CAR_Public/190816.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 16, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 164

                            Headlines

ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Continues to Defend Flaccus Class Action
ADVANCED MICRO: Court Enters Final Judgment of Dismissal in Kim
ADVANCED MICRO: Decision in Hauck Class Suit under Appeal
ADVANCED MICRO: Petition Seeking Appellate Review in Dickey Denied
AKORN INC: Settlement Reached in Data Integrity Securities Litig.

ALLSTATE CORP: Seeks to Decertify Class in Jimenez Lawsuit
AMERICAN WATER: $7MM Accrued Liabilities in Chemical Spill Suit
AMERICAN WATER: Discovery Ongoing in Water Main Break Suit
AMGEN, INC: KPH Healthcare Suit Moved to District of Delaware
AQUA METALS: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit

BIOSCRIP INC: Faces Brennan Class Suit in Colorado
BIOSCRIP INC: Faces Wheby Class Suit in Delaware
BIOSCRIP INC: Preliminary Injunction in Schmidt Suit Withdrawn
BOEING EMPLOYEES': Marical Suit Moved to District Court
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Accord Reached in 52,000 Surgical Mesh Suits

BUMBLE BEE: Duggan Files Suit Over Tuna Products' Deceptive Labels
CALIFORNIA: Ringgold Files Supreme Court Appeal
CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Grimm Files Suit Over Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Hutchens Discrimination Suit in E.D. Virginia
CAPITAL ONE: Ruffino Sues over Data Breach

CARITAS: Failed to Provide Rest & Meal Breaks, Jaochico Says
CARTERS INC: Aguilar Suit Moved to Eastern District of Washington
CELGENE CORP: Bid for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Pending
CELGENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit in NJ Underway
CHATHAM LODGING: Still Defends Ruffy and Doonan Labor Suits

CHEMED CORP: $5.75MM Settlement Reached in Seper/Chhina Suit
CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery in Phillips Lawsuit Remains Stayed
CHEMED CORP: Lax Class Suit Against Roto-Rooter Services Ongoing
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Stay Discovery in Kater Suit Pending
CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bid to Stay Discovery in Thimmegowda Suit Pending

CLASSIC CHEVROLET: King Hits Unsolicited Marketing
COMMUNITY ASSET: Sarver Seeks Overtime Pay for Security Guards
DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Securities Class Action Filed in New York
ELEGANT LINEN: Caba Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Seramur Sues over Unsolicited Fax

FEDERAL SIGNAL: Court Asks Plaintiffs to Respond to Discovery
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Sept. 24 Final Hearing on Fernandez-Cryer Deal
FREDDIE MAC: 6th Cir. Denies OPERS Bid for Leave to Appeal
FREDDIE MAC: Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Litig. in Discovery
FREIGHT HANDLERS: Ct. Certifies Class of Unloaders in Kraft Suit

FTS INTERNATIONAL: Request of Dismissal Made in Glock Class Suit
GEICO: Subbaiah Insurance Suit Moved to C.D. California
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Appeal in TVPX ARX INC. Class Suit Underway
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Skochin Class Suit Ongoing
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Sept. 9 Oral Argument in Burkhart Suit

GOOGLE LLC: Galvan Sues Over Illegal Google Assistant Recordings
GPB CAPITAL: Wade & Loch Sue over Accounting Irregularities
GREENLIGHT ENERGY: Williams Suit Alleges Unjust Enrichment
GREENSPOON MARDER: Second Circuit Appeal Initiated in Lapan Suit
HALO OF MIAMI: Romanelli Seeks Overtime Wages for Sales Staff

HELLERMANNTYTON CORP: Smith Seeks OT Pay for Employees
HICKORY FOODS: Burkett Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
HIGHBURY CONCRETE: Class Certification Sought in Fabre Suit
HILL AND DALE: Cevallos Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
HOTELS.COM LP: San Antonio Appeals W.D. Texas Order to 5th Cir.

IBM CORP: Supreme Court to Hear ERISA Class Action
INOVALON HOLDINGS: Xiang Class Suit Concluded
INSTABOOST: Schaffer et al. Sue over Unwanted Telephone Calls
INTUIT INC: Allwein Files Suit Over Deceptive, Misleading Ads
J&J INC: Garcia's Bid to Certify Painters Class Granted in Part

JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Daily Class Suits Still Ongoing
JLB ENTERPRISES: Sykes Seeks Minimum Wages for Exotic Dancers
JUUL LABS: Swearingen et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California
KB HOME: Partly Compelled to Reply to AIIRAM Suit Discovery
KEANE GROUP: Faces Wuollet Class Action in Delaware

KIA MOTORS: Smith et al Sue over Defective Airbag Control Unit
LABORATORY CORP: Removes Jan Employee Suit to E.D. California
LADAH LAW: Sloan Seeks Overtime Pay for Legal Services Staff
LSB INDUSTRIES: Request for Exclusion from Class Dropped
LTC DELIVERY: Does not Properly Pay Drivers, Says Suit

MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
MAJESTIC STAR: Clack Suit Moved to Northern District of Alabama
MDL 2492: Ruiz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2492: Scott Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
MDL 2885: Kuhn Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated

MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Johnson Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
MESA LABORATORIES: $3,300 Orrington Settlement to be Paid in Q3
MOLSON COORS: Illinois Class Action Transferred to Colorado
MONSANTO COMPANY: Novell Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
MONSANTO COMPANY: Shafer Sues over Defective Roundup Herbicide

MUNG MEE: Rosas Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class
NIELSEN HOLDINGS: PERS Mississippi Class Suit Ongoing
NISOURCE INC: Settlement Reached in Greater Lawrence Incident
OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway

PANDORA MEDIA: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action
PANDORA MEDIA: Ponderosa Twins Plus One Suit Remains Stayed
PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridan Suits on Pre-1972 Recordings Stayed
PEMC LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Exotic Dancers, Horn Suit Alleges
POWELL PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY: Sandoval Sues over Labor Law Violations

PREFERRED STAFFING: Sanford's Bid for Class Certification Denied
PRIMAL LIFE: Sent Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Jennings Says
RESEARCH AMERICA: Initial Hearing in Byer Suit Set for Aug. 28
RISE PARTNERS: Rodriguez et al Seek OT Pay for Construction Workers
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Action Still Stayed

SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Still Ongoing
SERVICE CORP: Bernstein Suit Over Sales Practices Ongoing
SERVICE CORP: Romano Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
SIRIUS XM: Memorandum of Understanding Reached in Buchanan Suit
SLEEPY'S LLC: Wins Prelim. Nod of Settlement in Sullivan Suit

SOTHEBY'S: Class Suits Challenge Bidfair USA Merger
SOUTHERN POWER: Suit by Monroe Employees' Retirement Sys. Ongoing
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Suit Related to Boeing Aircraft Defects
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settlement Objectors to Drop Appeal
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim

STAR GROUP: Settlement of Donnenfeld Case Pending
STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL: Thomas et al. Sue over Burial Fee
SUNRUN, INC: Saunders Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
SWISSPORT USA: Sandhu Seeks OT Wages for Hourly Agents
TABLEAU SOFTWARE: Faces 3 Salesforce.com-Related Class Suits

TABLEAU SOFTWARE: Scheufele Class Action Ongoing
TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Reiner Securities Class Suit
TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit
TMC 777 ASSETS: Torres-Solorio Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
TRANSPORTATION MEDIA: Class Certification Sought in TJF Suit

TWITTER INC: Consolidated Class Suit in California Ongoing
ULTA SALON: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Scarpino Suit
VICAL INC: Sabatini Balks at Brickell Biotech Merger
VIEGA LLC: Accurate Backflow Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Court Closes Herrington Class Suit

WELCH FOODS: Labajo Claims Juices Contain Lead and Arsenic
WOOD GROUP: Worley Seeks Overtime Wages for HSE Inspectors
XOTICPC.COM: Tatro Sues over Defective Computers & Laptops

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1 Suit vs. Advance Stores Filed in Alameda County
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avborne, et al., Dismissed From Thomas-Fish Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Had 8,762 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morris' P.I. Claims Against BW/IP Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newport Council Pay Out GBP250,000 in 5 Years

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Piscatelli Widow Files Wrongful Death Suit in Del.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prairie du Chien Inmates Sue Over Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schexnayder Sues Bossier, et al., in Louisiana
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Insultech Filed in Pa. Court on Aug. 5

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 12,122 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.2-Bil. Liability at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Washington Couple Sues AO Smith, et al., in Del.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wilson Elser Partner Wins Dismissal of Meso Case


                            *********

ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Continues to Defend Flaccus Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend the "Flaccus Class Action Suit" in Chester
County, Pennsylvania.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in various class action suits. Past suits have been
brought against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in the
following jurisdictions:

(i) 2009, Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama (the "Tiger Pride"
suit), (ii) 2011, Duval County, Florida (the "JWG" suit), (iii)
2013, Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama (the
"Bach" suit), (iv) 2014, Chester County, Pennsylvania (the
"Flaccus" suit), and (v) 2015, Gwinnett County, Georgia (the "Sims"
suit).

