves, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Geoffrey M. Raux,
Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Robert L. Teel --
lawoffice@rlteel.com -- Law Office of Robert L. Teel, Eileen
Regina
Ridley -- eridley@foley.com -- Foley and Lardner LLP, J. Mark
Waxman -- mwaxman@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP & Nicholas J.
Fox  -- nfox@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, LLP.

CoreCivic, Inc., a Maryland corporation, Defendant, represented by
Ashlee Beth Fletcher -- ahesman@strucklove.com -- Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, pro hac vice, Daniel P. Struck --
dstruck@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, pro
hac vice, Nicholas D. Acedo -- nacedo@strucklove.com -- Struck
Love
Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, pro hac vice & Rachel Love --
rlove@strucklove.com -- Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, pro
hac vice.

CoreCivic, Inc., a Maryland corporation, Counter Claimant,
represented by Ashlee Beth Fletcher, Struck Love Bojanowski &
Acedo, PLC, pro hac vice, Daniel P. Struck, Struck Love Bojanowski
& Acedo, PLC, Ethan H. Nelson, Law Office of Ethan H. Nelson,
Jacob
Brady Lee, Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, Nicholas D. Acedo,
Struck Love Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC, Rachel Love, Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC & Ashlee Beth Fletcher, Struck Love
Bojanowski & Acedo, PLC.

Jonathan Gomez, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly
situated & Sylvester Owino, on behalf of themselves, and all
others
similarly situated, Counter Defendants, represented by Geoffrey M.
Raux, Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Robert L. Teel, Law
Office
of Robert L. Teel, Eileen Regina Ridley, Foley and Lardner LLP, J.
Mark Waxman, Foley & Lardner LLP, Nicholas J. Fox, Foley &
Lardner,
LLP, Geoffrey M. Raux, Foley & Lardner LLP & Alan R. Ouellete,
Foley & Lardner LLP.


CURADEN AG: Court Grants Bid for Class Notification in Lyngaas Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff,
v. CURADEN AG, et al. Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-10910 (E.D.
Mich.), Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's motion for class notification.

On May 23, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying the class of
all persons or entities who were successfully sent one or more
facsimiles in March 2016 offering the Curaprox '5460 Ultra Soft
Toothbrush' for '.98 per/brush' to 'dental professionals only.'  

Plaintiff Lyngaas now asks the Court to enter an order approving
his proposed class notice, setting a 30-day deadline for the class
members to opt out, and directing dissemination of the class notice
by facsimile and by U.S. mail.  Defendants Curaden AG and Curaden
USA object to certain portions of Lyngaas' proposed notice.

Judge Goldsmith has reviewed the Plaintiff's proposed notice and
finds, subject to certain provisions, that it satisfies each of the
requirements of Rule 23(c)(2)(B).  All of the information is set
forth in plain, easy-to-understand language.

As for the method of providing the notice, the Plaintiff proposes
sending the notice to each of the fax numbers that he claims
received one or more of the faxes at issue in the case.   For each
fax that cannot be sent successfully after three attempts, the
Plaintiff proposes sending the notice by U.S. Mail to the address
last known to have been associated with that fax number.  The
Plaintiff points to several courts that have approved notification
via faxes in TCPA class action cases.  The Judge agrees that the
method provides the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, in accordance with Rule 23.

The Judge also finds (i) that it would be more convenient for a
class member to fax or email the Plaintiff's counsel in order to
opt out of the class; (ii) that the notice should explain to the
class members that case documents can be accessed electronically
through PACER, and orders that it be added to the notice; and (iii)
no reason why the class members should be provided with contact
information for the Defendants' counsel as well as the class
counsel; (iv) no reason that a class member would need to be made
aware of the fact that the Defendants have brought a Rule 23(f)
appeal; and (v) that the Plaintiff will revise the notice to
instruct class members not to contact the Judge or the Judge's
staff.

For the reasons provided, Judge Goldsmith granted the Plaintiff's
motion for class notification subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in his Order.  The Plaintiff will send out notice to all
the class members on July 12, 2019.  The notice will be sent to
each of the fax numbers identified as having been sent one or more
of the faxes at issue in the case; for each fax that cannot be sent
successfully after three attempts, notice will be sent by U.S. Mail
to the address last known or suspected to have been associated with
that fax number.  The class members will have until Aug. 12, 2019
to opt out of the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2019 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/PRxfzS from Leagle.com.

Brian Lyngaas, D.D.S., Plaintiff, represented by David M.
Oppenheim
-- david@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis, & Oppenheim, LLC,
Richard Shenkan, Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC, 6550 Lakeshore St.
West Bloomfield, MI 48323-1429, Tod A. Lewis --
tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis
&
Oppenheim, LLC & Phillip A. Bock, Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock,
Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC, 134 N LaSalle St # 1000 Chicago, IL
60602

Curaden AG & Curaden USA Inc., Defendants, represented by Brian S.
Sullivan -- brian.sullivan@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl &
Jason
M. Renner -- jason.renner@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.


DEL FRISCO'S: Faces Sabatini Class Suit
---------------------------------------
Del Frisco's Restaurant Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on July 29,
2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a class
action suit entitled, Sabatini v. Del Frisco's Restaurant Group,
Inc. et al.

On June 23, 2019, Del Frisco's Restaurant Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Harlan Parent, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and Harlan Merger Sub, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent
("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and
into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent. On July 23, 2019,
the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") a preliminary proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement")
related to a special meeting of the Company's stockholders to be
held for the purpose of, among other things, voting on the Merger.

In connection with the Merger, after the Proxy Statement was filed,
a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court of Delaware, captioned Sabatini v. Del Frisco's
Restaurant Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01385-UNA (the
"Complaint").

The Complaint was filed by a purported Company stockholder and is
pending in the United Stated District Court of Delaware against the
Company and the members of its Board of Directors.

The Complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by omitting material
information from the Proxy Statement rendering it false and
misleading.

The Complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction against the
Merger, or in the event the Merger is consummated, rescission and
rescissory damages, additional disclosure of facts in the Proxy
Statement relating to the Merger, a declaration from the court that
the defendants violated federal securities laws, and costs
(including attorneys' and experts' fees).

Although the complaint requests injunctive relief, the plaintiff
has not filed a motion to enjoin the Merger at this time.

Del Frisco's Restaurant said, "Additional similar lawsuits may be
filed in the future. Each of the defendants believes that the
plaintiff's allegations in the Complaint lack merit and intend to
vigorously defend against the Complaint and any subsequently filed
similar actions. If additional similar complaints are filed, absent
new or different allegations that are material, the Company will
not necessarily disclose such additional filings."

Irving, Texas-based Del Frisco's Restaurant Group, Inc., owns and
operates three contemporary, high-end, complementary restaurants:
Del Frisco's Double Eagle Steak House, or Double Eagle, Sullivan's
Steakhouse, or Sullivan's, and Del Frisco's Grille, or the Grille.
Currently, the Company operated 73 restaurants in 16 states and the
District of Columbia. Of these 73, there were 16 Double Eagle
restaurants, 15 Barcelona restaurants, 18 bartaco restaurants and
24 Grille restaurants.


DISH NETWORK: 4th Cir. Affirms Krakauer Ruling
-----------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina's ruling in the
"Krakauer Action" that the violations were willful and knowing, and
trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call made in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act(TCPA).

A portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Action are also the subject of a certified class action filed
against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina (the "Krakauer Action").  

Following a five-day trial, on January 19, 2017, a jury in that
case found that the independent third-party retailer was acting as
DISH Network L.L.C.'s agent when it made the 51,119 calls at issue
in that case, and that class members are eligible to recover $400
in damages for each call made in violation of the TCPA.  

On March 7, 2017, DISH Network L.L.C. filed motions with the Court
for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, for a new
trial, which the Court denied on May 16, 2017. On May 22, 2017, the
Court ruled that the violations were willful and knowing, and
trebled the damages award to $1,200 for each call made in violation
of TCPA.  

On April 5, 2018, the Court entered a $61 million judgment in favor
of the class. DISH Network L.L.C. appealed and on May 30, 2019, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

DISH Network said, "During the second quarter 2017, we recorded $41
million of "Litigation expense" related to the Krakauer Action on
our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and
Comprehensive Income (Loss). We recorded $20 million of "Litigation
expense" related to the Krakauer Action during the fourth quarter
2016. Our total accrual related to the Krakauer Action at June 30,
2019 and December 31, 2018 was $61 million and is included in
"Other accrued expenses" on our Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets."  

DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. DISH Network Corporation was founded
in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


DISH NETWORK: Faces Hallandale Beach Police & Firefighters' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit by the City of
Hallandale Beach Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel
Retirement Trust.

On July 2, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported EchoStar stockholder in the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada under the caption City of Hallandale Beach Police
Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust v. Ergen, et
al., Case No. A-19-797799-B.  

The lawsuit names as defendants Mr. Ergen, the other members of the
EchoStar Board, as well as EchoStar, certain of its officers, DISH
Network and certain of DISH Network's and EchoStar's affiliates.  

Plaintiff alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties
in approving the transactions contemplated under the Master
Transaction Agreement for inadequate consideration and pursuant to
an unfair and conflicted process, and that EchoStar, DISH Network
and certain other defendants aided and abetted such breaches.   

Plaintiff seeks equitable relief, including the issuance of
additional DISH Network Class A Common Stock, monetary relief and
other costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.

DISH Network said, "We intend to vigorously defend this case, but
cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of this
suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or
damages."

DISH Network Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides
pay-TV services in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, Pay-TV and Wireless. DISH Network Corporation was founded
in 1980 and is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


DYCK O'NEAL: Robbins Granted Leave to File 1st Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN ROBBINS, Plaintiff, v. DYCK O'NEAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 18-2623-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), Judge Teresa J.
James of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted
the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint.

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action on Nov. 19, 2018,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA") and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA").  He
alleges the Defendant violated these acts by contacting consumers
through automatic telephone dialing systems and attempting to
collect debt that was previously reported in a 1099-C as being
canceled or discharged.

On Feb. 19, 2019, the Court conducted a scheduling conference with
the parties, during which Defendant indicated it would file an
early dispositive motion on the 1099-C issue.  The parties agreed
to exchange the documents identified in their initial disclosures
but that no other discovery was necessary to brief the initial
dispositive motion.  Additionally, the Plaintiff indicated that if
the Defendant's Dispositive Motion on the 1099-C issue is granted,
he and the putative class would seek to amend the complaint to
amend its claims, which would potentially involve one or more new
Defendants and affect the class size/scope.

The Court stayed discovery and instructed Defendant to file the
1099-C dispositive motion on or before March 25, 2019.  That
deadline was extended upon the Defendant's unopposed request to
April 24, 2019.  The Defendant filed its motion for summary
judgment on that date, which is also the date the Plaintiff filed
the pending motion to amend.

The Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to omit the previously
asserted class action allegations because through discovery the
parties have found the class size would likely be six people or
fewer.  Thus, the Plaintiff believes it is appropriate to proceed
on his individual claims and not pursue a class action.  
Additionally, he seeks to include a Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") claim based on facts unique to the Plaintiff (as opposed
to the putative class), which he does not want to lose by allowing
the statute of limitations to run while waiting on a ruling from
the Court on the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The Defendant opposes the Plaintiff's motion.  It argues it would
be prejudiced by the filing of an amended complaint at this point
because it has filed its motion for summary judgment and might need
to file a new motion for summary judgment if the Plaintiff adds
additional claims.  Further, it would incur costs and spend time
responding to an additional pleading and potentially conducting
unnecessary discovery.  The Defendant contends any amendment to the
complaint should be made after ruling on the pending motion for
summary judgment, as the parties previously agreed.  The Defendant
also argues the Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for the
requested amendment because he could have included the FRCA claim
originally but chose not to.

Judge James finds that the Plaintiff has not shown undue delay.  As
the Plaintiff notes, a deadline for amending pleadings has not yet
been set, and little discovery has taken place.  The Judge also
finds no bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the Plaintiff.
And, no previous amendments have been allowed so the Plaintiff has
not failed to cure any deficiencies.  The Judge disagrees with the
Defendant's main argument is that it would be prejudiced if the
Plaintiff were granted leave to amend now rather than after ruling
on its motion for summary judgment.

The Judge also does not find the Plaintiff's proposed amendment to
be futile.  Although the Defendant argues it is unable to determine
whether the proposed amendment would be futile because the
Plaintiff neglected to attach it to his motion, the Defendant knew
what the Plaintiff's proposed amendments were, namely to omit the
class action allegations and add a claim for violation of the FCRA.
The Defendant also did not request leave to file a surreply to
argue that the proposed amendment would be futile after it was
attached to the Plaintiff's Reply.

Finally, the Judge finds the Plaintiff has shown good cause for the
requested amendment.  The Defendant argues the Plaintiff has not
shown good cause because he chose not to assert the FCRA claim from
the beginning.  But the Plaintiff states he sought leave to add the
FCRA claim as soon as it was decided that the case would not
proceed as a class action, which happened only after completion of
the discovery that the Court previously allowed.  The Judge agrees
that judicial economy supports the Plaintiff's claims being
addressed in one lawsuit.

The Judge concludes that no undue delay, undue prejudice to the
Defendant, bad faith or dilatory motive, failure to cure
deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, or futility of
amendment.  At this early stage in the litigation, allowing the
proposed amendment is in the interest of judicial economy.
Therefore, he granted Plaintiff's motion.  The Plaintiff will file
the amended complaint attached to his Reply forthwith.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2019 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/4HHnFD from Leagle.com.

Stephen Robbins, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A. Sanders --
jsanders@bktplaw.com -- Joshua Sanders, Keith N. Williston --
willistonkeith@yahoo.com -- The Williston Law Firm, LLC & Mark
Everett Parrish -- mparrish@bktplaw.com -- Boyd, Kenter, Thomas &
Parrish, LLC.

Dyck O'Neal, Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis J. Wade --
lwade@mcdowellrice.com -- McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan, PC.


EXQUISITE DELICATESSEN: Hadi Files FLSA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exquisite
Delicatessen, Inc. The case is styled as Mohammed A. Hadi, in
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Exquisite Delicatessen, Inc. doing business as: Subway jointly and
severally, 58th Street Inc. doing business as: Green Cafe jointly
and severally, Jakey Patwari and Jamil Uddin, jointly and
severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07194 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 1,
2019).

The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor filed
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Delicatessen is the retail arm of S&L Fine Foods, Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FLEX LTD: Sept. 26 Hearing on Bid to Serve as Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Flex Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that a hearing on the motions to serve as lead
plaintiff is scheduled for September 26, 2019, in the putative
class action suit pending before the Northern District of
California.

On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder,
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
financial results, press releases and SEC filings made during the
putative class period of January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018.

On October 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the case. On November 28, 2018, lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging misstatements and/or
omissions in certain of the Company's SEC filings, press releases,
earnings calls, and analyst and investor conferences and expanding
the putative class period through October 25, 2018.

On April 3, 2019, the Court vacated its prior order appointing lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel and reopened the lead
plaintiff appointment process.

A hearing on the motions to serve as lead plaintiff is scheduled
for September 26, 2019. A case management conference is scheduled
for October 9, 2019.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend this case.

Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply
chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers
worldwide. It operates through High Reliability Solutions,
Industrial and Emerging Industries, Communications & Enterprise
Compute, and Consumer Technologies Group segments. The company was
formerly known as Flextronics International Ltd. and changed its
name to Flex Ltd. in September 2016. Flex Ltd. was founded in 1990
and is based in Singapore.


FORD MOTOR: Tershakovec et al Seek to Certify 11 Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as GEORGE TERSHAKOVEC, DIANA
TERSHAKOVEC, JOHN AUBREY, BYRON HAPER, RICHARD KOWALCHIK, ERNESTO
LARIOS, SHAUNTI YANIK-LARIOS, JACQUES RIMOKH, MARK HOCHSPRUNG,
FRANK PORTER, GREG ROBERTS, WAYNE LINN, STEPHEN KELLY, JILL KERLLY,
JOSH LONG, JOSE CRUZ, ATILLA GONDAN, HERBERT ALLEY, ERIC KAMPERMAN,
TRAVIS MCRAE, TODD NEWTON, and ERIC EVANS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-21087-FAM (S.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order:

   1. certifying these classes:

      California Class:

      "all person in the State of California who purchased a
      Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or
      distributor". The proposed California Class
      representative are Jacques Rimokh, Ernesto Larios, and
      Shaunti Yanik-Larios.

      Florida Class:

      "all person in the State of Florida who purchased a
      Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or
      distributor". The proposed Florida Class
      representatives are George Tershakovec, Diana
      Tershakovec, John Aubrey, Byron Haper, and Richard
      Kowalchik.

      Illinois Class:

      "all person in the State of Illinois who purchased a Class
      Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor". The
      proposed Illinois Class representatives Mark Hochsprung
      and Frank Porter.

      Missouri Class:

      "all person in the State of Missouri who purchased a Class
      Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor". The
      proposed Missouri Class representative is Greg Roberts.

      New Jersey Class:

      "all person in the State of New Jersey who purchased a
      Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or
      distributor". The proposed New Jersey Class representative
      is Wayne Linn.

      New York Class:

      "all person in the State of New York who purchased a Class
      Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor". The
      proposed New York Class representatives are Stephen and
      Jill Kelly.

      Oregon Class:

      "all person in the State of Oregon who purchased a Class
      Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor". The
      proposed Oregon Class representative is Josh Long.

      Pennsylvania Class:

      "all person in the State of Pennsylvania who purchased a
      Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or
      distributor". The proposed Pennsylvania Class
      representative is Jose Cruz.

      Tennessee Class:

      "all person in the State of Pennsylvania who purchased a
      Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or
      distributor". The  proposed Pennsylvania Class
      representative is Attila Gondan.

      Texas Class:

      "all person in the State of Texas who purchased a Class
      Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or distributor". The
      proposed Texas Class representatives are Herbert Alley,
      Eric Kamperman, Travis McRae, and Todd Newton.

      Washington Class:

      "all person in the State of Washington who purchased a
      Class Vehicle from a Ford-authorized dealer or
      distributor". The proposed Washington Class representative  
      is Eric Evans. For each definition, the class vehicle  
      refers to a Ford 2016 Shelby Mustang with a Base or  
      Technology Package.;

   2. appointing themselves as representatives of Classes; and

   3. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.[CC]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes:

          Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq.
          Rachel Furst, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (888) 296 1681
          Facsimile: (305) 285 1668
          E-mail: szg@grossmnaroth.com
                  rwfg@grossmnaroth.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Catherine Y.N. Gannon, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623 0564
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  catherine@hbsslaw.com

FORD MOTOR: Truck Owners Sue Over False Fuel Economy Ratings
------------------------------------------------------------
David Brewer, Ryan Combs, Victor Perez, Harold Brower, Kyle
Mannion, Gerald O'Hara, Nicholas Leonardi, Dean Kriner and James
Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-01886 (E.D. Mich., July 22, 2019), seeks redress for breach
of express warranties and for violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and the various state consumer protection statutes.

Plaintiffs purchased a new 2018 F-150 Ford SuperCrew truck and
claims that Ford's fuel economy ratings were erroneous and
overstated.

Ford engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing,
marketing, warranting, distributing, selling, and leasing
automobiles. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 623-7292
     Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
     Email: steve@hbsslaw.com

            - and -

     Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
     HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
     719 S. Shoreline Boulevard
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Telephone No.: (361) 882-1612
     Facsimile No.: (361) 882-3015
     Email: hmgservice@hmglawfirm.com

            - and -

     Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
     GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
     One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Phone: (513) 345-8291
     Fax: (513) 345-8294
     Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com

             - and -

     Jason Thompson, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, 17th Floor
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Tel: (248) 355-0300
     Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com


GENERAL HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all investors that purchased
General Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: NGHC) securities between September
6, 2015 and September 9, 2017 (the "Class Period").  Investors have
until September 23, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Click here to participate in the action

The complaint, filed on July 25, 2019, alleges that during the
Class Period defendants made false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose adverse information regarding National General's
business and operations. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
defendants failed to disclose that National General, together with
banking giant Wells Fargo, had engaged in a massive insurance
scheme to bilk Wells Fargo customers out of millions of dollars.
Through this scheme, National General forced thousands of customers
to pay for auto insurance – commonly known as Collateral
Protection Insurance ("CPI") – that they did not need or want.
National General served as Wells Fargo's CPI vendor for all aspects
of the program from July 2015 until the program was discreetly
terminated in September 2016. Defendants possessed information
showing that these customers already had their own insurance, but
forced them to be subject to redundant, unnecessary, and overly
expensive CPI policies anyway. In addition, while defendants were
concealing their participation in the fraudulent CPI scheme from
investors, they were reporting revenues and earnings results that
had been artificially inflated by the illegitimate proceeds from
the scheme. As a result of this information being withheld from the
market, National General common stock traded at artificially
inflated prices of more than $25 per share during the Class
Period.

Then, on July 27, 2017, The New York Times published an article
that revealed for the first time the CPI forced-placed insurance
scheme. The article cited an internal report commissioned by Wells
Fargo's executives, which reportedly stated that more than 800,000
auto loan customers, including active military personnel, had paid
for unnecessary CPI, pushing nearly 274,000 of them into
delinquency and resulting in more than 20,000 unlawful vehicle
repossessions. In the days that followed, attention increasingly
turned to National General and its role in the scheme. The Company
faced numerous regulatory investigations, congressional scrutiny,
and civil lawsuits that caused a decline in the price of National
General shares. Between July 26, 2017, before the story broke, and
August 10, 2017, after the launch of a congressional inquiry into
the scandal, the price of National General common stock fell more
than 15%.

If you purchased National General Holdings shares during the class
period, have information, would like to learn more about these
claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by email at
investigations@bespc.com or telephone at (212) 308-1869, or by
filling out this contact form.  There is no cost or obligation to
you.

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

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


GENERAL MOTORS: Sloan et al Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit filed against General Motors LLC, the
Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order on December 5, 2019 to
certify a class.

The case is captioned as MONTEVILLE SLOAN, JR., RAUL SIQUEIROS,
TODD AND JILL CRALLEY, JOSEPH BRANNAN, LARRY GOODWIN, MARC PERKINS,
THOMAS SHORTER, DERICK BRADFORD, GABRIEL DEL VALLE, KEVIN HANNEKEN,
EDWIN AND KATELYN DOEPEL, DAN MADSON, JAMES FAULKNER, JOSEPH
OLIVIER, SCOTT SMITH, ROSS DAHL, DREW PETERSON, MICHAEL WARE, STEVE
KITCHEN, JOHN KNOLL, BARBARA MOLINA, DENNIS VITA, WILLIAM DAVIS,
JR., THOMAS SZEP, MIKE WARPINSKI, WILLIAM MARTELL, JOHN GRAZIANO,
JOSHUA BYRGE, RUDY SANCHEZ, CHRISTOPHER THACKER, KELLY HARRIS,
JAMES ROBERTSON, and JONAS BEDNAREK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the  Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-07244-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

General Motors, commonly referred to as General Motors, is an
American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that
designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global
headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes:

          Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
          Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
          155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-986-1400
          E-mail: jennie@andrusanderson.com
                 lori@andrusanderson.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: 312-214-7900
          E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,
          METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          272 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: 334-269-2343
          E-mail: Dee.Miles@beasleyallen.com

GOOGLE INC: $13MM Settlement Reached in Street View Privacy Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Duffy, writing for CNN Business, reports that Google has
agreed to pay a $13 million settlement that could resolve a
class-action lawsuit over the company's collection of people's
private information through its Street View project.

The agreement, if approved by a judge, would resolve a 2010 suit
over the Street View program's privacy violations, ending nearly a
decade of legal challenges related to the issue. Many expected the
case to cost Google (GOOGL) billions of dollars because plaintiffs
alleged the data collection broke federal wiretapping laws -- but
the agreement doesn't include financial relief for class members.

Street View is a feature that lets users interact with panoramic
images of locations around the world that launched in 2007. The
legal action began when several people whose data was collected
sued Google after it admitted the cars photographing neighborhoods
for Street View had also gathered emails, passwords and other
private information from wifi networks in more than 30 countries.

The company initially called the data collection "a mistake."
However, investigators found Google engineers built software and
embedded it into Street View vehicles to intentionally intercept
the data from 2007 to 2010, according to court documents.

In 2013, Google settled a case brought by 38 states over the same
issue for $7 million. In that settlement, the company agreed to
destroy the data collected through Street View and launch a
campaign to teach people how to protect their information from wifi
snooping. The company had previously agreed to halt the collection
of network data by the vehicles.

This latest proposed settlement includes a similar agreement.

Google would be required to destroy any remaining data collected
via Street View, agree not to use Street View to collect data from
wifi networks except with consent, and to create webpages and
videos teaching people how to secure their wireless data.

It's unclear why the new settlement includes deleting the data and
halting the program, when Google was already required to do that
under the 2013 agreement. Google did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on this aspect of the case, and the company
declined to comment on the proposed settlement overall.

"It is very strange that six years after Google agreed to end this
practice and made public service announcements, it's once again
agreeing to do what others had assumed they already had," said Marc
Rotenberg, president of the nonprofit research firm Electronic
Privacy Information Center, in an interview with CNN Business.

The agreement includes monetary relief for the 22 original
plaintiffs, but not for additional class members. The remaining
money will be distributed to eight organizations dedicated to data
privacy and consumer protection.

The plaintiffs' attorneys said the settlement is fair because
ongoing litigation could result in no financial relief for the
plaintiffs, and because of the settlement donation to organizations
"tailored to serve and promote the interests of Class Members,"
according to the court filing.

A notice to class members about the settlement notes that Google
denies any wrongdoing.[GN]


GOOGLE INC: Settles Age Discrimination Class Action for $11MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Baron, writing for The Mercury News, reports that Google has
settled for $11 million a long-running class-action lawsuit
claiming that it discriminated against hundreds of older workers by
failing to hire them because of their age.

The workers argued in their lawsuit that between 2007 and 2013,
Google’s workforce grew to nearly 30,000 people and that the
median age of its workers as of 2013 was 29, compared to a median
age of 41 for U.S. employees in computer and math fields. They
claimed Google, through "reckless indifference" or "intentional
discrimination," denied equal hiring, employment and compensation
opportunities to people 40 and older.

Google has consistently denied it discriminates on the basis of
age. It said in a court filing that its actions regarding the two
lead plaintiffs, who were not hired after being interviewed by the
Mountain View digital-advertising giant, "were motivated by
reasonable factors other than age."

The dispute, the settlement agreement noted, revolved in part
around whether "Googleyness" and "cultural fit" were legitimate
hiring criteria or were concepts used by the company to
discriminate on the basis of age.

Plaintiff Robert Heath applied for a software development job at
Google in 2011, submitting a resume that listed
information-technology jobs going back to 1978, which "thus made it
apparent he was over 50 years old," according to the lawsuit, which
was first filed in 2015 in U.S. District Court in San Jose. A
Google recruiter contacted him and conducted a phone interview, but
Heath, 60 at the time, was not hired, the suit said.

Plaintiff Cheryl Fillekes, according to the suit, was contacted by
a Google recruiter in 2007 for a possible job in the firm’s
engineering and testing or software development groups. She was 47
at the time, according to the suit. Fillekes was interviewed
several times by phone, and once in person, but was not hired, the
suit said. A similar process played out three more times, with
Google recruiters inviting her to apply for work, and Fillekes
getting rejected after meeting company representatives in person,
the suit claimed.

"Despite being very well qualified for each of the positions she
interviewed for, Google did not hire her for any position after she
attended her in-person interviews," the suit said.

The court in 2016 approved the lawsuit as a class action, and it
drew in more than 230 additional plaintiffs who claimed they were
interviewed in person for site-reliability engineering or systems
engineering positions at Google when they were 40 or older and were
refused employment between Aug. 28, 2014 and October 5, 2016.

According to the settlement agreement, filed in court last week and
agreed to by Google and 227 plaintiffs, Google agreed to train
managers and workers on age-based bias, and set up a committee in
its recruiting department to focus on age diversity in software
engineering, systems-reliability engineering and systems
engineering.

Google, in the settlement, denied committing age discrimination.

Of the $11 million settlement, lawyers for the plaintiffs will get
about $2.8 million in fees plus about $175,000 in expenses,
according to the agreement.

Each plaintiff is to receive a minimum of $11,495, plus additional
compensation for lost wages to be determined case-by-case. Fillekes
is to receive an additional special award of $10,000, and the
settlement administrator will get about $21,000.

The seven plaintiffs who didn’t sign onto the settlement will
have their cases dismissed "without prejudice," meaning they can
file separate lawsuits making the same claims if they wish.

In 2010, Google, which brought in $136 billion in revenue last
year, settled a lawsuit by a prominent technology leader, Brian
Reid, after firing him from an engineering-director job in 2004 at
age 54. Reid, when fired, was allegedly told he was not a good
"cultural fit" at the company. Terms of that settlement were not
publicly released. [GN]


HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Securities Class Suit in Pennsylvania Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a securities class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On March 22, 2019, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and our Chief Executive Officer in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint, which was filed by a plaintiff purportedly on behalf
of all purchasers of our securities between April 11, 2017 and
March 4, 2019, alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the matters related to the company's earnings per
share (EPS) calculation practices. The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.

Healthcare Services said, "While the Company is vigorously
defending against all litigation claims asserted, this litigation,
along with the ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
investigation could result in substantial costs to the Company and
a diversion of the Company's management's attention and resources,
which could harm its business. In addition, the uncertainty of the
pending lawsuit or potential filing of additional lawsuits could
lead to more volatility and a reduction in the Company's stock
price. Given the early stage of the litigation, at this time the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible losses or form a
judgment that an unfavorable outcome is either probable or
remote."

Healthcare Services Group, Inc., incorporated on November 22, 1976,
provides management, administrative and operating services to the
housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance and dietary
service departments of the healthcare industry, including nursing
homes, retirement complexes, rehabilitation centers and hospitals
located throughout the United States. The Company operates through
two segments: housekeeping, laundry, linen and other services
(Housekeeping), and dietary department services (Dietary). The
company is based in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.


HELPING U HOMECARE: Douglas Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonell Douglas, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Helping U Homecare, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 19-cv-06798, (S.D. N.Y., July 22, 2019), seeks to recover
damages for willful failure to pay for all regular hours worked,
the overtime premium rate for all hours worked in excess of forty
hours in a workweek and an additional hour of pay for any day in
which the spread of hours exceeded ten hours and/or in which there
was a split shift and penalty damages; and for failure to provide
the wage notices and pay statements as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York labor law.

Defendant operates as a Licensed Home Care Services Agency,
providing home care services in Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn,
Queens, Staten Island as well as in Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester
counties. Douglas was employed by the Defendant as a Home Health
Aide. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Frank, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA P. FRANK PLLC
      1 Old Country Road, Suite 385
      Carle Place NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 416-4445
      Email: jfrank@jpfranklaw.com

             - and -

      Austin Graff, Esq.
      1 Old Country Road, Suite 385
      Carle Place NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 746-5040
      Email: agraff@scherlawfirm.com


HIGH IMPACT: Conditional Certification Bid in Duggan Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL DUGGAN, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HIGH IMPACT MARKETING, LLC d/b/a
FURNITURE DIRECT and CARL MILETELLO, individually, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-00209-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.), Judge Keith
Starrett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi, Eastern Division, granted in part the Plaintiff's
Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Authorized Notice.

The Defendants own and operate furniture stores in both Hattiesburg
and Columbia, Mississippi.  The Plaintiff worked as a
commission-only salesperson for the Defendants from approximately
May 2017 through May 2018.  He claims that he was misclassified as
an independent contractor, was improperly compensated when his
hourly rate for his commissioned sales fell below the federal
minimum wage requirement, and was not compensated for the overtime
he worked.

The Plaintiff filed the action on Dec. 6, 2018 alleging violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  He now seeks leave to
conditionally certify the class of all current and former
commission-only salespeople who were classified as independent
contractors by the Defendants and were not paid at least the
federal minimum wage of $7.25 and/or overtime wages at a rate of at
least time-and-one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek.

In addition to requesting authorization to send notice to the
class, the Plaintiff seeks to have the Court compel the Defendants
to produce a computer readable data file containing the names, last
known address, email address, last known telephone number, employee
number, last four digits of the social security number, and dates
of employment of all the potential opt-in Plaintiffs.  Also, in
addition to mailing the notice, the Plaintiff requests that a
notice be posted at all the Defendants' locations where
commission-only salespeople are employed.  The Defendants have not
objected the request, and thus, it will be granted.  Finally, the
Plaintiff seeks to have the Court toll the applicable statute of
limitations to protect the rights of those who have yet to receive
notice of the lawsuit.