The plaintiffs in these cases primarily allege that the defendants
charged improper charges (fuel, administrative and environmental
charges) that were in breach of the plaintiffs' service agreements
with the Company and seek damages for unspecified amounts.

The 2013 Georgia complaint was dismissed in March 2014. The Company
has reached a settlement for $9.0 (inclusive of plaintiff
attorneys' fees and costs), resolving the Tiger Pride, JWG, Bach
and Sims suits.

Obtaining final court approval for this settlement is in process
and such approval is expected to be final in the third or fourth
quarter of fiscal 2019.

The Flaccus suit has not been settled and is still pending.

Advanced Disposal said, "Given the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, including the early stage of the Flaccus case, the
unknown size of any potential class, and legal and factual issues
in dispute, the outcome of this case cannot be predicted and a
range of loss, if any, cannot currently be estimated."

Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. provides non-hazardous solid waste
collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services. The company
was formerly known as ADS Waste Holdings, Inc. and changed its name
to Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. in January 2016. Advanced
Disposal Services, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Ponte Vedra, Florida.


ADVANCED MICRO: Court Enters Final Judgment of Dismissal in Kim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the court in Kim et
al. v. AMD, et al., entered a final judgment dismissing the action
with prejudice.

On January 16, 2018, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Kim
et al. v. AMD, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00321 was filed against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The complaint purported to assert claims against the Company and
certain individual officers for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange
Act.

The plaintiff sought to represent a proposed class of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired AMD's common stock during the
period February 21, 2017 through January 11, 2018. The complaint
sought damages allegedly caused by alleged materially misleading
statements and/or material omissions by the Company and the
individual officers regarding a security vulnerability (Spectre),
which statements and omissions, the plaintiff claimed, allegedly
caused AMD's common stock price to be artificially inflated during
the purported class period. The complaint sought unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 3, 2018, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with
similar allegations and shortening the class period to June 29,
2017 through January 11, 2018. On September 25, 2018, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. On May 23, 2019, the
court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the complaint with
leave to amend.

On June 13, 2019, plaintiffs notified the court that they would not
amend the complaint. On June 14, 2019, the court entered a final
judgment, dismissing the action with prejudice. Plaintiff did not
appeal the dismissal.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. operates as a semiconductor company
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Computing and
Graphics; and Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.


ADVANCED MICRO: Decision in Hauck Class Suit under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the plaintiffs in
the consolidated class action suit entitled, Diana Hauck et al. v.
AMD, Inc. have filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Since January 19, 2018, three putative class action complaints have
been filed against the company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California: (1) Diana Hauck et al. v.
AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0047, filed on January 19, 2018; (2)
Brian Speck et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-0744, filed on
February 4, 2018; and (3) Nathan Barnes and Jonathan Caskey-Medina,
et al. v. AMD, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-00883, filed on February 9,
2018. On April 9, 2018, the court consolidated these cases and
ordered that Diana Hauck et al. v. AMD, Inc. serve as the lead
case.

On June 13, 2018, six plaintiffs (from California, Louisiana,
Florida, and Massachusetts) filed a consolidated amended complaint
alleging that the company failed to disclose its processors'
alleged vulnerability to Spectre.

Plaintiffs further allege that the company's processors cannot
perform at their advertised processing speeds without exposing
consumers to Spectre, and that any "patches" to remedy this
security vulnerability will result in degradation of processor
performance. The plaintiffs seek damages under several causes of
action on behalf of a nationwide class and four state subclasses
(California, Florida, Massachusetts, Louisiana) of consumers who
purchased the company's processors and/or devices containing AMD
processors. The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees, equitable
relief, and restitution.

Pursuant to the court's order directing the parties to litigate
only eight of the causes of action in the consolidated amended
complaint initially, the company filed a motion to dismiss on July
13, 2018. On October 29, 2018, after the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed one of their claims, the court granted the company's
motion and dismissed six causes of action with leave to amend. The
plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on December
6, 2018.

On January 3, 2019, the company again moved to dismiss the subset
of claims currently at issue. On April 4, 2019, the court granted
the company's motion and dismissed all claims currently at issue
with prejudice.

On May 6, 2019, the court granted the parties' stipulation and
request under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to enter a partial final
judgment and certify for appeal the court's April 4, 2019 dismissal
order, and on that same date, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice their remaining claims pursuant to an agreement
whereby, subject to certain terms and conditions, the company
agrees to toll the statute of limitations and/or statute of repose.


On May 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Briefing is scheduled
to be completed later this year.

Advanced Micro said, "Based upon information presently known to
management, we believe that the potential liability, if any, will
not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash
flows or results of operations."

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. operates as a semiconductor company
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Computing and
Graphics; and Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.


ADVANCED MICRO: Petition Seeking Appellate Review in Dickey Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 29, 2019, that the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals has denied the company's petition seeking
appellate review of the January 17, 2019 class certification order
in Dickey et al. v. AMD.

On October 26, 2015, a putative class action complaint captioned
Dickey et al. v. AMD, No. 15-cv-04922 was filed against the company
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Plaintiffs allege that we misled consumers by using the term "eight
cores" in connection with the marketing of certain AMD FX CPUs that
are based on the company's "Bulldozer" core architecture.

The plaintiffs allege these products cannot perform eight
calculations simultaneously, without restriction. The plaintiffs
seek to obtain damages under several causes of action for a
nationwide class of consumers who allegedly were deceived into
purchasing certain Bulldozer-based CPUs that were marketed as
containing eight cores.

The plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees.

On December 21, 2015, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was granted on April 7, 2016. The plaintiffs then
filed an amended complaint with a narrowed putative class
definition, which the Court dismissed upon the company's motion on
October 31, 2016.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint, and
the company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On June 14, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the company's motion to dismiss, and allowing the
plaintiffs to move forward with a portion of their complaint.

On March 27, 2018, plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification. On January 17, 2019, the Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. The class definition does not
encompass the company's RyzenTM or EPYCTM processors. On January
31, 2019, the company filed a petition in the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals seeking review of certain aspects of the January 17,
2019 class certification order.

On May 9, 2019, the parties attended mediation and reached a
tentative settlement. The tentative settlement is subject to a
final executed agreement and court approval.

On June 3, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
company's petition seeking appellate review of the January 17, 2019
class certification order.     

Advanced Micro said, "Based upon information presently known to
management, we believe that the tentative settlement will not have
a material adverse effect on our financial condition, cash flows or
results of operations."

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. operates as a semiconductor company
worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Computing and
Graphics; and Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom. Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in Santa
Clara, California.


AKORN INC: Settlement Reached in Data Integrity Securities Litig.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Akorn, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission filed on July 30, 2019, that the court in
the case entitled, In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities
Litigation, C.A. No. 18-cv-1713, has ordered the parties to file a
motion for preliminary approval no later than August 9, 2019, and
set a hearing on the motion for August 26, 2019.

Akorn, Inc. (the "Company") is a defendant in a putative class
action litigation captioned In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity
Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 18-cv-1713 (N.D. Ill.), alleging
certain violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  

The Company and the lead plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action
have advised the court presiding over the Securities Class Action
that they have entered into a non-binding agreement in principle to
resolve the Securities Class Action and the claims of the putative
class.  

On July 30, 2019, at a scheduled court conference, the court
ordered that the parties file a motion for preliminary approval no
later than August 9, 2019, and set a hearing on the motion for
August 26, 2019.  

Any objections to the motion for preliminary approval will be due
no later than August 19, 2019.  The court further entered a finding
of relatedness with respect to Manikay Master Fund, LP et al. v.
Akorn, Inc. et al., 19-cv-4651 (N.D. Ill.), and requested
reassignment of that action.

Under the terms of the non-binding agreement in principle, the
putative class would release the Class Claims in exchange for a
combination of (i) up to $30 million in insurance proceeds from the
Company's D&O insurance policies, (ii) the issuance by the Company
of approximately 6.5 million shares of the Company's common stock
and any additional shares of Company common stock that are released
as a result of the expiration of out of the money options through
December 31, 2024 and (iii) the issuance by the Company of
contingent value rights ("CVR") with a five year term, subject to
an extension of up to two years under certain circumstances.  

Under the terms of the non-binding agreement in principle, holders
of the CVR would be entitled to receive an annual cash payment from
the Company of 33.3% of "Excess EBITDA" (i.e., earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) above the
amount of EBITDA required to meet a 3.0x net leverage ratio,
assuming a $100.0 million minimum cash cushion, before any such CVR
payment is triggered).  To the extent any such annual payments are
triggered under the CVR, they are capped at an aggregate of $12.0
million per year and $60.0 million in the aggregate during the term
of the CVR.

Akorn, Inc., a specialty generic pharmaceutical company, develops,
manufactures, and markets generic and branded prescription
pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter (OTC) consumer health products,
and animal health pharmaceuticals in the United States and
internationally. The company operates in two segments, Prescription
Pharmaceuticals and Consumer Health. Akorn, Inc. The company is
based in  Lake Forest, Illinois.

ALLSTATE CORP: Seeks to Decertify Class in Jimenez Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jack Jimenez v. Allstate Insurance Company et al.,
Case No. 2:10-cv-08486 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 8, 2010), the court has set
a hearing for Oct. 7, 2019, to consider the Defendant's Motion to
Decertify the Rule 23 Class.

The Defendant filed the Motion to Decertify on July 17.

The Court has set Aug. 19 as the deadline to respond to the motion
to decertify the class, and Sept. 16 as the deadline to reply.

The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the case of Jack
Jimenez, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company was filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on September 30, 2010.

Plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims and other
California Labor Code violations resulting from purported unpaid
overtime.

Plaintiffs seek recovery of unpaid compensation, liquidated
damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The court certified a class that includes all adjusters in the
state of California, except auto field adjusters, from September
29, 2006 to final judgment. Allstate's appeals to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals and then to the U.S. Supreme Court did not result
in decertification.

The Allstate Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides
property and casualty, and other insurance products in the United
States and Canada. The company operates through Allstate
Protection, Service Businesses, Allstate Life, and Allstate
Benefits segments. The Allstate Corporation was founded in 1931 and
is headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois.


AMERICAN WATER: $7MM Accrued Liabilities in Chemical Spill Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that $7 million of
the aggregate Settlement amount of $126 million has been reflected
in accrued liabilities related to the West Virginia Elk River
Freedom Industries Chemical Spill.

On June 8, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia granted final approval of a settlement class and
global class action settlement (the "Settlement") for all claims
and potential claims by all putative class members (collectively,
the "Plaintiffs") arising out of the January 2014 Freedom
Industries, Inc. chemical spill in West Virginia. The effective
date of the Settlement was July 16, 2018.

Under the terms and conditions of the Settlement, West
Virginia-American Water Company ("WVAWC") and certain other Company
affiliated entities (collectively, the "American Water Defendants")
did not admit, and will not admit, any fault or liability for any
of the allegations made by the Plaintiffs in any of the actions
that were resolved. Under federal class action rules, claimants had
the right, until December 8, 2017, to elect to opt out of the final
Settlement.

Less than 100 of the estimated 225,000 putative class members
elected to opt out from the Settlement, and these claimants will
not receive any benefit from or be bound by the terms of the
Settlement.

In June 2018, the Company and its remaining non-participating
general liability insurance carrier settled for a payment to the
Company of $20 million, out of a maximum of $25 million in
potential coverage under the terms of the relevant policy, in
exchange for a full release by the American Water Defendants of all
claims against the insurance carrier related to the Freedom
Industries chemical spill.

The aggregate pre-tax amount contributed by WVAWC of the $126
million Settlement with respect to the Company, net of insurance
recoveries, is $19 million.

As of June 30, 2019, $7 million of the aggregate Settlement amount
of $126 million has been reflected in accrued liabilities, and $7
million in offsetting insurance receivables has been reflected in
other current assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

The amount reflected in accrued liabilities as of June 30, 2019
reflects $18 million of reductions in the liability during the
first six months of 2019, $14 million of which was recorded as
reductions to the offsetting insurance receivable reflected in
other current assets. The Company has funded WVAWC's contributions
to the Settlement through existing sources of liquidity.

American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Camden, New Jersey.


AMERICAN WATER: Discovery Ongoing in Water Main Break Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that discovery is
ongoing in the Dunbar, West Virginia Water Main Break Class Action
Litigation.

On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete
transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed. The
water main is part of West Virginia-American Water Company's
(WVAWC's) West Relay pumping station located in the City of Dunbar.
The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for
up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers.

In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a
repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak. On June 26,
2015, a second repair was completed and service was restored that
day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers, and to the
remaining approximately 20% by the next morning.

The second repair showed signs of leaking, but the water main was
usable until June 29, 2015 to allow tanks to refill. The system was
reconfigured to maintain service to all but approximately 3,000
customers while a final repair was completed safely on June 30,
2015. Water service was fully restored by July 1, 2015 to all
customers affected by this event.

On June 2, 2017, a class action complaint was filed in West
Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County against WVAWC on behalf of
a purported class of residents and business owners who lost water
service or pressure as a result of the Dunbar main break.

The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to
supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the
sufficiency of WVAWC’s facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the
design, maintenance and operation of the water system. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf of the class
for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and loss of use, as
well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and wanton behavior
in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a large outage.

In October 2017, WVAWC filed with the court a motion seeking to
dismiss all of the plaintiffs' counts alleging statutory and common
law tort claims. Furthermore, WVAWC asserted that the Public
Service Commission of West Virginia, and not the court, has primary
jurisdiction over allegations involving violations of the
applicable tariff, the public utility code and related rules.

On May 30, 2018, the court, at a hearing, denied WVAWC's motion to
apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine, and on October 11, 2018,
the court issued a written order to that effect. On February 21,
2019, the court issued an order denying WVAWC's motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' tort claims.

The court requested that the parties submit a scheduling order with
a trial date of August 26, 2019. The parties by agreement proposed
to the court an agreed-upon scheduling order with a June 2020 trial
date. The court did not enter the order because the trial date is
not available, so setting a new trial date and schedule remains
pending. Discovery in this case is ongoing.

The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious
defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint. WVAWC
is vigorously defending itself against these allegations. Given the
current stage of this proceeding, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate the amount of any reasonably possible losses or a range of
such losses related to this proceeding.

American Water Works Company, Inc., through its subsidiaries,
provides water and wastewater services in the United States and
Canada. The company was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in
Camden, New Jersey.


AMGEN, INC: KPH Healthcare Suit Moved to District of Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. also known as: KINNEY DRUGS, INC.,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiff, vs. Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., Actavis Pharma Inc.,
Actavis plc, Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc., Watson Laboratories
Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc., Actavis Pharma Inc., Watson
Laboratories Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. , and Amgen
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01510, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
(Wilmington) on Aug. 5, 2019. The District of Delaware Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-01460-LPS to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to the Hon. Judge Leonard P. Stark.

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

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 MArket St Ste 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com       

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Melanie L. Katsur, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Ave NW Ste 200
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 887-3636
          E-mail: mkatsur@gibsondunn.com

AQUA METALS: Awaits Court OK on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua Metals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the parties in the case
entitled, In Re: Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No
3:17-cv-7142, are awaiting the court's decision on the defendants'
motion to dismiss.

Beginning on December 15, 2017, three purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United Stated District Court for the
Northern District California against the Company and certain of our
former executive officers, Stephen Clarke, Thomas Murphy and Mark
Weinswig.

On March 23, 2018, the cases were consolidated under the caption In
Re: Aqua Metals, Inc. Securities Litigation Case No 3:17-cv-7142.
On May 23, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and approved
counsel for the lead plaintiffs.

On July 20, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint ("Amended Complaint"), on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased the Company's securities between May 19, 2016 and
November 9, 2017, against the Company, Stephen Clarke, Thomas
Murphy and Selwyn Mould.

The Amended Complaint alleges the defendants made false and
misleading statements concerning the Company’s lead recycling
operations in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The Amended Complaint seeks to hold the individual defendants as
control persons pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
Amended Complaint also alleges a violation of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act") based on alleged false
and misleading statements concerning the Company's lead recycling
operations contained in, or incorporated by reference in, the
Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed in connection
with its November 2016 public offering.

That claim is asserted on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased shares pursuant to, or that are traceable to, that
Registration Statement. The Amended Complaint seeks to hold the
individual defendants liable as control persons pursuant to Section
15 of the Securities Act. The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified
damages and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 18, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint in its entirety and the plaintiff subsequently
filed its opposition to the motion. In January 2019, the court
notified the parties that it will rule on the motion to dismiss
without a hearing.

Aqua Metals said, "We deny that the claims in the Amended Complaint
have any merit and intend to vigorously defend the action."

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

Aqua Metals, Inc. engages in the recycling of lead primarily in the
United States. It produces and sells hard lead, lead compounds, and
plastics. The company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in
McCarran, Nevada.


BIOSCRIP INC: Faces Brennan Class Suit in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------
BioScrip, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit in Colorado
entitled, Lila Brennan v. BioScrip, Inc. et al.

On June 27, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Lila
Brennan v. BioScrip, Inc. et al., was filed in connection with the
Option Care merger in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado.

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

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

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

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


BIOSCRIP INC: Faces Wheby Class Suit in Delaware
------------------------------------------------
BioScrip, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled, Earl
M. Wheby, Jr. v. BioScrip, Inc., et al.

On June 14, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Earl
M. Wheby, Jr. v. BioScrip, Inc., et al., was filed in connection
with the Option Care mergers in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware.