The Defendant responds by conceding that certification is likely to
be granted, but seeks to limit the scope of the class to only three
locations because it does not own one of the locations.  They also
contend that one potential Plaintiff worked at the store that the
Defendants do not own and thus, is not similarly situated.  The
Defendants also object to the notice plan insofar as the
Plaintiff's request the production of phone numbers and partial
social security numbers and that the consent forms be returned to
the Plaintiff's counsel.

Judge Starrett finds it necessary to carve out that location in the
notice to be provided to the potential class members.  The dates a
bit confusing because it implies that the salespeople must have
worked that entire time, which is not the case.  The Plaintiff has
requested the dates of employment for the potential Plaintiffs.
Therefore, in the interest of compromise and keeping the potential
Plaintiffs similarly situated, the Judge will craft the wording of
the appropriate class later in the Order.

The Defendants next take issue the opt-in Plaintiff Seepe because
the Defendants contend he never worked for either of the Defendants
at any of their locations.  Again, the Plaintiff did not reply to
this argument.  While it may be the case that he worked at
different store, there has been no discovery conducted in the
matter as of yet, and the Court is not to address any merits of the
actual claims.  The issue is better addressed during
decertification.

As to the information to be disclosed, Plaintiff has requested
names, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, and the last
four digits of the social security numbers of potential class
members. This Court has previously held that such information is
not discoverable due to privacy concerns. Defendants agree to
produce the email addresses but object to the requests for
telephone numbers and the last four digits of the social security
numbers. Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated any particular need
for this additional information, the Court finds that the
Defendants will not produce telephone numbers and the last four
digits of the social security numbers of any potential class
members.

Finally, the Defendants take issue with the Plaintiffs request that
the consent forms be returned to his counsel.  The Judge agrees
that such would be improper.  Accordingly, the class members will
return their forms to the Clerk.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Starrett granted in part the
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification and
Authorized Notice as follows:

     1. Conditional certification of the following collective
action class is granted:  All current and former commission-only
salespeople who were classified as independent contractors and
employed by High Impact Marketing LLC at a Furniture Direct store
located at 909 Hardy Street in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, 6098 U.S.
Highway 98 in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, or 709 U.S. Highway 98 in
Columbia, Mississippi within the past three years and who were not
paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 and/or overtime
wages at a rate of at least time-and-one-half their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a given
workweek.

     2. Within 14 days of the date of the Order, the Defendants
will provide to the Plaintiff, in an electronically readable
format, a list containing the names, last known address, email
address, employee numbers, and dates of employment of all the
potential opt-in Plaintiffs.

     3. The Plaintiff will modify the class as set forth in the
Order on the notice form.

     4. The Plaintiff's modified notice form will advise the
potential Plaintiffs that they have 30 days from the date the
notices are initially mailed to return to the Clerk of Court a
Consent to Become Opt-In Claimant.

     5. The Consent to Become Opt-In Claimant will be modified to
provide that the form will be returned to the Clerk of Court for
the Southern District of Mississippi Eastern Division.

     6. The Plaintiff is authorized to send the modified notice to
the individuals whose names appear on the list provided by the
Defendants via both first-class U.S. Mail and electronic mail.

     7. In addition to mailing the modified notice to the potential
Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff is further authorized to post the notice
in a conspicuous, internal area, such as in a break room, at the
three locations listed in the class description.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/gBdWed from Leagle.com.

Michael Duggan, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher William Espy --
cespy@forthepeople.com -- MORGAN & MORGAN, PA.

High Impact Marketing, LLC, doing business as Furniture Direct &
Carl Miletello, Individually, Defendants, represented by Rebecca
Blunden -- rblunden@cctb.com -- COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH, PA &
Robert C. Richardson -- brichardson@cctb.com -- COPELAND, COOK,
TAYLOR & BUSH, PA.


HOUSTON, TX: Class in Hernandez Suit Certified
----------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN HERNANDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CITY OF
HOUSTON, TEXAS, Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-3577 (S.D.
Tex.), Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The named Plaintiffs, Hernandez, DeQuan Kirkwood, Manuel Trevino,
Kent Wheatfall, and Eric Aguirre, are five individuals who were
arrested without a warrant after Dec. 5, 2014, and detained by the
City of Houston either for more than 48 hours or for more than 24
hours but less than 48 hours.  The Defendant is the City of
Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiffs have initiated the lawsuit against the City,
alleging that the City routinely and callously disregards the
Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Texas state law by
arresting individuals without a warrant and detaining them in the
City of Houston Jail for unreasonable periods of detention, without
the requisite judicial probable cause determination.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs contend that as a matter of policy and
practice, probable cause determinations for warrantless arrestees
in the City's custody, who have not otherwise posted bail, are
provided only after the arrestees have been transferred to the
Harris County Jail.  They maintain that whenever it takes longer
than 48 hours to transfer such arrestees to the Harris County Jail,
the City, as a matter of practice and custom, continues to detain
the arrestees in its jail cells, without a neutral probable cause
finding, instead of releasing them after 48 hours as the Fourth
Amendment requires.

The Plaintiffs have commenced the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution and Texas law seeking compensatory damages for the
City's practice and custom of overdetaining warrantless arrestees.

They now seek certification of the following classes:

     a. Class A: All people arrested without a warrant after
December 5, 2014, and detained by the City of Houston for more than
48 hours.

     b. Class B: All people arrested without a warrant after
December 5, 2014, and detained by the City of Houston for more than
24 hours and less than 48 hours.

The City, in opposition, disputes the Plaintiffs' allegations and
argues that their case is fundamentally flawed.  It maintains that
such delays, if any, are due to extraordinary circumstances, such
as overcrowding.  Further, the City opposes certification, claiming
that the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof
necessary to certify a class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Specifically, the City argues that: (1) under Rule 23(a)(1), the
Plaintiffs' claims of numerosity are inaccurate; (2) under Rule
23(a)(2), the Plaintiffs' Class A and Class B claims lack
commonality and cannot be resolved class-wide; (3) under Rule
23(a)(3), the Plaintiffs' Class A and Class B claims are not
typical of the claims of the putative class members; (4) under Rule
23(a)(4), the named Plaintiffs would be inadequate class
representatives; and (5) under Rule 23(b)(3), individual issues
predominate over common questions and a class action is not the
superior method for resolving the Plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Hoyt finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
prerequisites under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 23(b)(3).  Accordingly, he granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/8782rU from Leagle.com.

Juan Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan C. Downer --
ryan@civilrightscorps.org -- Civil Rights Corps, Alex S. Zuckerman
-- alex.zuckerman@kirkland.com -- Kirkland Ellis LLP, Amanda Beth
Elbogen, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Charles Lewis Gerstein , Civil
Rights Corps, Leonora Cohen -- lara.cohen@kirkland.com -- Kirkland
and Ellis LLP & Stephanie M. Shimada, Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

DeQuan Kirkwood, Manuel Trevino, Kent Wheatfall & Eric Aguirre,
Plaintiffs, represented by Alex S. Zuckerman, Kirkland Ellis LLP,
Amanda Beth Elbogen, Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Charles Lewis Gerstein
-- charlie@civilrightscorp.org -- Civil Rights Corps.

City Of Houston, Defendant, represented by Sean R.D. Gorman --
sean.gorman@bracewell.com -- Bracewell LLP, Jeff B. Vaden,
Bracewell LLP, Jennifer F. Callan, Officer of City Attorney, Jeremy
W. Dunbar, Bracewell LLP & Nancy McEvily Davis, Bracewell LLP.


IFIXANDREPAIR LLC: Gomez Seeks to Stop Unsolicited Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IFIXANDREPAIR, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 0:19-cv-61893-RKA (S.D. Fla., July 26, 2019),
seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's alleged illegal
conduct in sending telemarketing texts in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which has resulted in the
invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the
daily life of thousands of individuals.

The Defendant is a Florida limited liability company whose
principal office is located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The Defendant is a smartphone and electronics repair center.  To
promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,
harming thousands of consumers in the process, according to the
complaint.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


IMPINJ INC: Bid to Dismiss W.D. Wash. Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the court has not yet ruled on the motion
to dismiss by the defendants in the consolidated class action suit
pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.

On August 7, 2018, a class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California against the company, its chief
executive officer and chief operating officer.

Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock from May 7, 2018 through and including August 2, 2018,
asserted claims that the company's quarterly statement filed on
Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2018 and a concurrent press
release made false or misleading statements about the company's
business prospects and financial condition. The complaint sought
monetary damages, costs and expenses.

On October 3, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this
complaint.

On August 27, 2018, a second-class action complaint for violation
of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, its
chief executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief
financial officer.

Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's
common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including August 2, 2018,
asserts claims that the company made false or misleading statements
in its financial statements, press releases and conference calls
during the purported class period in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and
expenses.

On October 2, 2018, a third-class action complaint for violation of
the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington against the company, its
chief executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief
financial officer.

Captioned Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge
and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the
complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's common stock from November 3, 2016 through and including
February 15, 2018, asserts claims that the company made false or
misleading statements about customer demand for its products and
inventory in SEC filings, press releases and conference calls in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The
complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and expenses.

On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge
actions and appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the City
of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff.

On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that from
July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, the company made false or
misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of
our products and platform in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

On March 19, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On April 10, 2019, the lead
plaintiff filed an opposition to this motion. On April 30, 2019,
the defendants filed a reply brief in support of the motion.

The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss.

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.


IMPINJ INC: Plymouth County Retirement System Suit Still Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Plymouth
County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et al., is still stayed.

On January 31, 2019, a class action complaint for violation of the
federal securities laws was filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York for the County of New York against the company, its
chief executive officer, chief operating officer, former chief
financial officer, members of our board of directors and the
underwriters of the company's July 2016 initial public stock
offering, or IPO, and December 2016 secondary public offering, or
SPO.

Captioned Plymouth County Retirement System v. Impinj, Inc., et
al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
the company's stock pursuant to or traceable to its IPO and SPO,
alleges that the company made false or misleading statements in the
registration statements and prospectuses in those offerings
concerning demand for its products and inventory in violation of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On April 9, 2019, the New York Supreme Court entered an order
staying the action and requiring the parties to update the court
every 90 days as to the status of the pending federal securities
class actions.

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

Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity
for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity,
location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications.
Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington.


IMPLUS FOOTCARE: Williams Seeks to Certify Purchasers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled WES L. WILLIAMS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. IMPLUS FOOTCARE, LLC,
d/b/a PERFECT FITNESS, Case No. 2:18-cv-04207-NKL (W.D. Mo.), seeks
certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
of this Class:

     All natural persons nationwide who purchased the Perfect
     Fitness Multi-Gym apparatus, Model No. 31010, during the
     years 2013 through 2015.

Mr. Williams also asks the Court to appoint him as the Class
Representative and to appoint his Counsel as Class Counsel.  He
further asks that the Court order the parties to submit an
agreed-upon class notice or submit any disputes they may have over
class notice within 21 days of a class certification order so that
notice may be issued promptly.

The putative class action lawsuit asserts failure to warn and
design defect claims as set forth in the Restatement (Second) of
Torts, Section 408A and codified in Section 537.760 RSMo.  The
lawsuit involves an exercise apparatus called the Perfect Multi-Gym
("Multi-Gym"), manufactured by Perfect Fitness.  The Multi-Gym was
designed in a defective manner that could cause and has caused
severe bodily injury with ordinary use, particularly in the absence
of an adequate warning, according to the complaint.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David L. Marcus, Esq.
          BARTLE & MARCUS LLC
          116 W. 47th Street, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 285-3888
          Facsimile: (816) 222-0534
          E-mail: Dmarcus@bmlawkc.com

               - and -

          Aaron W. Moore, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF AARON MOORE
          1800 Pecan Grove
          Carrollton, TX 75007
          Telephone: (214) 876-5038
          E-mail: Aaronwmoore@hotmail.com


INSPERITY INC: Bench Trial in 401(k) Plan Suit Set for March 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insperity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court in the class
action suit related to the company's 401(k) Plan has denied
plaintiffs' request for a jury trial and has set a bench trial for
March 2, 2020.

In December 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and a third-party who served as the discretionary trustee
of the Insperity 401(k) retirement plan that is available to
eligible worksite employees (the "Plan") in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, on behalf of Plan participants.

The suit generally alleges the third-party discretionary trustee of
the Plan and Insperity breached their fiduciary duties to plan
participants by selecting an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the
recordkeeper for the Plan, by causing participants in the Plan to
pay excessive recordkeeping fees to the Insperity subsidiary, by
failing to monitor other fiduciaries, and by making imprudent
investment choices.

The court certified a class defined as "all participants and
beneficiaries of the Insperity 401(k) Plan from December 22, 2009
through September 30, 2017."

The court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims relating to
the selection of an Insperity subsidiary to serve as the
recordkeeper of the Plan.

On March 28, 2019, the court partially granted Insperity's motion
for summary judgment, resulting in the dismissal of the claims
concerning allegations of excessive recordkeeping fees.

The court has denied plaintiffs' request for a jury trial and has
set a bench trial for March 2, 2020.

With respect to plaintiffs' remaining claims, plaintiffs allege
damages up to $128 million against all defendants.

Insperity said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses, and we
intend to vigorously defend this litigation. As a result of
uncertainty regarding the outcome of this matter, no provision has
been made in the accompanying consolidated financial statements."

Insperity, Inc. provides human resources (HR) and business
solutions to enhance business performance for small and
medium-sized businesses in the United States. The company was
formerly known as Administaff, Inc. and changed its name to
Insperity, Inc. in March 2011. Insperity, Inc. was founded in 1986
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


INTEGRITY SERVICE: Moyer, et al. Seek to Certify FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MOYER, et al., for themselves all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, vs. INTEGRITY SERVICE GROUP, LLC, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-00198-TMR (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order:

   1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
      class consisting of:

      "all current and former employees of Defendants who have
      worked as janitors from June 28, 2016 through the present,
      and were not paid time and a half their regular rate of
      pay for the hours they worked over 40"; and

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved
      notification of Plaintiffs' FLSA claim can be sent to
      all potential opt-in plaintiffs.[CC]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Bradley L. Gibson, Esq.
          Angela J. Gibson, Esq.
          Brian G. Greivenkamp, Esq.
          GIBSON LAW, LLC
          9200 Montgomery, Rd., Suite 11A
          Cincinnati, OH 45242
          Telephone: (513) 834-8254
          Facsimile: (513) 834-8253
          E-mail: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
                  angela@gibsonemploymentlaw.com
                  brian@gibsonemploymentlaw.com

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD: D. Bator's ERISA Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DONALD BATOR, EDMOND W. MOSES, CHRISTOPHER O'MALLEY,
MICHAEL ANTHONY PAPPA and ROGELIO JIMENEZ, JR. on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTER-LOCAL PENSION FUND of the Graphic
Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, LOCAL NO. 458-M GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
UNION, DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 4 GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE OF
THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, and THE INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Defendants, Case No. 18 CV 01770 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
Defendants' motions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

The Plaintiffs, former members of a local union that participates
in an employee benefits plan, allege that both the union and the
pension plan board of trustees violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 by breaching their fiduciary duties to
the plan.

At issue is the administration and alleged underfunding of the
Inter-Local Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications Conference
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a defined benefit
plan designed to provide retirement and other benefits to members
of participating local unions.  Unlike most defined benefit plans,
the Fund is not collectively bargained.  Rather, it is organized as
a trust described in Section 501(c)(18) of the U.S. Internal
Revenue Code.  As such, it is completely employee funded --
employers do not contribute or participate in Fund governance.

The Fund is governed by a Trust Indenture and administered by a
board of trustees consisting of officials from various
participating unions.  With respect to contribution levels, the
Trust Indenture provides that members must contribute $5 per week
unless the member's union has fixed a higher contribution amount
through official action of its membership and with the approval of
the Fund Trustees. Upon retirement, members are entitled to a
monthly lifetime pension.  The monthly pension amount is equal to
2% of the total amount a member contributes during their time as an
employee.

The Named Plaintiffs are employees of Bell Litho Inc., a graphic
communications company, and former members of Local No. 458M
Graphic Communications International Union, a Fund participant.
Notably, Local 458M's bylaws require its members to become members
of the Fund and contribute to the Fund.