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

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

The complaint seeks, among other things, a preliminary injunction
prohibiting defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the Option Care merger or, in the event that the Option
Care merger is consummated, rescission or rescissory damages as
well as costs incurred in bringing the action (including
plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees).

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


BIOSCRIP INC: Preliminary Injunction in Schmidt Suit Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
BioScrip, Inc.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the plaintiff in Erik
Schmidt v. R. Carter Pate, et al., has withdrawn his motion for a
preliminary injunction.

On June 7, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit, captioned Erik
Schmidt v. R. Carter Pate, et al., was filed in connection with the
Option Care mergers in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.

The complaint names R. Carter Pate, Daniel E. Greenleaf, David
Golding, Michael Goldstein, Christopher Shackelton, Michael G.
Bronfein and Steven Neuman (collectively, the "BioScrip Board"), as
defendants.

The complaint alleges generally that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to disclose all material information
relating to the Option Care mergers. The complaint seeks a judgment
finding defendants liable as well as costs and disbursements,
including attorneys', accountants' and experts' fees.

On July 9, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and for a preliminary injunction, and on July 15, 2019,
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware granted the
plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings and thereafter
scheduled a hearing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction for July 26, 2019.

BioScrip caused certain supplemental disclosures regarding the
proposed mergers to be filed in a Current Report on Form 8-K on
July 24, 2019. Later that same day, the plaintiff withdrew his
motion for a preliminary injunction.

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


BOEING EMPLOYEES': Marical Suit Moved to District Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, Steve R. Marical, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Boeing Employees' Credit
Union, the Defendant, was removed from the King County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington (Seattle) on Aug. 2, 2019. The Western District of
Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-01212 to the
proceeding. The suit alleges violation of the Electronic Fund
Transfers Act.

BECU is a credit union originally established to serve employees of
The Boeing Company.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Ari Y. Brown, Esq.
          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Maria Hoisington-Bingham, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 N 34th St., Ste 300
          SEATTLE, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: abrown@terrellmarshall.com
                  bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  mhoisington@terrellmarshall.com

Attorneys for Boeing Employees' Credit Union are:

          Fred B Burnside, Esq.
          Tim Cunningham, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE (SEA)
          920 5th Ave., Ste 3300
          Seattle, WA 98104-1610
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
          E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com
                  timcunningham@dwt.com

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Accord Reached in 52,000 Surgical Mesh Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has
entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in
the final stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel
to resolve an aggregate of approximately 52,000 cases and claims.

As of July 23, 2019, approximately 53,000 product liability cases
or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed
to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have
been asserted against the company. On April 16, 2019, the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered that all manufacturers of
surgical mesh products indicated for the transvaginal repair of
pelvic organ prolapse stop selling and distributing their products
in the United States immediately, stemming from the FDA's 2016
reclassification of these devices to class III (high risk) devices,
and as a result, the Company ceased global sales and distribution
of surgical mesh products indicated for transvaginal pelvic organ
prolapse.

The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the
U.S. and include eight putative class actions. There were also
fewer than 25 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified and three
putative class actions and fewer than 25 claims in the United
Kingdom.

Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with
use of the company's transvaginal surgical mesh products. The
plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn,
breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection
laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have
been specially assigned to one judge in state court in
Massachusetts.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the
federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for
coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of
2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state
attorneys general offices regarding the company's transvaginal
surgical mesh products. The company has responded to those
requests.

Boston Scientific said, "As of July 23, 2019, we have entered into
master settlement agreements in principle or are in the final
stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve
an aggregate of approximately 52,000 cases and claims. These master
settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution
of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional
upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant
participation thresholds. Of the approximately 52,000 cases and
claims, approximately 42,000 have met the conditions of the
settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered
into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or
concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing."

Boston Scientific Corporation develops, manufactures, and markets
medical devices for use in various interventional medical
specialties worldwide. It operates through three segments: MedSurg,
Rhythm and Neuro, and Cardiovascular. The company was founded in
1979 and is headquartered in Marlborough, Massachusetts.


BUMBLE BEE: Duggan Files Suit Over Tuna Products' Deceptive Labels
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Duggan, Lori Myers, Angela Cosgrove, et. al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods
LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-02564 (N.D. Calif., May 13, 2019), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Unfair Competition Law,
the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and
for unjust enrichment.

Tuna sellers, including the Defendant initiated and implemented a
widespread and long-term marketing campaign that continues to this
day, representing to consumers that no dolphins were killed or
harmed in capturing their tuna, as well as expressing their
commitment to sustainably sourcing tuna. However, the Defendant
does not use dolphin safe methods nor is it sustainably sourced.
The Defendant's dolphin safe representations are false, misleading,
and deceptive, the complaint asserts.

The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendant's canned tuna and were
unaware that the tuna was not dolphin safe as represented and was
caught using fishing methods that are harmful to dolphins.

Bumble Bee was founded in 1899 and has been marketing, selling, and
distributing tuna throughout the United States since 1920. Today,
Bumble Bee Foods LLC is North America’s largest branded
shelf-stable seafood company, offering a full line of canned,
pouched, and tuna on-the-run kits under its flagship Bumble Bee
brand as well as its premium Wild Selections and Brunswick brands.
The Defendant operates its tuna processing facility in San Diego,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
      Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN,
      FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 798-4593
      E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com
              mmuecke@bffb.com


CALIFORNIA: Ringgold Files Supreme Court Appeal
-----------------------------------------------
NINA RINGGOLD; et al., the Petitioners, v. JERRY BROWN, in his
Individual and Official Capacity as Governor of the State of
California and in his Individual and Official Capacity as Former
Attorney General of the State of California et al., the
Respondents, Case No. 19A83 (U.S.), is an appeal filed before the
Supreme Court of United States from a lower court decision in Case
No. 17-16269 (9th Cir.).

The Hon. Elena Kagan, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States and Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit, has
granted the Petitioners' application for more time to file a
petition for a writ of certiorari from July 29, 2019 to August 28,
2019.

Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2101 (c) and
Rules 13 (5), 22, and 30 (3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of
the United States, the Petitioners requested an extension of 30
days to file a petition for writ of certiorari to August 28, 2019.
Absent an extension of time, the petition would be due on July 29,
2019.

The judgment sought to be reviewed is that of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dated April 30, 2019.  

The Petitioners argued that an extension is needed because multiple
parties and entities will be proceeding under Rule 12.4 with
respect to identical or closely related questions that arise from a
federal class action appeal involving the Voting Rights Act, as
reauthorized by the Voting Rights Reauthorization and Amendments
Act of 2006.

The case seeks a special judicial election in the State of
California during the 2020 General Election. Some of the same
persons involved in the federal voting rights case have pending
cases in the state court.

In the state cases the members of the voting rights case contend
that they are being retaliated against. In particular the case of
the lead registered voter's petition exemplifies the substantial
retaliation and voter intimidation encountered due to the effort to
implement a special judicial election. Both persons and entities
with cases still in the state court are seeking relief in this
court at or near the time as the federal case.

There exists identical or closely related questions in the
petitions arising from the state and federal court. The extension
allows for necessary and proper coordination, the Petitioners said.
The extension would allow preparation of a single petition and
related petition to be filed at or near the same time that involve
related proceedings in the state and federal court.

Nina R. Ringgold, Esq., Attorney for the Petitioners, contends that
the California Commission on Judicial Performance has provided two
formal opinions indicating that the present public employment by
judges of the courts of record by counties in the state is
unconstitutional.  Racial and language minorities have legitimately
and thoughtfully sought to obtain a declaration of rights and to
exercise their voting rights to implement a special judicial
election so that California's judiciary could possibly reflect the
rich diversity of the state and they have been subjected to severe
voter intimidation.  In the voting rights case, the Petitioners
twice requested the appointment of a three-judge court. Without
authority the district court struck the 2016 request stating that a
motion had to be filed. This was in complete conflict with the
Supreme Court's decision in Shapiro v. McManus, 136 S.Ct. 450
(2015), and the local rules of the district court.

Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2284 (a) a three-judge court "shall be
convened when required by Act of Congress".  Pertinent to this case
28 U.S.C. Sec. 2284 commands that "[u]pon filing a request for
three judges", a three-judge court is to be convene. There is not
prerogative to disregard the Shapiro decision. See Bosse v.
Oklahoma, 137 S.Ct. 1 (2016).

In Shapiro, the district court dismissed the case for failure to
state a claim for relief.  The Supreme Court held that the judge
was required to refer the case to a three-judge court and that
under 28 U.S.C. Sec.2284 there was no exception and that the
mandatory term shall "normally creates an obligation impervious to
judicial discretion."  The Supreme Court held that whereas the old
version of Sec.2284 triggered the duty to convene a three-judge
court on filing an application (i.e. motion) to enjoin an
unconstitutional state statute, but the current statute triggered
the district judge's duty "[u]pon the filing of a request for three
judges."

The Supreme Court held that the district court was to examine the
complaint to see "whether the 'request for three judges' is made in
a case covered by Sec.2284 (a) -- no more, no less".  This is
because a single judge cannot enter a judgment on the merits.
Given that Section 5 of SBX2 11 remains hidden (uncodified) and
members of the Voting Rights Act are being subjected retaliation
this prevents necessary institutional reform and implementation of
the goals of the Voting Rights Act.

This application allows for petitions to be submitted to the
Supreme Court so that closely related and/or identical questions
may be considered together, Ringgold contends.[BN]

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL: Grimm Files Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Grimm, Judy Milman and Fred Milman, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CAPITAL ONE
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, N.A., and CAPITAL ONE BANK
(USA), N.A., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-02357 (D. D.C., Aug. 5,
2019) is an action on behalf of a nationwide class against
Defendants due to their failure to protect the confidential
information of millions of consumers and small
businesses--including financial information and/or personal
information (collectively, their "Sensitive Information" or
"PII").

The Data Breach that occurred on March 22 and 23, 2019, was
discovered by Defendants on 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. Defendants apparently continued to allow the hacker to
intrude their systems at least until April 21, 2019. The Defendants
only discovered the Data Breach after an individual previously
unknown to Capital One sent an email to Capital One providing a
link to a file containing the leaked Sensitive Information. The
file provided in the link, which was timestamped April 21, 2019,
also contained code for commands used in the intrusion, as well as
a list of more than 700 folders or buckets of data.

The Defendants' security failures demonstrate that they failed to
honor their duties and promises by not: (a) maintaining an adequate
data security system to reduce the risk of data breaches and
cyber-attacks; (b) adequately monitoring its system to identify the
data breaches and cyber-attacks; and (c) adequately protecting
Plaintiff's and the Class's Sensitive Information. Plaintiffs and
other Class Members have been injured by the disclosure of their
Sensitive Information in the Data Breach, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs are individuals who have a Capital One credit card.

Capital One Financial Corporation, through its subsidiaries,
including Defendants Capital One, N.A., and Capital One Bank (USA),
N.A., is one of the largest credit-card issuers in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     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
     Phone: (917) 438-9189
     Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
            bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

          - and -

     Jennifer S. Czeisler, Esq.
     Michael J. Gallagher, Jr. , Esq.
     MILBERG PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
     One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1920
     New York, NY 10119-1065
     Phone: (212) 594-5300
     Email: jczeisler@milberg.com
            mgallagher@milberg.com


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Hutchens Discrimination Suit in E.D. Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nannette Hutchens v. Capital One Services, LLC, Capital One
Financial Corporation, and Capital One, National Association, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00546 (E.D. Va., July 30, 2019), seeks declaratory
relief to determine whether the Plaintiff may proceed with her
claims on a collective basis, on behalf of others similarly
situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, without being in
breach of her Letter of Agreement.

The complaint is a claim for relief pursuant to Older Workers
Benefits Protection Act (OWBPA), and should she prevail on such
claim, then the Plaintiff asserts a corresponding claim under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  The Plaintiff says
she was employed by Capital One, and upon her termination signed a
"Letter of Agreement" purporting to release her claims under ADEA.
She alleges that she was terminated pursuant to an employment
termination program and that the Letter of Agreement failed to
comply with the OWBPA requirement of 45-day consideration period
and a listing of names and job titles of others affected by the
program.  She contends that she is entitled to keep her severance
payment and sue Capital One for age discrimination.

Capital One Services, LLC is a Virginia limited liability company,
which has its principal office in Virginia.  Capital One Financial
Corporation is a foreign corporation.  Capital One, National
Association is a foreign corporation.

The Defendants are related entities in the financial products and
services industry.  According to filings with the Virginia State
Corporation Commission, the Defendants list their principal office
as being located in McLean, Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          CURWOOD LAW FIRM
          530 E. Main Street, Suite 710
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 788-0808
          Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
          E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com


CAPITAL ONE: Ruffino Sues over Data Breach
------------------------------------------
PATRICK RUFFINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
CAPITAL ONE, N.A., AND CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-05234 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 2, 2019), seeks monetary,
injunctive and declaratory relief in connection of a data breach.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated Capital One credit card holders whose personal
information hackers misappropriated and disseminated as a direct
and proximate result of Defendants' failure to use reasonable care
to secure and safeguard consumers' personal information.

The compromised data includes full names, social security numbers,
addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, credit
scores, credit limits, account balances, payment histories, social
security numbers, and bank account numbers.

On July 29, 2019, Capital One announced that it had suffered a
catastrophic data breach of its information technology system
carried out by Paige A. Thomas between March 23 and 24, 2019.

News reports indicate consumers who held "secured" Capital One
credit cards like that issued to and maintained by Plaintiff are
most at risk. Because Capital One required Plaintiff and other
secure card holders to provide their personal bank account
information in order to receive a card, hackers and others may now
have access to not only their personally identifiable information,
but also sensitive bank account information. Capital One's myriad
failures have exposed secure card holders like Plaintiff to an
exponentially greater risk of identify theft and fraud.

Capital One experienced this catastrophic data breach because it
failed to develop, maintain, and implement sufficient security
measures on the relevant databases, its representations to the
contrary notwithstanding. Indeed, this Breach follows in the wake
of a number of widely publicized data breaches affecting companies
such as Anthem, Target, Home Depot, Neiman Marcus, Community Health
Systems, Inc., Michaels Stores, Jimmy Johns, Sony Entertainment,
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., P.F. Chang's, Staples, and others. But
notwithstanding these earlier data security incidents, Defendants
failed to take adequate steps to prevent the Breach from occurring,
the lawsuit says.

Capital One is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards,
auto loans, banking and savings accounts headquartered in McLean,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
             & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                  ctourek@caffertyclobes.com

CARITAS: Failed to Provide Rest & Meal Breaks, Jaochico Says
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Caritas Management
Corporation for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 5-2001. The case is
captioned CRISTINA JAOCHICO, as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf
of other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under the Labor
Code Private Attorney General Act of 2004, Plaintiff(s), vs.
CARITAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a California corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant(s), Case No. CGC-19-577671 (Cal.
Super., San Franscisco Cty., July 16, 2019).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her, the State of
California, and other similarly situated aggrieved current and
former hourly employees who worked in California as hourly,
day-rate, and/or commission-based employees, including hotel desk
clerks and other employees of Defendants in comparable positions,
at any time during the period of April 9, 2018 to the present, for
civil penalties and other related relief. These claims are based on
Defendants' (1) failure to provide all rest and meal periods; (2)
failure to provide accurate written wage statements; and (3)
failure to timely pay wages upon termination of employment.
Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks to recover civil penalties and
related relief through this representative action.

Caritas Management Corporation is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of California. The company is a
wholly-owned, for-profit subsidiary of Mission Housing Development
Corporation. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David G. Spivak, Esq.
     Carl Kaplan, Esq.
     THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
     16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 203
     Encino, CA 91436
     Telephone: (818) 582-3086
     Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
     E-mail: david@spivaklaw .com
             carl@spivaklaw.com

CARTERS INC: Aguilar Suit Moved to Eastern District of Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Maribell Aguilar for Herself, as a Private Attorney
General, and/or On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. Carters, Inc. and 1-10 Does, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 19-00002-02273-39, was removed from the Yakima
County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington on Aug 5, 2019. The Eastern District of
Washington Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-03178 to the
proceeding. The suit demands $510 million in damages.

Carter's, Inc. is a major American designer and marketer of
children's apparel. It was founded in 1865 by William Carter.
Carter's sells its products through its own Carter's and OshKosh
B'gosh retail stores, its website, and in other retail outlets such
as department stores.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Che Corrington, Esq.
          HATTIS & LUKACS
          400 108th Avenue NE, Suite 500
          Bellvue, WA 98004
          Telephone: (425) 233-8633
          E-mail: che@hattislaw.com

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Robert James Guite, Esq.
          SHEPARD MULLIN RICHTER HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
          E-mail: RGuite@sheppardmullin.com

CELGENE CORP: Bid for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of settlement in the antitrust lawsuits
related to the sales of Thalomid(R) and Revlimid(R) is currently
pending before the Court.

On November 7, 2014, the International Union of Bricklayers and
Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund (IUB) filed a putative
class action lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey alleging that the company violated
various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws
by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract with Seratec
S.A.R.L. so that Barr Laboratories allegedly could not secure its
own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b)
allegedly refusing to sell samples of the company's THALOMID(R) and
REVLIMID(R) brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the
alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for ANDAs to be
submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of
these products, and (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent
infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for
proposed generic versions of THALOMID(R) and REVLIMID(R). IUB, on
behalf of itself and a putative class of third-party payers, is
seeking injunctive relief and damages.

In February 2015, the company filed a motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint, and upon the filing of a similar putative class action
making similar allegations by the City of Providence (Providence),
the parties agreed that the decision in the motion to dismiss IUB's
complaint would apply to the identical claims in Providence's
complaint. In October 2015, the court denied the company's motion
to dismiss on all grounds.