The story begins for purposes of the motion in 2008, when Local
458M voted to increase its existing Fund contribution rate from 6%
to 8% of its members' gross weekly wages.  The increase was
memorialized in a contract between Bell Litho employees and Local
458M.  Several years later in January 2014, the Fund notified
participants that its financial health was deteriorating and sought
to facilitate a membership vote to cut benefits and increase
contribution rates.  The Plaintiffs and their co-workers, faced
with the Fund's uncertain financial status and their compelled
participation in the Fund, petitioned Local 458M leadership to
reduce their contribution rate.  Local 458M denied the petition,
noting that individual shops cannot change the contribution unless
there is language in their contract that allows this.

When the contract between Bell Litho and Local 458M expired in
2016, the Plaintiffs and their co-workers tentatively agreed to
renew its terms excepting the language regarding Fund contribution
rates.  LocalP 458M refused to change the language regarding
contribution rates, so the Plaintiffs requested that wage
deductions from their paychecks be discontinued.  Local 458M
responded via letter in February 2016, noting that the Plaintiffs
were required to make their contributions and that failure to do so
could result in expulsion from the union.   In a separate letter,
it noted that Local 458M's by-laws required all its members to
become members of the Fund.  It also admitted, however, that
certain Local 458M members working for employers other than Bell
Litho, who had been brought in when Local 458M merged with a
different union, were not participating in the Fund.  According to
the Union, the Fund's Trust Indenture allows locals to participate
in "segments" and the non-participating members who had been
brought in pursuant to the merger belonged to such segments.

By June 2016, contract negotiations between the Bell Litho
employees and Local 458M had come to a standstill.  In September
2016, the Plaintiffs and other Bell Litho employees met with Fund
Executive Director Larry Mitchell, who was unable to answer
questions regarding the number of Local 458M members who
contributed less than the voted upon 8% contribution rate.
Mitchell stated that the Fund did not monitor or police the local
unions; rather, it received a list of participants and contribution
rates from the unions and took the unions at their word that all
who were required to participate were doing so at the required
rate.

In November 2016, the President of Local 458M sent a letter to all
Local 458M members employed by Bell Litho.  The letter stated that
Fund contribution levels were set by Local 458M membership and
could not be changed without membership approval, and that the Bell
Litho shop steward had failed in his attempts to have the Local
458M membership authorize a vote.  It went on to explain that Local
458 members employed at Bell Litho would no longer be governed by
any collective bargaining agreements and that their contributions
to the Fund would become vested.  According to the Trust Indenture,
a member entitled to a vested benefit may not make further
contributions to the Fund and is eligible for benefits upon
retirement at the rate which was in effect at the time of
termination of active membership.

The Plaintiffs subsequently filed a putative class action suit in
the district.  In Count I, the Plaintiffs allege that the Fund
Trustees breached their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by
failing to enforce terms of the Trust Indenture which required
local unions to apply the same contribution rate formula to all
participating union members and causing the Fund to become
underfunded.  In Count II, the Plaintiffs allege that Local 458M
breached its fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by selectively
enforcing its bylaws.  Counts III and IV allege state law breach of
contract and common law fraud theories against Local 458M.  Both
the Fund Trustees and the Union filed motions to dismiss for
failure to state a claim; the Trustees also argue that the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim asserted in
Count I.

Judge Tharp finds that the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged an
injury-in-fact (risk of denied benefits), that the injury is
traceable to the Defendants' alleged failure to enforce
contribution levels, and that a favorable judicial opinion would
redress that injury by requiring the Defendants to supplement Fund
contribution levels.  The Plaintiffs therefore have Article III
standing and may properly invoke federal jurisdiction.

The Judge dismissed without prejudice the claim asserted against
the Trustees in Count I.  Because the terms of the Trust Indenture
are reasonably interpreted as permitting different pre-approved
segments or groups within a union to contribute to the Fund at
different levels, the Trustees cannot have breached their fiduciary
duties merely by failing to require different segments within Local
458M to contribute at the same rate. To the extent the claim set
forth in Count I is premised on that alleged failure, then, it must
be dismissed.  The Plaintiffs do not allege that any members of a
group that did in fact vote to participate in the Fund later
withdrew from the Fund; to the contrary, the complaint suggests
that the allegedly non-participating segments of Local 458M never
voted to participate in the first place.

As to Count II, the Plaintiffs have failed to explain how the
Union's decision to disclaim interest in its Bell Litho members
(which resulted in the vesting of their Fund contributions) has
anything to do with Fund management.  The decision may have
adversely affected the Plaintiffs' interests as beneficiaries, but
that is irrelevant to an ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claim if
the person making the decision was not acting as a plan fiduciary
when doing so.  

Count III and IV advance state law breach of contract and fraud
theories against the Union. The Union argues that because the Court
has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction,
it should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(3) over the claims asserted in Counts III
and IV.  The Plaintiffs do not dispute the propriety of doing so.
Accordingly, the claims asserted in Counts III and IV are dismissed
without prejudice.  

Judge Tharp granted the Trustees' motion to dismiss the claim
asserted in Count I of the Plaintiffs' complaint because they
failed to adequately allege that the Trustees breached a fiduciary
duty.  He also granted the Union's motion to dismiss, because the
Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the Union acted in a
fiduciary capacity when it permitted union members to contribute to
the Fund at different levels (or not at all).  Because the Judge
has dismissed the claims over which it had original jurisdiction,
it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims
asserted in Counts III and IV.  The dismissals are without
prejudice; if the Plaintiff can cure the deficiencies described
above or advance a legal theory for the claim asserted in Count IV
over which the Court would have jurisdiction, it may file an
amended complaint by July 29, 2019.

A full-text copy of the Court's June 26, 2019 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/E5WTs1 from Leagle.com.

Donald Bator, Edmond W Moses, Christopher O'Malley, Michael Anthony
Pappa & Rogelio Jimenez, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Larry D.
Drury, Larry D. Drury, Ltd. & Thomas M. Rebholz, Larry D. Drury,
Ltd.

The Board of Trustees of the Inter-Local Pension Fund of the
Graphic Communication Conference of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Defendant, represented by Robert A. Seltzer --
rseltzer@cwsny.com -- Cornfield and Feldman LLP & Thomas Martin
Kennedy -- tkennedy@cwsny.com -- Cohen Weiss and Simon LLP, pro hac
vice.

Local 458M Graphic Communications International Union & District
Council No. 4 Graphic Communications Conference of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Defendants, represented by
Wesley G.S. Kennedy -- kennedy@ask-attorneys.com -- Allison,
Slutsky & Kennedy, P.C. & Angie Cowan Hamada, Allison, Slutsky &
Kennedy, P.C..


JB HUNT: Settlement in CA Drivers Class Suit Granted Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the United States
District Court for the Central District of California has entered
an order granting final approval of the class settlement of the
California-Drivers class action suit.

The company was a defendant in a certain alleged class-action
lawsuit in which the plaintiffs were current and former
California-based employee drivers who alleged claims for unpaid
wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other items.

The company reached an agreement and recorded a reserve in
September 2018 to resolve all pending claims for a class settlement
payment of $15 million, subject to Court approval.

The United States District Court for the Central District of
California entered an order granting final approval of the class
settlement on April 23, 2019.

J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. provides truckload freight and intermodal
transportation, logistics management, dry van, and e-business
services. The company was founded in 1969 and is based in Lowell,
Arkansas. The company has operations in the United States, Canada,
and Mexico. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc.


JOHN SZOKE GALLERY: Picon Files Class Suit under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
John Szoke Gallery-57th Street Corp. is facing a class action
lawsuit filed pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. John Szoke Gallery-57th Street
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07212 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 1,
2019).

John Szoke Gallery-57th Street Corp. is an Art gallery in New York
City, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
   150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
   New York, NY 10003
   Tel: (212) 228-9795
   Fax: (212) 982-6284
   Email: nyjg@aol.com


JUN-YAN LLC: Bid for Class Certification in Hussein Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lynn Adelman granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
Conditional Class Certification and Court Facilitated Notice in the
lawsuit styled ABDULLAH HUSSEIN, and LUFTI HUSSEIN, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. JUN-YAN, LLC, YUN
YAN, and JOHN YAN, Case No. 2:19-cv-00021-LA (E.D. Wisc.).

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a district court may
conditionally certify a class to give the representative plaintiff
opportunity to give notice to potential plaintiffs to opt-in,
according to the Order.  At this stage, the district court must
determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a "reasonable
basis" for believing that she is similarly situated to potential
class members.

"At this time, I find the Plaintiffs' have demonstrated this
'reasonable basis,'" Judge Adelman opines.[CC]


JUUL LABS: Lawyer Seeks to Enjoin Sale of E-Cigarettes
------------------------------------------------------
Zach Schlein, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
South Florida attorney has asked a federal judge to halt the sale
of electronic cigarettes manufactured by Juul Labs Inc.

Jonathan Gdanski, Esq. -- scott@schlesinger.com -- a litigator with
the Schlesinger Law Firm in Fort Lauderdale, filed a motion in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida asking for a
permanent injunction against the San Francisco-based based company.
The motion asks the court to block the sale of Juul products
nationwide as the company has never sought approval from the Food
and Drug Administration to sell its electronic nicotine devices, as
required by the Tobacco Control Act.

The injunction request also mirrors the allegations made in the
class action complaint against Juul, its parent company Altria
Group Inc., and Philip Morris USA Inc., a subsidiary under the
Altria corporate umbrella. Both the lawsuit and July 24's motion
contend Juul executives criminally and deceptively underplayed the
risks of e-cigarettes while deliberately marketing their product to
adolescents.

Gdanski told the Daily Business Review that Juul and other
e-cigarette companies were granted a five-year extension to seek
federal approval by the FDA in 2017. However, he said the spike in
Juul usage among young Americans has created a public health crisis
that requires judicial intervention.

"Juul is by far the leader in the field of e-cigarettes and should
be treated as they would've otherwise been treated," Gdanski said,
calling the motion for injunction a hope for a course correction on
the discourse surrounding e-cigarettes. The attorney said seeking a
nationwide injunction is not something he or his firm take
lightly.

"We're seeing that Juul is hunkering down in their ability to
resist regulation. . . . And we decided we cant wait any longer,"
Gdanski said, noting the company has tossed its financial weight
behind a ballot measure to overturn San Francisco's ban on the sale
e-cigarette sales.

Gdanski acknowledged the enormity of requesting a universal ban on
an ubiquitous product.

"I'm sure there is a pushback on nationwide injunctions, but this
issue exists in a much broader space than this motion," he said.
"This is a national public health issue, and litigation is one
component of the weapons that exist to try to promote public
health."

He added, "The ball is in Juul's court to say, ‘Listen, we're
good corporate citizens … and we will prove that [Juul products]
will pass the test for pre-market approval.'"

The class would encompass everyone in the United States who's
purchased Juuls, as well as the legal guardians of underage Juul
users.

Juul is seeking to remove the case to San Francisco, home of its
corporate headquarters. Neither the company nor its legal counsel
responded to requests for comment by deadline.

The motion was filed the same day Juul officials, including company
co-founder James Monsees and chief administrative officer Ashley
Gould,  testified for the first time before Congress on the growing
problem of nicotine addiction among minors. Monsees and Gould were
questioned by lawmakers on JUUL's widespread popularity among high
school students. Both officials testified the company never
actively sought to court minors as customers and rejected
comparisons between Juul and Big Tobacco.

"The last thing we wanted was to be confused with any major tobacco
company," Monsees said of charges Juul intentionally mimicked Big
Tobacco's overtures to younger audiences.

The motion for a preliminary injunction notes cigarette
manufacturer, Altria, which owns Philip Morris, also has a 35%
stake in JUUL. [GN]


KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a securities class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired
the securities of Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. (KPTI) from March 2,
2017, through February 22, 2019 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit,
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, seeks to recover Karyopharm shareholders' investment
losses under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

If you purchased Karyopharm securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Karyopharm KPTI
Shareholder Class Action 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 material misrepresentations and omissions centered on
Defendants' claims regarding results from clinical trials for
selinexor's treatment of patients with certain types of blood
cancer. Defendants claimed that selinexor studies showed that
selinexor was "well-tolerated" by patients and explained that there
were "no new clinically significant adverse events in the patients
receiving selinexor." The Company repeatedly touted the commercial
prospects for selinexor and consistently described selinexor as
having a "predictable and manageable tolerability profile" and a
"very nice safety profile." In reality, selinexor was unsafe with
limited efficacy.

The truth was revealed on February 22, 2019, when the FDA released
a briefing document expressing serious concerns about the safety
and efficacy of selinexor. On this news the company's stock price
fell from $8.97 per share to $5.07 per share.

If you purchased KPTI securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit https://tinyurl.com/yy7mrgvh
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 23, 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 choose to 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 information:;

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


KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights
law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: KPTI) investors
that: (1) purchased shares of Karyopharm's common stock between
March 2, 2017 and February 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"); (2) purchased Karyopharm shares in or traceable to the
Company's public offering of common stock conducted on or around
April 28, 2017 (the "2017 Offering"); or (3) purchased Karyopharm
shares in or traceable to the Company's public offering of common
stock conducted on or around May 7, 2018 (the "2018 Offering," and
together with the 2017 Offering, the "Offerings"). Karyopharm
investors have until September 23, 2019 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

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 February 22, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
released a briefing document which contradicted the Company's
assertions that its treatment selinexor was "well-tolerated" by
patients. Specifically, the FDA revealed that a previous trial of
the Company's selinexor yielded "worse overall survival" and
concluded that selinexor "is associated with significant toxicity"
and "limited efficacy."

On this news, shares of Karyopharm fell $3.90 per share, or over
43%, to close at $5.07 per share on February 22, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that data demonstrated that selinexor was associated
with significant toxicity, was not well-tolerated among patients
with acute myeloid leukemia ("AML"), and resulted in a higher risk
of death; (2) that patients experienced serious drug-related side
effects, and eighty percent of the AML patients treated in the
selinexor trial experienced a serious adverse event; (3) that, as a
result, nearly half of the AML patients were forced to withdraw
from the trial because of drug-related toxicity; (4) that the
toxicity profile of selinexor for the treatment of patients with
multiple myeloma was similar to that observed in AML patients; and
(5) that, as a result, selinexor was neither effective nor safe.

If you purchased securities of Karyopharm during the Class Period
you may move the Court no later than September 23, 2019 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased. [GN]


KARYOPHARM THERAPEUTICS: Howard G. Smith Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ: KPTI) investors that: (1) purchased shares of Karyopharm's
common stock between March 2, 2017 and February 22, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period"); (2) purchased Karyopharm shares in or
traceable to the Company's public offering of common stock
conducted on or around April 28, 2017 (the "2017 Offering"); or (3)
purchased Karyopharm shares in or traceable to the Company's public
offering of common stock conducted on or around May 7, 2018 (the
"2018 Offering," and together with the 2017 Offering, the
"Offerings"). Karyopharm investors have until September 23, 2019 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Karyopharm investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com

On February 22, 2019, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
released a briefing document which contradicted the Company's
assertions that its treatment selinexor was "well-tolerated" by
patients. Specifically, the FDA revealed that a previous trial of
the Company's selinexor yielded "worse overall survival" and
concluded that selinexor "is associated with significant toxicity"
and "limited efficacy."

On this news, shares of Karyopharm fell $3.90 per share, or over
43%, to close at $5.07 per share on February 22, 2019, thereby
injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that data demonstrated that selinexor was associated
with significant toxicity, was not well-tolerated among patients
with acute myeloid leukemia ("AML"), and resulted in a higher risk
of death; (2) that patients experienced serious drug-related side
effects, and eighty percent of the AML patients treated in the
selinexor trial experienced a serious adverse event; (3) that, as a
result, nearly half of the AML patients were forced to withdraw
from the trial because of drug-related toxicity; (4) that the
toxicity profile of selinexor for the treatment of patients with
multiple myeloma was similar to that observed in AML patients; and
(5) that, as a result, selinexor was neither effective nor safe.