The company filed its answers to the IUB and Providence complaints
in January 2016. On June 14, 2017, a new complaint was filed by the
same counsel representing the plaintiffs in the IUB case, making
similar allegations and adding three new plaintiffs --
International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers
Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund (Local 39), The Detectives'
Endowment Association, Inc. (DEA) and David Mitchell. Plaintiffs
added allegations that our settlements of patent infringement
lawsuits against certain generic manufacturers have had
anticompetitive effects.

Counsel identified the new complaint as related to the IUB and
Providence cases and, on August 1, 2017, filed a consolidated
amended complaint on behalf of IUB, Providence, Local 39, DEA, and
Mitchell. On September 28, 2017, the same counsel filed another
complaint, which it identified as related to the consolidated case,
and which made similar allegations on behalf of an additional
asserted class representative, New England Carpenters Health
Benefits Fund (NEC).

The NEC action has been consolidated with the original action
involving IUB, Providence, DEA, Local 39, and Mitchell into a
master action for all purposes.

On October 2, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification
of two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the
District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class.

On February 26, 2018, the company filed its opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings
dismissing all state law claims where the plaintiffs no longer seek
to represent a class. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
company's motion for judgment on the pleadings on April 2, 2018,
and the company filed its reply on April 13, 2018. The plaintiffs
filed their reply in support of their class certification motion on
May 18, 2018. Fact discovery in these cases closed on May 17, 2018
and expert discovery closed on December 11, 2018.

On October 30, 2018, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Celgene's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
On December 14, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class
certification. The company's opposition to Plaintiff's new motion
for class certification was filed on January 25, 2019 and the
plaintiffs' reply in support of their new motion for class
certification was filed on February 15, 2019.

In July 2019, the parties reached a settlement under which all the
putative class plaintiff claims would be dismissed with prejudice;
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of that settlement is
currently pending before the Court.

The settlement amount was not materially different than the amount
the Company had previously accrued for this matter as of June 30,
2019.

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers,
develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer
and inflammatory diseases worldwide. Celgene Corporation was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New Jersey.


CELGENE CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit in NJ Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Celgene Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated class action suit in New Jersey remains pending.

On March 29, 2018, the City of Warren General Employees' Retirement
System filed a putative class action against the company and
certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected sales of
OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod.

On May 3, 2018, a similar putative class action lawsuit against the
company and certain of its officers was filed by Charles H.
Witchcoff in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by making material misstatements and/or omissions concerning
(1) trials of GED-0301, (2) 2020 outlook and projected sales of
OTEZLA(R), and (3) the new drug application for Ozanimod.

On September 27, 2018, the court consolidated the two actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff, lead counsel, and co-liaison counsel
for the putative class. On October 9, 2018, the court entered a
scheduling order which requires lead plaintiff to file an amended
complaint by December 10, 2018; defendants to file their motion to
dismiss the amended complaint by February 8, 2019; lead plaintiff
to file its opposition to the motion to dismiss by April 9, 2019;
and defendants to file their reply by May 9, 2019.

On December 10, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed its amended
complaint. On February 8, 2019, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint in full, and the plaintiff
filed its opposition on April 9, 2019.

Celgene Corporation, a biopharmaceutical company, discovers,
develops, and commercializes therapies for the treatment of cancer
and inflammatory diseases worldwide. Celgene Corporation was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Summit, New Jersey.


CHATHAM LODGING: Still Defends Ruffy and Doonan Labor Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Island Hospitality
Management LLC (IHM) continues to defend two class action suits
entitled, Ruffy, et al, v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et
al. and Doonan, et al, v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et
al.

The nature of the operations of the Company's hotels exposes those
hotels, the Company and the Operating Partnership to the risk of
claims and litigation in the normal course of their business.

Island Hospitality Management LLC (IHM) is currently a defendant in
two class action lawsuits pending in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court.

The first class action lawsuit was filed on October 21, 2016 under
the title Ruffy, et al, v. Island Hospitality Management, LLC, et
al. Case No. 16-CV-301473 and the second class action lawsuit was
filed on March 21, 2018 under the title Doonan, et al., v. Island
Hospitality Management, LLC, et al. Case No. 18-CV-325187.

The class actions relate to hotels operated by IHM in the state of
California and owned by affiliates of the Company and the NewINK
JV, and/or certain third parties.

The complaints allege various wage and hour law violations based on
alleged misclassification of certain hotel managerial staff and
violation of certain California statutes regarding incorrect
information contained on employee paystubs.

The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, money damages, penalties,
and interest.

Chatham Lodging said, "None of the potential classes has been
certified and we are defending our case vigorously. As of June 30,
2019, included in accounts payable is $0.1 million which represents
an estimate of the Company's total exposure to the litigation based
on standard indemnification obligations under hotel management
agreements with IHM."

Chatham Lodging Trust is a self-advised, publicly-traded real
estate investment trust focused primarily on investing in upscale,
extended-stay hotels and premium-branded, select-service hotels.
The company is based in West Palm Beach, Florida.


CHEMED CORP: $5.75MM Settlement Reached in Seper/Chhina Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the parties in
Seper/Chhina consolidated class action have agreed to settle the
lawsuit in the amount of $5.75 million plus employment taxes.

Jordan Seper ("Seper"), a Registered Nurse at VITAS' Inland Empire
program from May 12, 2014 to March 21, 2015, filed a lawsuit in San
Francisco Superior Court on September 26, 2016.  

She alleged VITAS Healthcare Corp of CA ("VITAS CA") (1) failed to
provide minimum wage for all hours worked; (2) failed to provide
overtime for all hours worked; (3) failed to provide a second meal
period; (4) failed to provide rest breaks; (5) failed to indemnify
for necessary expenditures; (6) failed to timely pay wages due at
time of separation; and (7) engaged in unfair business practices.


Seper sought a state-wide class action of current and former
non-exempt employees employed with VITAS in California within the
four years preceding the filing of the lawsuit. She sought court
determination that this action may be maintained as a class action
for the entire California class and subclasses, designation as
class representative, declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
damages (including wages for regular or overtime hours allegedly
worked but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or rest
periods, and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties
associated with each claim, pre and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  

Seper served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jordan A. Seper on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. VITAS Healthcare
Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation; VITAS Healthcare
Corp of CA, a business entity unknown; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive; Los Angeles Superior Court Case Number BC 642857 on
October 13, 2016 ("Jordan Seper case").

The Los Angeles Superior Court Complex Division accepted transfer
of the case on December 6, 2016 and stayed the case. On December
16, 2016, VITAS CA filed its Answer and served written discovery on
Seper.

Jiwann Chhina ("Chhina"), hired by VITAS as a Home Health Aide on
February 5, 2002, is currently a Licensed Vocational Nurse for
VITAS' San Diego program.

On September 27, 2016, Chhina filed a lawsuit in San Diego Superior
Court, alleging (1) failure to pay minimum wage for all hours
worked; (2) failure to provide overtime for all hours worked; (3)
failure to pay wages for all hours at the regular rate; (4) failure
to provide meal periods; (5) failure to provide rest breaks; (6)
failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements; (7)
failure to pay for all reimbursement expenses; (8) unfair business
practices; and (9) violation of the California Private Attorneys
General Act.  

Chhina sought to pursue these claims in the form of a state-wide
class action of current and former non-exempt employees employed
with VITAS in California within the four years preceding the filing
of the lawsuit.  

He sought court determination that this action may be maintained as
a class action for the entire California class and subclasses,
designation as class representative, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, damages (including wages for regular or overtime hours
allegedly worked but not paid, premium payments for missed meal or
rest period, and unreimbursed expenses), all applicable penalties
associated with each claim, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs.  

Chhina served VITAS CA with the lawsuit, Jiwan Chhina v. VITAS
Health Services of California, Inc., a California corporation;
VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation;
VITAS Healthcare Corporation of California, a Delaware corporation
dba VITAS Healthcare Inc.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive; San Diego
Superior Court Case Number 37-2015-00033978-CU-OE-CTL on November
3, 2016 ("Jiwann Chhina case"). On December 1, 2016, VITAS CA filed
its Answer and served written discovery on Chhina.

The Seper and Chhina cases were consolidated in Los Angeles County
Superior Court; Chhina was dismissed as a separate action and
joined with Seper in the filing of amended complaint on August 28,
2018, in which both Chhina and Seper were identified as named
plaintiffs. The parties engaged in a mediation process beginning in
October 2018 and concluded with an agreement in March 2019.  

The agreement has been incorporated into a long-form agreement to
be presented to the court for preliminary approval, notice to class
members, and eventual final approval and payment. The settlement
amount, subject to court approval is $5.75 million plus employment
taxes.

The definition of the class to participate in the settlement is
intended to cover claims raised in the consolidated Seper/Chhina
matter, claims raised in Phillips and Moore, as well as any class
claims in Williams.

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

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CHEMED CORP: Class Discovery in Phillips Lawsuit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that class discovery in the
case, Chere Phillips and Lady Moore v. VITAS Healthcare Corporation
of California, has been stayed.

On May 19, 2017, Chere Phillips (a Home Health Aide in Sacramento)
and Lady Moore (a former Social Worker in Sacramento) filed a
lawsuit against VITAS CA in Sacramento County Superior Court,
alleging claims for (1) failure to pay all wages due; (2) failure
to authorize and permit rest periods; (3) failure to provide
off-duty meal periods; (4) failure to furnish accurate wage
statements; (5) unreimbursed business expenses; (6) waiting time
penalties; (7) violations of unfair competition law; and (8)
violation of the Private Attorneys General Act.  

The case is captioned: Chere Phillips and Lady Moore v. VITAS
Healthcare Corporation of California, Sacramento County Superior
Court, Case No. 34-2017-0021-2755.  

Plaintiffs sought to pursue these claims in the form of a
state-wide class action of current and former non-exempt employees
employed with VITAS CA in California within the four years
preceding the filing of the lawsuit. Plaintiffs served VITAS with
the lawsuit on June 5, 2017.  

VITAS CA timely answered the Complaint generally denying the
Plaintiffs' allegations.  

The Court has stayed all class discovery in this case pending
resolution of the Jordan Seper and Jiwann Chhina cases.

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

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CHEMED CORP: Lax Class Suit Against Roto-Rooter Services Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Roto-Rooter Services
Company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Alfred
Lax, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1 through 50 inclusive.

Alfred Lax ("Lax"), a current employee of Roto-Rooter Services
Company ("RRSC"), was hired in the RRSC's Menlo Park branch in
2007. On November 30, 2018, Lax filed a class action lawsuit in
Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging (1) failure to provide
or compensate for required rest breaks; (2) failure to properly pay
for all hours worked; (3) failure to provide accurate wage
statements; (4) failure to reimburse for work-related expenses; and
(5) unfair business practices.  

Lax has stated these claims as a representative of a class defined
as all service technicians employed by RRSC in California during
the four years preceding the filing of the complaint. He seeks a
determination that the action may proceed and be maintained as a
class action and for compensatory and statutory damages (premium
payments for missed rest periods, uncompensated rest periods, wages
for time allegedly not paid such as travel time, repair time, and
vehicle maintenance time, and unreimbursed expenses), penalties and
restitutions, pre- and post-judgement interest and attorneys' fees
and costs.  

The lawsuit, Alfred Lax, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Roto-Rooter Services Company, and Does 1
through 50 inclusive; Santa Clara County Superior Court Case Number
18CV338652, was received by RRSC on December 11, 2018 and RRSC
timely filed its answer denying the claims.

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

Chemed Corporation provides hospice and palliative care services in
the United States. It operates through two segments, VITAS and
Roto-Rooter. The company was founded in 1970 and is headquartered
in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Bid to Stay Discovery in Kater Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to stay
discovery pending resolution of the motion to compel arbitration in
the purported class action styled Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs
Incorporated, is still pending.

On April 17, 2015, a purported class action styled Cheryl Kater v.
Churchill Downs Incorporated (the "Kater litigation") was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington (the "Washington District Court") alleging, among other
claims, that the Company's "Big Fish Casino" operated by the
Company's then-wholly owned mobile gaming subsidiary Big Fish Games
violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful gambling through its
virtual casino games (namely the slots, blackjack, poker, and
roulette games offered through Big Fish Casino), and seeking, among
other things, return of monies lost, reasonable attorney's fees,
treble damages, and injunctive relief.  

On November 19, 2015, the Washington District Court dismissed the
case with prejudice and, on December 7, 2015, plaintiff’s motion
for reconsideration was denied.  Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
on January 5, 2016 to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

On January 9, 2018, the Company sold Big Fish Games to Aristocrat
Technologies, Inc., a Nevada corporation (Purchaser), an indirect,
wholly owned subsidiary of Aristocrat Leisure Limited, an
Australian corporation, pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement,
dated as of November 29, 2017, by and among the Company, Big Fish
Games and the Purchaser.  

Pursuant to the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Company
agreed to indemnify the Purchaser for the losses and expenses
associated with the Kater litigation for Big Fish Games, which is
referred to in the Stock Purchase Agreement as the "Primary
Specified Litigation."

On February 6, 2018, oral arguments on plaintiff's appeal of the
dismissal of the Kater litigation took place before the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  

On March 28, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed and remanded the Washington District Court's
dismissal of the complaint against the Company. On June 12, 2018,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the
Company's Petition for Rehearing En Banc filed by the Company on
May 11, 2018. On July 13, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Status
Report and Discovery Plan in the Washington District Court.  

On July 20, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration
in the Washington District Court, which was denied on November 2,
2018.  The Company filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint on
November 16, 2018.

The complaint was amended on March 20, 2019, to add Big Fish Games,
Inc., as a party and to assert claims on behalf of an additional
plaintiff, Suzie Kelly. On May 10, 2019, the Company filed an
answer as to the claims asserted by plaintiff Kater, and joined Big
Fish Games in moving to compel arbitration as to all claims
asserted by plaintiff Kelly. Big Fish Games also moved to compel
arbitration against plaintiff Kater. On June 13, 2019, defendants
moved to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion to compel
arbitration, which is still pending.

Chemical Financial said, "In accordance with the terms of the Stock
Purchase Agreement, the Company is working closely with the
Purchaser to vigorously defend this matter in both the Washington
District Court and in any further appellate proceedings, and the
Company believes that there are meritorious legal and factual
defenses against plaintiff’s allegations and requests for
relief."

Chemical Financial Corporation operates as a financial holding
company of Chemical Bank that offers a range of banking and
fiduciary products and services to residents and business
customers. Chemical Financial Corporation was founded in 1917 and
is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.


CHURCHILL DOWNS: Bid to Stay Discovery in Thimmegowda Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that defendants' motion
to stay discovery in Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games,
Aristocrat Technologies Inc. (Purchaser), Aristocrat Leisure
Limited, and Churchill Downs Inc., is pending.

On February 11, 2019, a purported class action styled Manasa
Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Aristocrat Technologies Inc.
(Purchaser), Aristocrat Leisure Limited, and Churchill Downs Inc.,
was filed in the Washington District Court alleging, among other
claims, that "Big Fish Casino," which is operated by Big Fish
Games, violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, and seeking, among other things, return of monies
lost, reasonable attorney's fees, injunctive relief, and treble and
punitive damages.

On May 10, 2019, all of the defendants moved to compel arbitration
of the claims, and the Company, the Purchaser and Aristocrat
Leisure Limited also moved to dismiss the action for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  

On June 13, 2019, defendants moved to stay discovery pending
resolution of those motions.  

Chemical Financial said, "All of these motions remain pending. The
Company is working to vigorously defend this matter, and believes
that there are meritorious legal and factual defenses against
plaintiff’s allegations and requests for relief."

Chemical Financial Corporation operates as a financial holding
company of Chemical Bank that offers a range of banking and
fiduciary products and services to residents and business
customers. Chemical Financial Corporation was founded in 1917 and
is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.


CLASSIC CHEVROLET: King Hits Unsolicited Marketing
--------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CLASSIC CHEVROLET, INC., an Oklahoma
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-00429-CVE-JFJ (N.D. Okla.,
Aug. 5, 2019) is an action against Defendant, Classic Chevrolet,
Inc., to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA").

To promote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited
marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through
this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's
illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on
behalf of herself and members of the class, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies.

Plaintiff is a natural person who was a resident of Tulsa County,
Oklahoma.

Defendant is an automotive dealership that sells vehicles for
individuals and businesses.[BN]


The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark A. Waller, Esq.
     J. David Jorgenson, Esq.
     WALLER JORGENSON, PLLC
     401 S. Boston, Suite 500
     Tulsa, OK 74103
     Phone: 918-629-3350

          - and -

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

          - and -

     Michael Eisenband, Esq.
     EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
     515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954.533.4092
     Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

          - and -

     Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
     IJH LAW
     1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 786.496.4469
     Email: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com

          - and -

     Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
     HIRALDO P.A.
     401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Phone: 954.400.4713
     Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com


COMMUNITY ASSET: Sarver Seeks Overtime Pay for Security Guards
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SARVER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COMMUNITY ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02878 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 2, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act against the Defendant.

Mr. Sarver and the other workers like him regularly worked for CAM
in excess of 40 hours each week. But the workers never received
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single
workweek.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, CAM improperly
classified these workers as independent contractors and paid them
the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those hours in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, the lawsuit says.

Sarver worked exclusively for CAM as a Security Guard/Patrol
Officer from approximately January of 2014 until June of 2019.