If you purchased securities of Karyopharm, have information, would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact:

      Howard G. Smith, Esquire
      Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
      3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
      Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
      Telephone: (215) 638-4847
      Toll-free: (888) 638-4847
      E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com [GN]


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

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between March 2, 2017
and February 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 23, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Karyopharm repeatedly hyped the
commercial prospects of its drug selinexor. The Company focused on
the safety and efficacy of the drug, describing it as having a
"predictable and manageable tolerability profile," adding that it
had a "very nice safety profile," and was "well tolerated" by
patients. In reality, the FDA found that "[t]reatment with
selinexor is associated with significant toxicity" and has "limited
efficacy." Based on these facts, the Company's public statements
were false and materially misleading throughout the class period.
When the market learned the truth about Karyopharm, investors
suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

CONTACT:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Office: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


KITCHEN COLLECTION: Cunningham FLSA Suit Deal Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TROY CUNNINGHAM, v. THE KITCHEN COLLECTION, LLC, Civil
Action No. 4:17-CV-770 (E.D. Tex.), Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman
Division, granted the Parties' Joint Motion for Approval of FLSA
Collective Action Settlement.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misclassified Store
Managers ("SMs") under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), that
SMs often worked over 40 hours per week, and that the Defendant
failed to pay SMs overtime wages, allegations which the Defendant
denies.  The Parties actively litigated this dispute.  This
includes contentious depositions and vigorously litigated motion
practice, including a motion to conditionally certify class, which
was granted in part and denied in part.  A bona fide dispute exists
as a result.

The matter is before the Court on the Parties' Joint Motion for
Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement, which the Magistrate
Judge advised the Court to grant in her Report and Recommendation.
After careful consideration, Judge Mazzant adopted the Report and
Recommendation.  He finds that the Settlement Agreement should be
approved because it is a fair and reasonable settlement of a bona
fide dispute.  

He approved the proposed Notice of Settlement.  In addition to the
settlement checks, the parties have allocated Enhancement Award
Checks ("EACs") of $6,500 for the Named Plaintiff and $4,000 for
Opt-In Plaintiff Katie McMullen, both of whom sat for depositions.
Reviewing the EACs at issue, the Judge finds them fair and
reasonable considering the assistance provided by the Named
Plaintiff and Opt-In Plaintiff McMullen.

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), the parties request an award
of attorneys' fees and costs for the Plaintiff's Counsel.  The
Judge finds that (i) the parties meet their burden of establishing
that Plaintiff's Counsel reasonably expended 484.1 hours; (ii) the
lodestar calculated by the parties of $230,000 work to date and an
additional $15,000 for work to administer the settlement to be
accurate; (iii) there is no need to consider the Johnson factors as
the parties request an attorneys' fees award that is lower than the
calculated lodestar amount; and (iv) the $24,900.45 expenses and
costs award agreed to by the parties in the Settlement Agreement is
reasonable.

Having reviewed the Settlement Agreement, Judge Mazzant is
satisfied that it represents a reasonable compromise of the
disputed claims in this action.  Accordingly, he granted the Joint
Motion.  He approved the Confidential Settlement Agreement.  Rust
Consulting, Inc., is approved as the Claims Administrator, as are
its fees and expenses associated with its role as the Claims
Administrator.  Additionally, the Service Awards to the Named
Plaintiff Troy Cunningham and Opt-In Plaintiff McMullen are
approved.  Finally, the Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and request for
reimbursement of costs and expenses are approved.  The Court will
enter an order of dismissal by separate order.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2019 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/EW8dLG from Leagle.com.

Troy Cunningham, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Luis Quiles --
aquiles@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, PA, Camar R. Jones --
cjones@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, PA & Gregg I. Shavitz
-- gshavitz@shavitlzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, PA, pro hac
vice.

The Kitchen Collection, LLC, Defendant, represented by John Bridges
Brown -- john.brown@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak
& Stewart, PC & Jeffrey Tweedie Leslie --
jeffrey.leslie@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, PC.


L BRANDS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities
of L Brands, Inc. (LB) between May 31, 2018 and November 19, 2018,
inclusive.  The lawsuit seeks to recover L Brands' shareholders'
investment losses.

If you purchased L Brands securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit L Brands Shareholder
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, the
Defendants failed to disclose adverse information regarding L
Brands' business and prospects, which caused L Brands stock to
trade at artificially inflated prices of more than $37 per share
during the Class Period. Specifically, the complaint alleges that,
prior to and during the Class Period L Brands' Victoria's Secret
and PINK businesses began to experience deteriorating operating
performance due to, among other things, increased competition from
new lingerie brands. In an attempt to drive sales and retain market
share in the face of increasing competition, Victoria's Secret and
PINK engaged in heavy promotional activities by offering consumers
large discounts and even giving items free of charge. While this
marketing strategy helped to mitigate sales declines, it adversely
impacted the Company's profit margins and cash flows and had a
deleterious impact on the Company's liquidity. In response to
questions from securities analysts about the sustainability of the
Company's dividends, defendants repeatedly stated that L Brands had
sufficient cash flow and cash on hand to sustain its dividends and
that the Company, "in its history, ha[d] never reduced the
dividend."

After the market closed on November 19, 2018, L Brands issued a
press release announcing its financial results for the 2018 third
quarter, the period ended November 3, 2018.  The press release also
announced that L Brands intended to reduce its annual ordinary
dividend to $1.20 from $2.40 beginning with the quarterly dividend
to be paid in March 2019 in order to deleverage.

If you purchased L Brands securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://tinyurl.com/y2gdbuhx or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court no
later than September 23, 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 Information

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


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

Investors who purchased the Company's shares between May 31, 2018
and November 19, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 23, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. L Brands' Victoria's Secret and PINK
stores experiencing worsening performance due in part to competing
lingerie brands. The Company worked to drive sales through heavy
promotional efforts such as offering customers discounts and free
items. Although these tactics helped L Brands fight declines in
sales, they impacted profit margins and cash flow negatively, also
hurting the Company's liquidity. When asked by market analysts
about the sustainability of the Company's dividend, executives
replied that the Company "in its history, ha[d] never reduced the
dividend." Just weeks later, L Brands announced it was cutting its
dividend in half to pay down debts. On this news, shares of L
brands dropped by 18% on November 20, 2018. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about L Brands, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

CONTACT:

          Brian Schall, Esq.
          The Schall Law Firm
          Website: www.schallfirm.com
          Office: 310-301-3335
          Cell: 424-303-1964
          Email: info@schallfirm.com
                 brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of 3 Vehicle Owners Classes Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LAMYA BREWSTER, ELIAS
ARIZMENDI and JULIAN VIGIL, individually and as class
representative, et al. v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No.
5:14-cv-02257-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal.), move the Court to certify three
classes:

   * OPG CLASS:

     During the class period of November 2, 2012, until the
     earlier of judgment or the complete cessation of LAPD
     Special Order 7 impounds, vehicle owners whose vehicles were
     i) impounded under the authority of LAPD Special Order 7 and
     Vehicle Code Section 14602.6, ii) not released from impound
     on the first day of the impound, and iii) the owner
     retrieved their impounded car from an Official Police Garage
     ("OPG") (tow yard);

   * LO CLASS:

     During the class period of November 2, 2012, until the
     earlier of judgment or the complete cessation of LAPD
     Special Order 7 impounds, vehicle owners whose vehicles were
     i) impounded under the authority of LAPD Special Order 7 and
     Vehicle Code Section 14602.6, ii) whose vehicles were not
     released from impound on the first day of the impound, and
     iii) whose vehicles were released to the vehicle's legal
     owner ("LO") who, by operation of law, did not release the
     vehicle to its owner until after the conclusion of the 30
     day impound period [and who had a driver with a valid
     current California driver's license appear to drive the
     vehicle away]; and

   * LIEN CLASS:

     During the class period of November 2, 2012, until the
     earlier of judgment or the complete cessation of LAPD
     Special Order 7 impounds, vehicle owners whose vehicles were
     i) impounded under the authority of LAPD Special Order 7 and
     Vehicle Code Section 14602.6, ii) whose vehicles were not
     released from impound on the first day of the impound, iii)
     had their impounded car sold at a lien sale by either an OPG
     or by the legal owner [and had a valid current California
     driver's license (as established by DMV data)].

The proposed Class Representatives for each are: Julian Vigil (OPG
Class); Lamya Brewster (LO Class); and Elias Arizmendi (Lien
Class).

The Court will commence a hearing on September 23, 2019, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
          KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT
          975 East Green Street
          Pasadena, CA 91106
          Telephone: (626) 844-7660
          Facsimile: (626) 844-7670
          E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Donald W. Cook, Esq.
          DONALD W. COOK, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 252-9444
          Facsimile: (213) 252-0091
          E-mail: manncook@earthlink.net

               - and -

          Paul Hoffman, Esq.
          John Clay Washington, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN, DE SIMONE, SEPLOW, HARRIS & HOFFMAN
          11543 West Olympic Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731
          Facsimile: (310) 399-7040
          E-mail: hoffpaul@aol.com
                  jwashington@sshhlaw.com


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Mallinckrodt plc (NYSE:MNK) and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the
Southern District of New York, and indexed under 19-cv-7030, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt securities between
February 28, 2018 and July 16, 2019, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Mallinckrodt securities
during the class period, you have until, September 24, 2019, to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com  To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Mallinckrodt was founded in 1867 and is based in the United
Kingdom.  The Company, together with its subsidiaries, develops,
manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical
products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle
East, Africa, and internationally.  It operates in two segments,
Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza.  The Company
markets its branded products to physicians, pharmacists, pharmacy
buyers, hospital procurement departments, ambulatory surgical
centers, and specialty pharmacies.

Among other products, Mallinckrodt's portfolio includes H.P. Acthar
Gel ("Acthar"), an injectable drug for various indications, such as
rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, infantile spasms,
systemic lupus erythematosus, polymyositis, and others.  During the
Class Period, Acthar was in a Phase 2B study designed to assess its
efficacy and safety as an investigational treatment for amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis ("ALS").             

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that:  (i) Acthar posed significant
safety concerns that rendered it a non-viable treatment for ALS;
(ii) accordingly, Mallinckrodt overstated the viability of Acthar
as an ALS treatment; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On July 16, 2019, post-market, Mallinckrodt announced that the
Company was permanently discontinuing the PENNANT Trial, assessing
Acthar's safety and efficacy as an ALS treatment.  Mallinckrodt
stated that it decided "to halt the trial after careful
consideration of a recent recommendation by the study's independent
Data and Safety Monitoring Board" ("DSMB"), which "was based on the
specific concern for pneumonia, which occurred at a higher rate in
the ALS patients receiving Acthar Gel compared to those on placebo"
and that "the board also mentioned other adverse events specific to
this patient population."

On this news, Mallinckrodt's stock price fell $0.64 per share, or
7.8%, to close at $7.56 per share on July 17, 2019.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.

         CONTACT:
         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         Pomerantz LLP
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]


MARU RESTAURANT: $1.45MM Daoust FLSA Suit Deal Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELSEY DAOUST, on behalf of herself and those
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. MARU RESTAURANT, LLC, MARU
DETROIT, LLC, MARU EAST LANSING, LLC, MARU GRAND RAPIDS, LLC, MARU
KALAMAZOO, LLC, MARU MIDLAND, LLC and MARU HOSPITALITY, LLC,
Domestic Limited Liability Companies, and ROBERT SONG,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-13879 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Terrence G. Berg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted final approval of
the settlement memorialized in the Settlement Agreement and
Release.

The lawsuit is a hybrid class and collective action asserting wage
and hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
Michigan's Workforce Opportunity Wage Act ("WOWA").  It concerns
the Defendants' use of a tip pool and, later, a service charge.
The Plaintiff contends the tip pool and service charge were
unlawful and should result in the Defendants being unable to take a
tip credit (i.e., paying the lower tipped minimum wage and taking a
credit for tips received to make up for the difference with the
regular minimum wage).  The Defendants denied the Plaintiff's
allegations.

The Parties have agreed to a $1.45 million settlement covering 359
class members.  The settlement was reached during arms-length
negotiations between the Parties, which were conducted by
experienced counsel following extensive investigation, and on the
basis of mutual recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of each
other's positions.  The settlement was achieved during mediation
with the assistance of the Hon. Steven Rhodes (Retired Chief Judge,
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan).  After
subtracting for fees, administrative costs and the like, the
average payment per class member is approximately $2,585.

Based upon the facts presented to the Court during the June 19,
2019 Final Approval and Fairness Hearing, Judge Berg's review of
the Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law is Support of the Motion for
Preliminary Approval, the Declaration of Andrew R. Frisch, and all
other papers submitted in connection with the Plaintiff's Motion
for Preliminary Approval, the Judge granted final approval of the
settlement memorialized in the Settlement Agreement and Release
between the Parties, and so ordered all of its terms except as set
forth in the Final Order.

He certified the following class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e), for
settlement purposes only: All tipped server employees who worked
for any of the Defendants from Nov. 30, 2014 through June 3, 2018,
with the exception of six servers who did not receive the class
notice after a remailing and who therefore are excluded from the
class definition.

The Parties have recalculated certain figures stated in the
Settlement Agreement as a result of increased costs from the
settlement administrator, which were $33,625 versus the $16,500
estimated in the Settlement Agreement.  Accordingly, it is
understood that the amount available for distribution to the class,
as specified in Section 7.1 of the Settlement Agreement, is
$928,041.69 instead of $945,166.67.

The installment payment chart referenced in Section 8.2 of the
Settlement Agreement is updated as follows:

     Installment      Paid to        Amount Remaining for Payment  
    
                   Class Counsel      Participating Class Members

    1 ($290,000)    $96,666.66             $154,708.34
    2 ($145,000)    $48,333.33             $96,666.67
    3 ($145,000)    $48,333.33             $96,666.67
    4 ($145,000)    $48,333.33             $96,666.67
    5 ($145,000)    $48,333.33             $96,666.67
    6 ($145,000)    $48,333.33             $96,666.67
    7 ($145,000)    $48,333.33             $96,666.67
    8 ($145,000)    $48,333.33             $96,666.67
    9 ($145,000)    $48,333.36             $96,666.66

The Judge granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
awards Class Counsel $483,333.33 in attorneys' fees and costs, or
one-third of the fund (including any interest in the fund).  The
awarded attorneys' fees and reimbursed costs will be paid from the
settlement fund.

He also finds the service award of $5,000 to named-Plaintiff,
Kelsey Daoust, to be reasonable as well.  The amount will be paid
from the settlement fund.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/Z9pLRc from Leagle.com.

Kelsey Daoust, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Frisch --
afrisch@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, P.A. & Michael N.
Hanna -- mhanna@forthepeople.com -- Morgan and Morgan, P.A.

Maru Restaurant, LLC, MARU DETROIT, LLC, MARU EAST LANSING, LLC,
MARU GRAND RAPIDS, LLC, MARU KALAMAZOO, LLC, MARU MIDLAND, LLC,
MARU HOSPITALITY, LLC & Robert Song, Defendants, represented by
Robert J. Muchnick -- rmuchnick@honigman.com -- Honigman LLC &
Sean
F. Crotty -- scrotty@honigman.com -- Honigman LLP.


MARY KAY: Reid Alleges Breach of Disabilities Act in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Kay, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Valentin
Reid, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Mary Kay, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07201-LTS
(S.D. N.Y., Aug. 1, 2019).

Mary Kay Inc. is an American privately owned multi-level marketing
company. According to Direct Selling News, Mary Kay was the sixth
largest network marketing company in the world in 2018, with a
wholesale volume of US$3.25 billion. Mary Kay is based in Addison,
Texas, outside Dallas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   David Paul Force, Esq.
   Stein Saks, PLLC
   285 Passaic Street
   Hackensack, NJ 07601
   Tel: (201) 282-6500
   Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com


MASSAGE ENVY: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in Pirozzi Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Mark Pirozzi; Keila Green,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Massage
Envy Franchising, LLC, Case No. 4:19-CV-00807-CDP, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The Defendant wants the Appellate Court to determine whether the
District Court:

   1. made a factual error when it concluded that the Second
      Amended Petition's claims exclude massage sessions
      purchased after MEF changed its Web site advertising in
      late 2016, requiring the exclusion of such sessions when
      calculating the amount in controversy under CAFA?

   2. erred when it ordered remand based on its sua sponte
      finding that its amount in controversy in the SAP does not
      exceed $5 million, even though Plaintiffs confirm the
      amount in controversy exceeds $5 million? and

   3. erred when it excluded punitive damages and attorneys' fees
      from the amount in controversy calculation because it found
      these damages were speculative and that it was "more
      likely" that the Plaintiffs could not recover punitive
      damages, rather than determining whether a fact finder
      could legally award punitive damages?

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act by Deception (Count I), by Unfair Practices (Count
II), by Unjust Enrichment (Count III), and seeks Injunctive and
Declaratory Relief (Count IV).  Mr. Pirozzi alleged MEF was liable
under the MMPA because 1-hour massage sessions purchased at
independently owned and operated Massage Envy(R) Missouri
franchised locations include approximately 10 minutes to undress,
dress, and consult with their massage therapist, which allegedly
was not disclosed.

The appellate case is captioned as Massage Envy Franchising, LLC v.
Mark Pirozzi; Keila Green, Case No. 19-8014, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
          Daniel S. Levy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD, LLC
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1645
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
          Telephone: (314) 241-5799
          E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com
                  dlevy@cornfeldlegal.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
          Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., Esq.
          Ryan L. Bruning, Esq.
          Edward M. Roth, Esq.
          THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC
          555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 735-8100
          E-mail: tony@bruninglegal.com
                  aj@bruninglegal.com
                  ryan@bruninglegal.com
                  eroth@bruninglegal.com

Defendant-Petitioner MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING, LLC is represented
by:

          Michael B. Kass, Esq.
          Thomas Weaver, Esq.
          Cynthia M. Juedemann, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 621-5070
          Facsimile: (314) 621-5065
          E-mail: mkass@armstrongteasdale.com
                  tweaver@armstrongteasdale.com
                  cjuedemann@armstrongteasdale.com

               - and -

          Luanne Sacks, Esq.
          SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 549-0580
          E-mail: lsacks@srclaw.com

               - and -

          Cynthia A. Ricketts, Esq.
          Nathan J. Kunz, Esq.
          SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE LLP
          2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1910
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 385-3370
          Facsimile: (602) 385-3371
          E-mail: cricketts@srclaw.com
                  nkunz@srclaw.com


MEDICAL SYNERGY: M. Papadopoulos Sues Over Illegal Fax Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
M. PAPADOPOULOS DENTAL CORP. dba VILLAGE FAMILY DENTAL OFFICE,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MEDICAL
SYNERGY, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-06515 (C.D. Cal., July 26, 2019),
is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act for transmitting one or more
facsimiles advertising the commercial availability or quality of
property, goods, or services, without having obtained prior express
invitation or permission to transmit said facsimiles.

Medical Synergy is a corporation located in Phoenix, Arizona, which
transacts business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          G. Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
          6464 W. Sunset Boulevard, Suite 960
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 940-1700
          Facsimile: (323) 238-8095
          E-mail: tom@mblawapc.com
                  nick@mblawapc.com


NANTHEALTH INC: Court Certifies IPO stocks Subclassess
------------------------------------------------------
ATUL SINGH DEORA, et al., the Plaintiffs, vs. NANTHEALTH, INC., et
al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01825-TJH-MRW (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. entered an order on July 30,
2019, certifying a class of purchasers of NantHealth's IPO stock
with the following two subclasses:

   Securities Act Subclass:

   "(1) all persons or entities who purchased or acquired
   NantHealth common stock in or traceable 13 to the IPO
   because, inter alia, NantHealth, allegedly, negligently or
   innocently made misrepresentations or omissions of
   material fact in NantHealth's IPO"; and

   Exchange Act Subclass:

   "(2) all persons or entities who purchased any NantHealth
   common stock between June 1, 2016, and May 1, 2017
   because, inter alia, NantHealth, allegedly, fraudulently
   made misrepresentations or omissions of material fact in
   various communications after the IPO".

According to NantHealth's calculations, the Transit Authority does
not have the largest collective loss traceable to the IPO and,
therefore, cannot adequately represent the class pursuant to the
PLSRA. NantHealth's reading of the PSLRA is too narrow.

Pursuant to the PLSRA, the shareholder with the largest loss is
presumptively adequate to represent the class. If the Transit
Authority is not the shareholder with the largest collective loss,
it merely loses the presumption of adequacy. Accordingly, without
the PSLRA presumption, the Transit Authority must prove that it is
adequate to represent the class.

Here, it is undisputed that the Transit Authority purchased  Shares
during the IPO. Because the Transit Authority’s claim is typical
of the class, its interests are aligned with the other putative
class members so that it can fairly and adequately Order -- protect
the class's interest. Moreover, despite being served with copies of
this motion and corresponding briefs, none of the plaintiffs in the
consolidated actions responded to any of the moving or opposing
papers to challenge the appointment of the Transit Authority as the
class representative.

The parties do not otherwise significantly dispute that Rule 23 is
satisfied with regard to the Securities Act. Upon review, the Court
finds that Rule 23(a) and Rule 7 23(b)(3) are satisfied.[CC]

NASTYGAL.COM USA: Defranks Hits Illegal Telemarketing SMS Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Defranks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NASTYGAL.COM USA Inc., Defendant, Case No.
19-cv-23028 (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2019), seeks statutory damages,
punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff claims that she received automated telemarketing SMS
messages from NASTYGAL.COM, without her prior express written
consent.

NASTYGAL.COM is a clothing retailer that specializes in fashion for
young women. It engages in unsolicited SMS marketing in promoting
its products. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: gberg@shamisgentile.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Jarry Appeals Order and Judgment to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Erik Jarry and Robert Jarry filed an appeal from the
District Court's order dated June 25, 2019, and judgment dated June
26, 2019, issued in their lawsuit styled Jarry, et al. v. National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3, et al., Case No. 18-cv-315,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Central Islip).

The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.

The appellate case is captioned as Jarry, et al. v. National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3, et al., Case No. 19-2314, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants Erik Jarry and Robert Jarry, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          MITCHELL PASHKIN ATTORNEY AT LAW
          775 Park Avenue
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 629-7709
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

Defendants-Appellees National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3;
The National Collegiate Funding LLC; Transworld Systems, Inc.;
Turnstile Capital Management, LLC; Vantage Capital Group, LLC; and
John Does, 1-10 being the Servicers of the Loans, are represented
by:

          Aaron R. Easley, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL L.L.C.
          3 Cross Creek Drive
          Flemington, NJ 08822
          Telephone: (908) 237-1660
          E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal


NATIONAL GENERAL: Agreement Reached in Consolidated Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
National General Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that an agreement has
been reached in the consolidated multi-district class action suit
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

The Company as a defendant and the other parties involved in the
consolidated multi-district class action litigation in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California with
respect to allegations of improper practices in the placement of
insurance in the historical and no longer existing collateral
protection insurance program for Wells Fargo have recently reached
agreement upon a settlement of the litigation subject to court
approval.

The Company's net liability relating to the settlement is $10,000
which amount was fully accrued as of December 31, 2018.

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

National General Holdings Corp., a specialty personal lines
insurance holding company, provides various insurance products and
services in the United States, Bermuda, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The
company was formerly known as American Capital Acquisition
Corporation. National General Holdings Corp. was founded in 1939
and is headquartered in New York, New York.


NISOURCE INC: Term Agreement Reached in Greater Lawrence Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on July 29, 2019, that the company
and its subsidiaries have entered into a term sheet with the class
action plaintiffs under which they agreed to settle the class
action claims related to the "Greater Lawrence Incident".

On July 26, 2019, NiSource Inc. (the "Company"), Columbia Gas of
Massachusetts, a subsidiary of the Company ("Columbia of
Massachusetts"), and NiSource Corporate Services Company, a
subsidiary of the Company, entered into a term sheet with the class
action plaintiffs under which they agreed to settle the class
action claims in connection with the series of fires and explosions
that occurred in Lawrence, Andover and North Andover, Massachusetts
related to the delivery of natural gas by Columbia of Massachusetts
on September 13, 2018 (the "Greater Lawrence Incident").

Columbia of Massachusetts agreed to pay $143 million into a
settlement fund to compensate the settlement class and the
settlement class agreed to release Columbia of Massachusetts and
affiliates from all claims arising out of or related to the Greater
Lawrence Incident.

The following claims are not covered under the proposed settlement
because they are not part of the consolidated class action: (1)
physical bodily injury and wrongful death; (2) insurance
subrogation, whether equitable, contractual or otherwise; and (3)
claims arising out of appliances that are subject to the
Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities orders. Emotional
distress and similar claims are covered under the proposed
settlement unless they are secondary to a physical bodily injury.

The settlement class is defined under the term sheet as all persons
and businesses in the three municipalities of Lawrence, Andover and
North Andover, Massachusetts, subject to certain limited
exceptions.

The proposed settlement is subject to negotiation and execution of
a final settlement agreement, and preliminary and final court
approvals.

NiSource Inc., an energy holding company, operates as a regulated
natural gas and electric utility company in the United States. The
company operates in two segments, Gas Distribution Operations and
Electric Operations. NiSource Inc. was founded in 1912 and is
headquartered in Merrillville, Indiana.


NISSAN MOTORS: Denial of Class-Action Status Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports that a
federal appeals court on July 26, 2019, reinstated a proposed
statewide class-action lawsuit accusing Nissan Motors of installing
defective hydraulic clutch systems, which can cause a clutch pedal
to stick to the floor, on some Nissan and Infiniti models dating to
2007.

The suit was filed by Huu Nguyen of San Jose, who said he had to
spend more than $700 to replace the clutch system on the new 2012
Nissan 370Z that he bought for his son as a college graduation
present. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of San Jose said the suit
could not qualify as a class action because the owners' claims for
damages would vary widely, depending on how their individual clutch
systems performed and how long they drove their cars before any
problems arose.

But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said
the suit was based on a claim shared by all owners of the vehicles:
that Nissan had "knowingly designed a defective clutch system and
did not inform consumers of the defect."

Nguyen "does not seek damages for the faulty performance of the
clutch system," but instead alleges that "Nissan's manufacture and
concealment of a defective clutch system injured (buyers) at the
time of sale," Judge Milan Smith said in the 3-0 ruling. The court
returned the case to Koh for a final decision on class-action
status and further proceedings.

Ryan Wu, Esq. a lawyer for Nguyen, said he hopes that "the
thousands of California consumers" who bought the vehicles "will be
able to vindicate their rights and receive compensation." He said
the ruling should also help consumers in other cases by allowing
collective lawsuits over a common defect despite variations in
damage claims.

Lawyers for Nissan could not be reached for comment.

The models targeted by the lawsuit are the Nissan 350Z from 2007
through 2009; the Nissan 370Z from 2009 through 2015; the Infiniti
G35 in 2007 and 2008; the Infiniti 637 from 2008 through 2014, and
all years of the Infiniti Q60, first sold in 2014.

Nguyen said his son was driving his Nissan 370Z on the freeway in
March 2014 when the clutch pedal lost pressure and would not return
to its low position, forcing him to pull off the road and slow down
until he was finally able to shift into second gear. The dealer
replaced the clutch system without charge because the car was still
under warranty, the suit said, but the same thing happened again
two years later and Nguyen had to buy a new clutch system.

The suit said Nissan, when it redesigned the vehicles' clutch
system in 2007, replaced a previous aluminum structure with an
aluminum-plastic alloy that could not properly absorb heat and
caused the system to overload. Nguyen's lawyers quoted Nissan
internal records in 2007 about an "abnormal high-temperature" and a
company engineer who wrote in 2012 that "frequent claims of clutch
pedal sticking to floor" had created a "breakdown item."

The company issued a service bulletin in 2013 instructing dealers
to replace the clutch systems, but has never notified consumers,
the suit said. Wu said he has heard many reports of other stalls
and breakdowns, but none that caused major injuries.

In her April 2018 ruling that allowed Nguyen to sue only for
himself, Koh said the value of the cars and their clutch systems
would depend on their use by individual owners — Nguyen's son,
for example, drove his car more than 26,000 miles before the first
failure. But the appeals court said a class action can be based on
a common defect that exists when an item is purchased, no matter
how long it is used.

Under California law that applies to the case, Smith said, quoting
an earlier ruling of the appeals court, "the focus is on the
difference between what was paid and what a reasonable consumer
would have paid at the time of purchase" if the defects had been
disclosed. [GN]


OFFICE FURNITURE: Bedolla Hits Biometrics Data Sharing
------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Nieto Bedolla, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Office Furniture Center LLC and
Wurkwel Ventures, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2019CH08550 (Ill. Cir.,
July 22, 2019), seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease
all unlawful activity related to the capture, collection, storage
and use of biometrics; and statutory damages together with costs
and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act.

Defendants are providers of office furniture products and corporate
tenant management where Plaintiff worked at one of their facilities
in Illinois. He was required to "clock-in" and "clock-out" using a
timeclock that scanned fingerprints. The Plaintiff asserts that
Defendants improperly disclosed employees' fingerprint data without
informed consent. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William P.N. Kingston, Esq.
      Jad Sheikali, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: wkingston@mcgpc.com
             jsheikali@mcgpc.com


ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Housing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Housing is a Human Right Orange County and Duane Nichols
filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit entitled HOUSING
IS A HUMAN RIGHT, et al. v. THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al., Case No.
8:19-cv-00388-PA-JDE, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Housing is a Human Right Orange
County, et al. v. USDC-CASA, Case No. 19-71889, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners HOUSING IS A HUMAN RIGHT ORANGE COUNTY, an
unincorporated association, and DUANE NICHOLS, as an individual and
on behalf of the class similarly situated individuals, are
represented by:

          Paul L. Hoffman, Esq.
          SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 396-0731

               - and -

          Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SOBEL
          725 Arizona Avenue, Suite 300
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 393-3055
          E-mail: carolsobel@aol.com

Real Party in Interest CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE is represented by:

          Richard Joseph Grabowski, Esq.
          Robert A. Naeve, Esq.
          John A. Vogt, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
          Irvine, CA 92612-4408
          Telephone: (949) 553-7514
          E-mail: rgrabowski@jonesday.com
                  rnaeve@jonesday.com
                  javogt@jonesday.com


OXNARD SCHOOL: Court Grants Class Certification in J.R. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
J.R., the Plaintiff, v. Oxnard School District, et al., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-04304-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal., July 30,
2019), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt, entered an order on July
30, 2019:

   1. granting a motion for class certification of:

      "all students in Oxnard School District who have or may
      have disabilities and who have been or will be subject
      to the District's policies and procedures regarding
      identification and evaluation of students for purposes
      of providing services or accommodations under the
      Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section
      504 of the Rehabilitation Act and/or the Americans with
      Disabilities Act"; and

   2. granting in part and denying in part the Defendants'
      motion to dismiss.

The Court said, "Defendants do not argue that the standards of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) have not been satisfied. The Plaintiffs
challenge the policies and practices regarding identifying,
locating and evaluating students with disabilities. These are
issues that apply to all class members. Consequently, injunctive
and/or declaratory relief can properly address them. ("Contrary to
the defendants' assertion that each inmate's alleged injury is
amenable only to individualized remedy, every inmate in the
proposed class is allegedly suffering the same (or at least a
similar) injury and that injury can be alleviated for every class
member by uniform changes in statewide [prison] policy and
practice")."

PFIZER INC: Al Haj Seeks to Certify Class in Robitussin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as KARMEL AL HAJ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
PFIZER INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06730 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a Nationwide Class, consisting of:

      "all persons residing in the United States who purchased
      Robitussin Maximum Strength Cough + Chest Congestion DM
      for personal or household use";

   2. In the alternative, to certifying two alternative multi-
      state classes, including:

      Consumer Protection Multi-State Class, consisting of:

      "all persons residing in California, Colorado, District of
      Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan,
      Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
      Mexico, New York, and Washington who purchased Robitussin
      Maximum Strength Cough + Chest Congestion DM for personal
      or household use";

      Unjust Enrichment Multi-State Class:

      "all persons residing in Arkansas, Colorado, District of
      Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico and New
      York who purchased Robitussin Maximum Strength Cough +
      Chest Congestion DM for personal or household use";

   3. As a second alternative, certifying an Illinois Subclass
      under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
      Act and/or the law of unjust enrichment in Illinois:

      "all persons residing in Illinois who purchased Robitussin
      Maximum Strength Cough + Chest Congestion DM for personal
      or household use."

   4. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative; and

   5. appoint her attorneys as class counsel.

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Dr., Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          E-mail: dank@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Darren Malek, Esq.
          VERITAS LAW GROUP
          Kalamazoo Building, 5th Floor
          107 W. Michigan Avenue
          Kalamazoo, MI 49007
          Telephone: (269) 270-3500
          E-mail: dmalek@veritaslawgroup.net

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Sanders May Resubmit Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Gerald Austin McHugh denied the motion for class action
certification in the lawsuit captioned ROCMAN L. SANDERS v. WARDEN
SEAN MARLER, ET AL., Case No. 2:18-cv-05477-GAM (E.D. Pa.).

The Motion to have Complaint Certified as a Class Action Suit is
denied without prejudice to resubmission after the Plaintiff has
complied with the Court's Order of June 12, 2019, according to the
Order.

Sean Marler is sued in his official capacity as warden of the
Federal Detention Center of Philadelphia.[CC]


PRECISION CONCEPTS: Lewis's Bid to Certify FLSA Class Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joi Elizabeth Peake granted the Plaintiff's Motion for
Conditional Certification Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
in the lawsuit titled JONATHAN LEWIS on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PRECISION CONCEPTS GROUP, LLC, Case
No. 1:18-cv-00064-LCB-JEP (M.D.N.C.).

The Plaintiffs' claims under the FLSA are conditionally certified
as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and the
Plaintiff's North Carolina Wage and Hour Act state law claims are
conditionally certified as a class action under Rules 23(a) and
(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The parties are
directed to amend the proposed Notice consistent with the Order.

Plaintiff Jonathan Lewis is appointed as class representative, and
present counsel for Plaintiff, Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq., is
appointed as class counsel for purposes of the collective action
claim under the FLSA and the class action under state law.

Judge Peake also granted the Plaintiff's motion to seal Exhibits A,
B, and J in support of Motion for Conditional Certification.
Exhibits A, B, and J shall be sealed until further order of the
Court.

The matter is set for hearing on August 15, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. if
further review of the Notice is necessary, or if any matters remain
for resolution, but if all disputes have been resolved, the parties
should notify the case manager and file a final copy of the Notice,
and the hearing will be cancelled.[CC]


PRIMEFLIGHT: Velez et al Seek Wages for Aircraft Cleaning Crew
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lionel Velez and Vanessa Guadalupe, On behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. Primeflight Aviation
Services, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01056-JPS (E.D.
Wisc., July 24, 2019), seeks redress for Primeflight's failure to
pay to Plaintiffs compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Wisconsin law.

The Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees are current and
former supervisors, leadmen, and members of aircraft cleaning crews
employed by the Defendant.

Primeflight performs aircraft support services, including aircraft
cleaning services, at more than 40 airports throughout the United
States, including Michell Airport in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiffs, just like the other members of the aircraft
cleaning crews, would begin performing work at their assigned start
times, if not earlier on days when they arrived to their work
stations before their assigned start times.

Specifically, Velez has not received any compensation from
Primeflight for his hours worked during the final Monday to Sunday
workweek that he worked for Primeflight, while Guadelupe has not
received any compensation from Primeflight for her hours worked
during the final two Monday to Sunday workweeks that she worked for
Primeflight, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          The Previant Law Firm S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: 414 271-4500
          Facsimile: 414 271-6308
          E-mail: vh@previant.com

PRO TREE SERVICE: Settlement in Hernandez Suit Wins Prelim. Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on July 29, 2019, in the case entitled
Francisco Hernandez v. Pro Tree Service, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-04503 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Jeffrey Cole.

The minute entry states that:

   -- the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval
      of class action settlement and conditional certification of
      a collective action is granted;

   -- the Fairness Hearing is set for October 24, 2019; and

   -- Counsel shall provide the Court with all documents,
      motions, and proposed orders necessary for the fairness
      hearing no later than October 17, 2019.[CC]


QVC INC: California Court Dismisses Thompson Suit w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIM THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QVC, INC.; QVC ONTARIO, LLC; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:
19-cv-00908-FMO-SHK (C.D. Cal.), Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed without prejudice (i) Thompson's individual claims under
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
(ii) Thomson's class action claims under Rules 23(e) and
41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The
Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Dismissal under Federal Rule 41 and
23(e).

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ZIfDV6 from Leagle.com.

Kim Thompson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica L. Campbell, Aegis Law
Firm PC, Kashif Haque -- khaque@aegislawfirm.com -- Aegis Law Firm
PC, Samuel A. Wong -- swong@aegislawfirm.com -- Aegis Law Firm PC &
Suren N. Weerasuriya -- sweerasuriya@aegislawfirm.com -- Aegis Law
Firm PC.

QVC, Inc & QVC Ontario, LLC, Defendants, represented by Daniel C.
Whang -- dwhang@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Lara Levine --
llevine@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Timothy L. Hix --
thix@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Monica A. Rodriguez --
morodriguez@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Lovoi Suit Challenges Proposed Sale to UTC
------------------------------------------------------------
GERALD JOSEPH LOVOI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. RAYTHEON COMPANY, THOMAS A. KENNEDY, TRACY A.
ATKINSON, ROBERT E. BEAUCHAMP, ADRIANE M. BROWN, STEPHEN J. HADLEY,
LETITIA A. LONG, GEORGE R. OLIVER, DINESH C. PALIWAL, ELLEN M.
PAWLIKOWSKI, WILLIAM R. SPIVEY, MARTA R. STEWART, JAMES A.
WINNEFELD, JR., ROBERT O. WORK, LIGHT MERGER SUB CORP., and UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-01389-UNA (D. Del., July
26, 2019), arises out of the Board of Director's attempt to sell
the Company to United Technologies Corporation through its
wholly-owned subsidiary Light Merger Sub Corp.

The Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on June 9, 2019, when
Raytheon and UTC announced that they had entered into a definitive
merger agreement pursuant to which Raytheon stockholders will
receive 2.3348 shares of the combined company's stock for each
share of Raytheon that they hold (the "Merger Consideration").  The
deal is expected to close in the first half of 2020.

The complaint alleges that the registration statement filed
relating to the Proposed Transaction is materially incomplete and
contains misleading representations and information in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Specifically, the Plaintiff contends, the S-4 contains materially
incomplete and misleading information concerning the sales process,
financial projections prepared by Raytheon management, and the
financial analyses conducted by Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
("Citigroup") and RBC Capital Markets, LLC ("RBC"), Raytheon's
financial advisors.

Raytheon is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the State of Delaware.  The Company's principal executive offices
are located in Waltham, Massachusetts.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

Raytheon, which was founded in 1922, is a large defense contractor.
The Company's business segments include integrated defense
systems, intelligence services, missile systems, space and airborne
systems, and cybersecurity.  Approximately two-thirds of Raytheon's
sales are to the U.S. government, specifically the Department of
Defense, NASA, the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal
Aviation Administration.

United Technologies Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices located in Farmington, Connecticut.
Light Merger Sub Corp. is a Delaware corporation and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of United Technologies Corporation.[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
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400-1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301-3514
          E-mail: info@rowleylawpllc.com


REFINED PRECIOUS METALS: Acosta Hits Illegal Telemarketing Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juliana Acosta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Refined Precious Metals, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 19-cv-61831 (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2019), seeks statutory
damages, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff claims that she received automated telemarketing SMS
messages from Refined Precious Metals, without her prior express
written consent.

Refined Precious Metals, Inc. operates as M!A of London Jewelers.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Telephone: 305-479-2299
      Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


REJ PROPERTIES: Summary Judgment in Badgerow Suit Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Denise A. Badgerow filed an appeal from a Court ruling
entered in her lawsuit titled Denise Badgerow v. REJ Properties,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:17-CV-9492, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 22, 2019, District
Court Judge Jay C. Zainey granted Defendant REJ Properties' Motion
for Summary Judgment.

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

The appellate case is captioned as Denise Badgerow v. REJ
Properties, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 19-30584, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant DENISE A. BADGEROW, on behalf of herself and a
class of those similarly situated, is represented by:

          Amanda Jeanne Butler, Esq.
          BUSINESS LAW GROUP
          700 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 319-4528
          E-mail: abutler@lawgroup.biz

Defendant-Appellee REJ PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, doing business as
Walters, Meyer, Trosclair and Associates, is represented by:

          Ernst Fredrick Preis, Jr., Esq.
          BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P.
          909 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70112
          Telephone: (504) 619-1800
          E-mail: fred.preis@bswllp.com

               - and -

          Claude Favrot Reynaud, Jr., Esq.
          BREAZEALE, SACHSE & WILSON, L.L.P.
          301 Main Street
          1 American Place
          Baton Rouge, LA 70801
          Telephone: (225) 387-4000
          E-mail: claude.reynaud@bswllp.com

Defendant-Appellee AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED is
represented by:

          Nancy Scott Degan, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
          201 Saint Charles Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 566-5249
          E-mail: ndegan@bakerdonelson.com


SHARP ELECTRONICS: James Sues Over Defective Microwave Drawers
--------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY JAMES and JILL WITTMAN, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. SHARP ELECTRONICS
CORPORATION, Case No. 2:19-cv-03246-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, July 26,
2019), alleges that the Defendant's microwave drawers are
unreasonably dangerous and not fit for household use.

Sharp is one of the largest technology companies in the world.  It
designs, manufactures, and sells a variety of technological
products, including kitchen appliances, such as microwave ovens.
Sharp's kitchen appliance portfolio includes multiple different
types of microwaves, including microwave drawers.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Microwaves all contain a defect that
makes them unreasonably dangerous, as various components are
subjected to uncontrolled electromagnetic energy, overheating, are
susceptible to catching fire, and unsuitable for their intended
use.  More specifically, the Plaintiffs contend, the Microwaves are
defectively designed and/or manufactured such that, under normal
and intended use, the electromagnetic waves generated by the
magnetron tube are obstructed while moving down the waveguide
channel into the cooking cavity, resulting in a buzzing noise from
electrical arcing, overheating, smoking and eventual destruction of
the magnetron, leading to scorching of the waveguide.

Sharp is a New York corporation with its principal place of
business located in Montvale, New Jersey.  Sharp distributes and
markets and directs the marketing of the Microwaves in Ohio and
throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William F. Cash III, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY
          & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7059
          E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Harper T. Segui, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  harper@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq.
          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Andrea Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L. Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: jtycko@tzlegal.com
                  hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  agold@tzlegal.com


SJW GROUP: CTWS Merger Related Suits Stayed Until Sept. 11
----------------------------------------------------------
SJW Group said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the court has granted the parties' motion
to continue the stay of proceedings in a shareholder class action
and such stay was further extended until September 11, 2019.

On June 14, 2018, certain shareholders of Connecticut Water
Service, Inc. (CTWS) filed two nearly identical class-action
complaints in Connecticut state court against the CTWS board of
directors, SJW Group, Eric W. Thornburg, Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer of SJW Group, and CTWS.

The complaints, as amended on September 18, 2018 and September 20,
2018, allege that the CTWS board breached its fiduciary duties in
connection with the Merger, that CTWS's preliminary proxy
statement, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
on August 20, 2018, omits certain material information and that SJW
Group and Mr. Thornburg aided and abetted the alleged breaches by
the CTWS board of directors.

Among other remedies, the actions seek to recover rescissory and
other damages and attorney's fees and costs.

SJW Group believes the claims in these complaints are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend this litigation.

The parties to the lawsuits have agreed in principle to settle the
lawsuits in exchange for the issuance of additional disclosures by
CTWS.

Pursuant to the agreements to settle the lawsuits, the plaintiffs
have reserved the right to seek a mootness fee from CTWS.

The parties moved to stay proceedings, other than fee-related
proceedings, until such time as the transaction closes, and the
court granted the parties' motion to stay on November 14, 2018.

On November 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an opening brief in
support of their fee application.

The initial stay of proceedings expired on February 28, 2019. On
March 1, 2019, the court granted the parties' motion to continue
the stay and ordered that the stay was to continue until May 29,
2019.

On May 29, 2019, the court granted the parties' motion to continue
the stay and such stay was further extended until September 11,
2019.

Pursuant to the agreement in principle to settle the litigation,
the complaints will be dismissed at such time when the transaction
closes.

SJW Group has determined that the likelihood of loss related to
these class-action complaints is remote.

SJW Group, through its subsidiaries, provides water utility
services in the United States. It engages in the production,
purchase, storage, purification, distribution, wholesale, and
retail sale of water. SJW Group was founded in 1866 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


SLACK TECHNOLOGIES: D'Ottavio Counsel's Bid to Withdraw Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GINO D'OTTAVIO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SLACK TECHNOLOGIES,
Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-09082-NLH-AMD (D. N.J.), Judge Noel L.
Hillman of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted the Plaintiff's counsel's Motion to Withdraw.

D'Ottavio, filed a putative class action alleging that the
Defendant transmitted dozens of unsolicited commercial text
messages to the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), thereby invading
his privacy.  Slack filed an answer to the Plaintiff's complaint
denying his claims and lodging a counterclaim, claiming that he
abused a feature on Slack's website to deliberately send himself
the texts at issue.

On April 15, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to
dismiss his claims against Slack, but denied without prejudice
Slack's motion for sanctions, as well as the Plaintiff's counsel's
motion to withdraw as the counsel.

Slack's counterclaim remains pending for separate adjudication.

The Court directed the Plaintiff to file a letter on the docket,
either through his current counsel or independently, indicating
whether: (1) he consents to the withdrawal of his lawyers; (2) he
understands that he is still subject to Slack's counterclaims and
request for sanctions against him; and (3) he wishes to represent
himself pro se or obtain another attorney to represent him.  

It directed the counsel for the Plaintiff to provide a copy of the
Opinion and accompanying Order to the Plaintiff and file a
certification of service to document that they did so.  The
Plaintiff's counsel complied with the Court's Order, and the
counsel has refiled their motion to withdraw.

The Plaintiff's counsel relates that after over 20 attempts to
communicate with the Plaintiff over the course of several months to
no avail, the counsel finally communicated with the Plaintiff, and
the Plaintiff related (i) he doed not consent to the counsel's
motion to withdraw as his counsel; (ii) he understands the nature
of the counter suit; and (iii) if Ari Marcus if permitted to
withdraw, he presently does not know how he will be proceeding.

Slack filed a letter stating that it takes no position on the
Plaintiff's counsel's motion to withdraw.

Judge Hillman finds that good cause exists to relieve the counsel
of their obligation to represent the Plaintiff: (1) even though the
Plaintiff has stated to his lawyers that he does not consent to
their withdrawal, the Plaintiff has failed to have any meaningful
communication with his counsel since September 2018, and has not
contacted the Court with regard to any of his concerns, even when
he was encouraged to do so by the Court's prior Orders; (2) the
Plaintiff understands that Slack's counterclaims remain pending
against him, and that Slack's motion for sanctions against him is
not mooted by the dismissal of his complaint against Slack; and (3)
the Plaintiff has consented to the dismissal of his claims against
Slack, and Slack's counterclaims against the Plaintiff remain in
their infancy.

The Judge holds that the Plaintiff's refusal to consent to his
counsel's withdrawal but otherwise fail to communicate with the
counsel or the Court presents an untenable position for the parties
and the Court and frustrates, rather than promotes, the orderly
adjudication of the matter.

For these reasons, Judge Hillman granted the Plaintiff's counsel's
Motion to Withdraw.  Within 20 days of the date of the Order, the
Plaintiff will either (1) enter his appearance pro se; or (2)
obtain new counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 3, 2019 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/AYgzo3 from Leagle.com.

GINO D'OTTAVIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by YITZCHAK ZELMAN --
Yzelman@MarcusZelman.com -- Marcus Zelman, LLC & ARI HILLEL MARCUS
-- Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC.

SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant, represented by MARK S. MELODIA --
Mark.Melodia@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, PAUL JEFFREY BOND
-- Paul.Bond@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP & ZALIKA T. PIERRE
-- Zalika.Pierre@hklaw.com -- Holland & Knight LLP.

SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, Counter Claimant, represented by MARK S.
MELODIA, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, PAUL JEFFREY BOND, HOLLAND & KNIGHT
LLP & ZALIKA T. PIERRE, Holland & Knight LLP.

GINO D'OTTAVIO, Counter Defendant, represented by ARI HILLEL
MARCUS, MARCUS ZELMAN LLC.


SOUTH AFRICA: High Court OKs Historic Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg in late July 2019
granted final approval of the historic settlement reached in May
2018 for thousands of South African gold mine workers and
dependents of workers who developed tuberculosis, silicosis and
other chronic illnesses after being exposed to toxic silica dust
while working in the gold mines.

Few class actions have been brought in South Africa and none for
sick workers prior to this litigation.

"This litigation has always been about providing a means to justice
and meaningful compensation for the thousands of sub-Saharan
African gold miner workers and their dependents," said Motley Rice
attorney Michael Elsner who has been a consultant in the South
Africa litigation since the beginning and was one of the lead
settlement negotiators. "The need for finality of this action is
urgent and immense. Tragically, many workers have passed away since
this litigation began. Thousands of others are struggling with
preventable life-threatening illnesses for simply doing their job.
This agreement shows a willingness on the part of the mining
companies to finally recognize these workers and their families who
have sacrificed for the benefit of the mines. I am honored to have
been able to help play a role in this historic litigation, and am
gratified that the process of providing much-needed compensation
and assistance will finally start very soon."

The very first class action settlement of its kind in South Africa,
the agreement creates a Trust to compensate all eligible workers
who worked in defendant Companies' mines from 1965 to date. The
settlement includes a significant budget for the Trust to locate
potential class members, medically examine eligible miners and
provide compensation to all qualifying class members. The
settlement is not a limited fund or fixed amount. The Companies
have agreed to compensate all eligible Claimants.    

Class members will be provided notice of the approved settlement
terms and details on how to file a claim.

The settlement is the result of years of litigation and
negotiations among lawyers and consultants for the claimants:
Richard Spoor Inc., Motley Rice LLC, Abrahams Kiewitz Inc.,
Hausfeld, LLP, the Legal Resources Centre; and the Occupational
Lung Disease Working Group, representing the respondents: African
Rainbow Minerals, Anglo American SA, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold
Fields, Harmony and Sibanye Stillwater.

South Africa human rights lawyer Richard Spoor, of the Law Office
of Richard Spoor Inc., retained U.S. plaintiffs' law firm Motley
Rice LLC to consult on the litigation in 2011.

Read a joint statement on the specifics of the settlement and view
the final judgement.

Learn more about the settlement.

For more about the history of the litigation, visit
www.goldminersilicosis.co.za.

About Silicosis

Silicosis is caused by breathing in crystalline silica dust, which
comes from the common mineral known as quartz. When inhaled, it
damages lung tissue and results in scarring or fibrosis, which
reduces lung function. Many mining processes, such as blasting,
drilling, handling and transporting rock containing quartz, can
generate crystalline silica dust. The most usual complication of
silicosis, and a frequent cause of death, is tuberculosis.
Individuals with silicosis are three times more likely to develop
tuberculosis, which is already at epidemic levels in South Africa.
Silicosis is irreversible, progressive and incurable.

About Motley Rice LLC

Motley Rice is one of the nation's largest plaintiffs' litigation
firms. With a tradition of representing those whose rights have
been violated, Motley Rice attorneys gained recognition for their
pioneering asbestos lawsuits, their work with the State Attorneys
General in the landmark litigation against Big Tobacco, and their
representation of 9/11 families in the ongoing lawsuit against
terrorist financiers. The firm continues to handle complex
litigation in numerous areas, including securities fraud;
antitrust; consumer protection; mesothelioma; environmental
contamination; prescription and over-the-counter drugs; other
medical devices; human rights; aviation disasters; and wrongful
death. Motley Rice is headquartered in Mt. Pleasant, S.C., and has
additional offices in Connecticut; Louisiana; Washington, D.C.; New
Jersey; New York; Pennsylvania; Missouri; Rhode Island; and West
Virginia. For more information, contact Motley Rice attorney
Michael E. Elsner (NY, SC, VA) at 1.800.768.4026 or visit
www.motleyrice.com. Motley Rice LLC, a South Carolina Limited
Liability Company, is engaged in the New Jersey practice of law
through Motley Rice New Jersey LLC. Esther Berezofsky (NJ, PA) is
the attorney responsible for New Jersey practice. Connect with us
on Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and Twitter. [GN]


SPRINT CORP: Reaches $125,000 Settlement With 23 Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
Katie Bernard, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that the
same day Sprint gained approval from the Department of Justice to
push forward in a merger with T-Mobile, the company filed a
settlement in a class action lawsuit with 23 employees.

The lawsuit, filed in 2017 in Federal District Court for Kansas,
said the company required employees to under-report hours and work
outside their paid hours.

The suit was filed months after the company paid $365,000 to settle
a similar lawsuit with 153 employees.

Sprint officials did not respond to the Star's request for comment
in time for publication.

According to court documents, Sprint will pay a $125,000 settlement
fund. Just under $56,000 will be used to cover attorneys fees and
other out of pocket expenses.

The remaining $69,000 will be split up among the plaintiffs based
on payroll data analyzed by Dr. Liesel Fox, an expert witness in
the case.

The pay will be determined based on the average number of hours
each plaintiff reported working each week, the minimum wage and
overtime pay allegedly due.

The settlement still needs to be approved by the judge.

Brendan Donelon, Esq. and Brent Hankins, Esq., attorneys for the
plaintiff's, said they were unable to comment on the settlement.
[GN]


STATE STREET: Still Defends Suit Over Invoicing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 26, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend itself in a purported class action suit related to the
company's invoicing practices.

In March 2017, a purported class action was commenced against the
company alleging that its invoicing practices violated duties owed
to retirement plan customers under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

In addition, the company has received a purported class action
demand letter alleging that its invoicing practices were unfair and
deceptive under Massachusetts law. A class of customers, or
particular customers, may assert that the company has not paid to
them all amounts incorrectly invoiced, and may seek double or
treble damages under Massachusetts law.

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

State Street Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides a
range of financial products and services to institutional investors
worldwide. State Street Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


TESLA INC: Appeal in Investor Suit over Model 3 Production Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that an appeal is ongoing in the class action
suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, related to the company's Model 3 vehicle.

On October 10, 2017, a purported stockholder class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against Tesla, two of its current officers, and a former officer.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of Tesla securities from May 4,
2016 to October 6, 2017.

The lawsuit claims that Tesla supposedly made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's preparedness to
produce Model 3 vehicles.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2018, and
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018. The court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend.  

Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on September 28, 2018, and
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 15, 2019.  

The hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on March 22, 2019,
and on March 25, 2019, the Court ruled in favor of defendants and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  

On April 8, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and on July
17, 2019 filed their opening brief.

Tesla said, "We expect that our response will likely be due in
September 2019. We continue to believe that the claims are without
merit and intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are
unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
associated with this lawsuit."

On October 26, 2018, in a similar action, a purported stockholder
class action was filed in the Superior Court of California in Santa
Clara County against Tesla, Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers
in an offering of debt securities by Tesla in August 2017.

The complaint alleges misrepresentations made by Tesla regarding
the number of Model 3 vehicles Tesla expected to produce by the end
of 2017 in connection with such offering, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of Tesla securities in such offering. Tesla
thereafter removed the case to federal court.  

On January 22, 2019, plaintiff abandoned its effort to proceed in
state court, instead filing an amended complaint against Tesla,
Elon Musk and seven initial purchasers in the debt offering before
the same judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California who is hearing the above-referenced earlier filed
federal case.  

On February 5, 2019, the Court stayed this new case pending a
ruling on the motion to dismiss the complaint in such earlier filed
federal case.

After such earlier filed federal case was dismissed, defendants
filed a motion on July 2, 2019 to dismiss this case as well.

Tesla said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and
intend to defend against this lawsuit vigorously. We are unable to
estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated
with this lawsuit."

Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The
Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric
powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Palo Alto,
California.


TESLA INC: Consolidated Stockholder Suit over Musk's Tweets Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that a consolidated stockholder class action
suit has been stayed.

Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported
stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in
connection with Elon Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was
considering taking Tesla private.

All of the suits are now pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. Although the complaints vary in
certain respects, they each purport to assert claims for violations
of federal securities laws related to Mr. Musk's statement and seek
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Tesla's securities.

Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint on January 16, 2019
and added as defendants the members of Tesla’s board of
directors.  

The now-consolidated purported stockholder class action is stayed
while the issue of selection of lead counsel is briefed and argued
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

Tesla said, "We believe that the claims have no merit and intend to
defend against them vigorously. We are unable to estimate the
potential loss, or range of loss, associated with these claims."

Tesla Inc. designs, manufactures, and sells high-performance
electric vehicles and electric vehicle powertrain components. The
Company owns its sales and service network and sells electric
powertrain components to other automobile manufacturers. Tesla
serves customers worldwide. The company is based in Palo Alto,
California.


TORKZADEH LAW: Cunningham Sues Over Auto-dialed Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Torkzadeh Law Firm, Fluent,
Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant,
Case No. 19-cv-06221, (C.D. Cal., July 22, 2019), seeks injunctive
relief, statutory and treble damages for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Torkzadeh is a law firm consisting of personal injury and accident
attorneys that employed Fluent, Inc., a provider of digital
marketing services. Torkzadeh contacted Plaintiff on his cellular
telephone in an attempt to solicit Defendant's products using an
automatic telephone dialing system provided by Fluent.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      Meghan E. George, Esq.
      Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Phone: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com
             mgeorge@toddflaw.com
             twheeler@toddflaw.com


TTEC HEALTHCARE: Class of CSRs in Beattie Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SONDRA BEATTIE, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, and FRANCIS HOUSTON, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. TTEC HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., and
TTEC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Civil Action No.
1:18-cv-03098-RM-NRN (D. Colo.), Judge Raymond P. Moore of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado (i) granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification; (ii) denied as
moot the Defendants' motion to stay; and (iii) granted in part and
denied in part without prejudice the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration.

Plaintiffs Beattie and Houston filed the lawsuit as a collective
and class action, alleging, among other things, violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Numerous other Plaintiffs have
opted in to the lawsuit by filing consents to join.

On May 21, 2019, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration with respect to Plaintiffs Beattie and Houston, while
allowing the case to proceed with respect to the other Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification was filed
before that order.

After the order, the Defendants filed a motion to stay briefing on
the issue of conditional certification.  There was no ruling on the
motion to stay, and the Defendants later filed a response to the
motion for conditional certification.  The Plaintiffs filed a
response to tge Defendants motion to stay.  In addition, the
Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration with respect to the
78 opt-in Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs filed a response.

The Plaintiffs seeks conditional certification of a proposed class
consisting of all current and former Customer Service
Representatives who worked for the Defendants at any of their call
center facilities at any time on or after Dec. 3, 2015 up through
and including judgment.  The proposed notice and consent forms are
attached to their motion.

Judge Moore finds that the Plaintiffs have made substantial
allegations that the putative class members were victims of a
single decision, policy, or plan.  He also finds that the fact that
some Plaintiffs will be compelled to arbitrate their claims
individually does establish grounds for denying them notice.  The
Defendants are required to provide contact information for only
those employees who worked for them as customer service
representatives at any time from July 3, 2016, to July 3, 2019.

In addition, the Judge finds that the Defendants' additional
objections to the form and method of notice lack merit.  He sees no
reason why the Plaintiffs should be limited to providing notice by
regular mail.  The Defendants are directed to disclose telephone
numbers and e-mail addresses of each putative collective action
member, and the Plaintiffs may provide notice by e-mail and text
message as well as by regular mail.  

The Defendants cite no authority in support of their contentions
that the Plaintiffs should be prohibited from communicating with
potential collective action members, through its website or by
other means, that the consent form is overbroad, or that the
reference to "unpaid overtime pay" is improper.  And because the
case is being litigated on a contingency basis, the Judge also
rejects the Defendants' argument that potential Plaintiffs need to
be made aware that there is a possibility that they may be liable
for the Defendants' costs of litigation.  Therefore, the Judge
approves the Plaintiffs' proposed notice.

The Judge moots the Defendants' motion to stay briefing on the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification.

As to the Defendants' motion to compel, the Judge grants in part
the Defendants' motion to compel as it pertains to the 55
Plaintiffs for the same reasons stated in the May 21, 2019, order.
With respect to the remaining opt-in Plaintiffs, the Defendants
concede that they have no records of any arbitration agreements.
In the absence of any evidence that these Plaintiffs agreed to
arbitrate, the Judge will not compel them to do so.  Accordingly,
he denies without prejudice the Defendants' motion to compel as it
pertains to the remaining opt-in Plaintiffs.

For the reasons stated, Judge Moore (i) granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification as provided; (ii) denied as
moot the Defendants' motion to stay; and (iii) granted in part and
denied in  part without prejudice the Defendants' motion to compel
as provided.

The Judge conditianally certified opt-in collective action class of
all current and former Customer Service Representatives who worked
for the Defendants at any of their call center facilities at any
time on or after Dec. 3, 2015, up through and including judgment.

He ordered that the Defendants will have 14 days from the date of
the Order to provide the Plaintiffs, through the counsel, with a
list of all employees who worked as customer service
representatives at any time from July 3, 2016, to July 3, 2019,
with their dates of employment, last known addresses, phone
numbers, and e-mail addresses in an agreed upon format.

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

Sondra Beattie, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals & Francis Houston, Jr., individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
represented by Matthew L. Turner -- mturner@sommerspc.com --
Sommers Schwartz, PC, Rod M. Johnston -- rjohnston@sommerspc.com
--
Sommers Schwartz, PC & Kevin Jay Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com
--
Sommers Schwartz, PC.

TTEC Healthcare Solutions, Inc. & TTEC Holdings, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Arthur James Rooney, III --
Arthur.Rooney@bakermckenzie.com -- Baker McKenzie LLP.


UNITEK COLLEGE: Lopez Files Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unitek College NCP,
LLC. The case is styled as Amalia Lopez, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the General Public,
Plaintiff v. Unitek College NCP, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, Case No. BCV-19-102146 (Cal. Super. Ct., County
Kern, Aug. 1, 2019).

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

Unitek College offers nursing, allied health, and IT training
programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Craig J Ackermann, Esq.
   1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
   Los Angeles, CA 90035
   Tel: (310) 824-3828



WELCH FOODS: Woman Files Class Suit Over Alleged Lead, Arsenic
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Legal News Line, reports that a
California woman recently filed a class action complaint against
Welch's alleging the beverage and foods company failed to warn
consumers about lead and arsenic in its products.

Christina Labajo, who lives in Ontario, California, filed the
complaint on behalf of herself and all others on July 16 in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against
Welch Foods Inc. alleging violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, violations of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act and unjust enrichment.

The complaint alleges Welch's products contain dangerous levels of
lead and arsenic, as stated in a Consumer Reports study in January.
The complaint said Welch's White Grape Juice and Concord Grape
Juice were assessed and stated to be dangerous to both adults and
children when consumed in a serving size of more than a half cup a
day.

Labajo alleges in the complaint that consumer are within their
rights to believe that Welch's would not sell a product that was
unsafe for human consumption, as their products are consumables.
The complaint also said Labajo believes it is absurd for Welch's to
expect consumers to know not to consume more than half a serving
size due to a full serving size being unsafe.

The complaint asks for a trial by jury and seeks relief and
judgment against Welch's, restitution, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees, a disclosure by Welch's stating the dangerous substance
levels in their products, court costs and other relief deemed fit.


Labajo is represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Joel D. Smith, Esq. -- jsmith@bursor.com --
and Blair E. Reed, Esq. -- breed@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher
P.A. in Walnut Creek, California. [GN]


YAHOO! INC: Class Action Refused by Quebec Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Gazette reports that in September 2016, Yahoo! published a
press release announcing nearly 500 million of its users had been
victims of a cyberattack in 2014, in which their data had been
stolen.

In December 2016, the company informed its users another
cyberattack had also happened in 2013.

In February 2017, Yahoo! users were informed the use of a fake
cookies browser had allowed a third party to access the information
in their accounts between 2015 and 2016.

The stolen information includes usernames, email addresses, phone
numbers, birth dates, encrypted passwords and, in certain cases,
their security questions and answers, regardless of whether or not
they were encrypted.

Following these events, a request was made in 2017 for the approval
of a class action lawsuit in Quebec.

Brigitte Bourbonniere, who has a Yahoo! email, wanted to represent
the victims in the class action. She wanted all people whose
personal or financial information was stolen during the
cyberattacks to be compensated.

Bourbonniere said she blames Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo Canada for
having been negligent and failed to adequately protect her personal
data.

She argued anyone whose data has been stolen has experienced
inconvenience, distress and economic loss. The class action was
claiming punitive damages.

Bourbonnière's says her account was hacked, but she does not know
what information was stolen. She fears someone will steal her
identity and she is afraid of being defrauded.

Bourbonniere said the incident also caused her embarrassment
because friends had received spam emails on her behalf, attempting
to extort money from them.

For the Superior Court, it is not enough.

Judge Tremblay said Bourbonniere has no reason to believe she has
been the victim of identity theft or has been defrauded, since
there was no suspicious activity in her accounts. Tremblay added
Bourbonnière continues to use her Yahoo! account and has admitted
she has not bought an identity protection service, either.

The only harm she would have suffered is having to change her
passwords and the inconvenience of having to explain to friends the
extortion emails they received, which for the court is not a harm
that can be compensated.

The ruling reads "the plaintiff did not have to pay any expense
associated with the protection of her personal and/or financial
information."

Tremblay wrote in the judgement refusing the class action that a
compensable damage has to be "serious and prolonged," it also has
to "go beyond the ordinary inconveniences, anxieties and fears that
a person living in society can experience." [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 ***