CAM provides community management services to the Houston area
since 1991.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

DIEBOLD NIXDORF: Securities Class Action Filed in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit pending before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In July 2019, two shareholders filed putative class action lawsuits
alleging violations of federal securities laws in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The lawsuits assert that the Company and two former officers made
material misstatements regarding the Company's business and
operations, causing the Company's common stock to be overvalued
during the period prior to July 5, 2017, which is the date the
Company issued a pre-earnings announcement reducing its 2017
financial guidance.

The Company anticipates that these lawsuits, along with any other
potential lawsuits addressing the same topic, will be consolidated
into one action. The Company denies any liability, believes the
claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in
these matters.

Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated, incorporated on August 11, 1876,
provides connected commerce services, software and technology. The
Company's geographic segments include North America (NA), Asia
Pacific (AP), Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and Latin
America (LA). These segments sell and service financial
self-service (FSS), retail solutions and security systems. The
Company provides connected commerce solutions to financial
institutions. The company is based in North Canton, Ohio.


ELEGANT LINEN: Caba Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JULIAN ANTONIO LANTIGUA CABA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ELEGANT LINEN OF NY INC (D/B/A
BARGAIN STORE), HAISAM I. ABADI, and ASHI DOE, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07302 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 5, 2019) is an action on behalf of
himself, and other similarly situated individuals, for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the
"NYLL"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff Lantigua worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation
for the hours that he worked, says the complaint. Defendants also
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either
at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium.

Plaintiff was employed as a stock worker at the Defendants'
department store.

Defendants own, operate, or control a department store, located at
1227 Saint Nicholas Ave, New York 10032 under the name "Bargain
Store".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDERAL INSURANCE: Seramur Sues over Unsolicited Fax
----------------------------------------------------
DENNIS R. SERAMUR D/B/A DENNIS & SONS BUILDERS, Individually and as
the Representative of a Class of Similarly-Situated Persons, the
Plaintiff, vs. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AND ROTOBRUSH
INTERNATIONAL LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00571-O (N.D.
Tex., July 12, 2019), seeks a declaration that ForeFront policies
required Federal to defend Rotobrush in an underlying action.

The complaint in the Underlying Action alleged that Rotobrush
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, and the regulations promulgated
under the Act, by sending unsolicited faxes to Seramur and others.


Specifically, the complaint alleged that Rotobrush sent facsimile
transmissions of unsolicited advertisements to Seramur and the
Class in violation of the JFPA, including but not limited to
facsimile transmission of five unsolicited advertisements that
describe the commercial availability or quality of Rotobrush’s
products, goods, and services sent to Seramur on or about May 11,
2016, May 23, 2016, May 24, 2016, and June 7, 2016.

The complaint alleged that the JFPA provides a private right of
action to redress violations of the Act, and it provides for
statutory damages and injunctive relief. In addition, the JFPA is a
strict liability statute, so Rotobrush would be liable to Seramur
and the class members even if its actions were only negligent.

Federal issued to Rotobrush certain insurance policies that
provided primary commercial general liability insurance coverage
for annual policy periods from March 13, 2013 to March 13, 2017;
and certain Commercial Excess and Umbrella Insurance policies, also
for annual policy periods, from March 13, 2013 to March 13, 2017.
Each of the General Liability Policies contained a form of a
specific exclusion applicable to claims for damages arising out of,
among other things, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Federal also issued to Rotobrush certain insurance policies titled
"ForeFront Portfolio 3.0," for annual policy periods from March 13,
2013 to March 13, 2017, and which specifically included Policy No.
8208-1794, issued by Federal to Rotobrush for the policy period
from March 13, 2016 to March 13, 2017, the lawsuit says.

Federal Insurance provides insurance services. Rotobrush
International is a market leader in providing contractors,
businesses and entrepreneurs with indoor air quality and energy
efficiency solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Joshua M. Sandler, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq.
          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: jberman@andersonwanca.com
                  bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Joshua Sandler, Esq.
          LYNN PINKER COX & HURST, LLP
          2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 981-3800
          Facsimile: (214) 981-3839
          E-mail: jsandler@lynnllp.com


FEDERAL SIGNAL: Court Asks Plaintiffs to Respond to Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a court has ordered
plaintiffs to respond to the company's discovery bid in the Hearing
Loss Litigation.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters who
claim that exposure to the Company’s sirens has impaired their
hearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33
cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving a
total of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.

These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs from
locations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six additional cases were
filed in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighter
plaintiffs. During 2013, another case was filed in Cook County
involving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in
2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected for
trial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the number
of plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffs
concluded with a verdict against the Company and for the plaintiffs
in varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company appealed this
verdict. On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court
rejected this appeal.

The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing with the
Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013. The
Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave to
appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013. On May
29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary order
declining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, the
Company satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs, which
resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighter
plaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned a
unanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of this
trial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered an
order certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Department
firefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether the
Company's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. The
Company petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutory
appeal of this ruling.

On May 17, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court accepted the
Company's petition. On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss
the appeal, agreeing with the Company that the trial court had
erred in certifying a class action trial in this matter. Pursuant
to plaintiffs' motion, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the
trial court's certification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trial
involving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December
2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of the
three firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,
the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify a
class of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the sole
issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trial
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March
11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,
2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the Illinois
Appellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the class
certification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the First
District Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing the
class certification order of the trial court. Specifically, the
Appellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed to
satisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of the
firefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues and
that there is an adequate representative for the class. During a
status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs represented to the
Court that they would again seek to certify a class of firefighters
on the issue of whether the Company's sirens were defective and
unreasonably dangerous.

On January 12, 2015, plaintiffs filed motions to amend their
complaints to add class action allegations with respect to Chicago
firefighter plaintiffs, as well as the approximately 1,800
firefighter plaintiffs from locations outside of Chicago. On March
11, 2015, the trial court granted plaintiff's motions to amend
their complaints.

On April 24, 2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County
chancery court, which will decide all class certification issues.
On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify as a class
all firefighters from the Chicago Fire Department who have filed
lawsuits in this matter. The Company has served discovery upon
plaintiffs related to this motion and intends to continue its
objections to any attempt at certification. The court has ordered
plaintiffs to respond to the Company's discovery.

Federal Signal Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,
designs, manufactures, and supplies a suite of products and
integrated solutions for municipal, governmental, industrial, and
commercial customers in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
internationally. It operates through two segments, Environmental
Solutions Group and Safety and Security Systems Group. Federal
Signal Corporation was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Oak
Brook, Illinois.

FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Sept. 24 Final Hearing on Fernandez-Cryer Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Class action plaintiffs Marlon H. Cryer and Nelly F. Fernandez
filed July 30, 2019, a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and a separate Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Reimbursement
of Expenses and Named Plaintiff Incentive Awards.  A hearing on
both requests is set for Sept. 24, 2019 at 2:30 p.m.

On June 3, 2019, Judge Claudia Wilken entered an order granting the
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and set
a Fairness Hearing for Sept. 24.

Franklin Resources, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that in 2016 and 2017, two
former employees filed related class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
(Cryer v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al. and Fernandez v.
Franklin Resources, Inc., et al.), which were later consolidated,
relating to the Franklin Templeton 401(k) Retirement Plan ("Plan").


The consolidated action names as defendants Franklin, the Plan's
Investment Committee and individual current and former Investment
Committee members, the Plan's Administrative Committee, the
Franklin Board of Directors, and individual current and former
Franklin directors.

The plaintiffs principally claim that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
by, among other things, selecting certain mutual funds sponsored
and managed by the Company (the "Funds") as investment options for
the Plan, when allegedly lower cost and better performing
third-party investment options were available, and further
challenge the Plan's record keeping fees as excessive.

The plaintiffs allege that Plan losses exceed $79.0 million and
seek, among other relief, monetary damages, disgorgement,
rescission of the Plan's investments in the Funds, attorneys' fees
and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Franklin Resources said, "While management strongly believes that
the claims asserted in the consolidated action are without merit,
in order to avoid protracted litigation, on December 3, 2018,
Franklin elected to enter into an agreement-in-principle to resolve
the matter for a cash payment of $13.9 million, which the Company
has accrued. In addition, Franklin agreed, among other Plan
changes, to increase its existing matching contribution rate from
75% to 85% for eligible participant salary deferrals for a period
of three years. The agreement remains subject to final court
approval."

Franklin Resources, Inc. is a publicly owned asset management
holding company. Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides its
services to individuals, institutions, pension plans, trusts, and
partnerships. Franklin Resources, Inc. was founded in 1947 and is
based in San Mateo, California with an additional office in
Hyderabad, India.


FREDDIE MAC: 6th Cir. Denies OPERS Bid for Leave to Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has denied plaintiff's petition
for leave to appeal a decision in Ohio Public Employees Retirement
System vs. Freddie Mac, Syron, et al.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from August
1, 2006 through November 20, 2007.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions. "The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements concerning our business, risk management, and
the procedures we put into place to protect the company from
problems in the mortgage industry," Freddie Mac said.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, and
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney and expert fees.

In October 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
In October 2014, the District Court granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the case in its entirety against all defendants, with
prejudice.

In November 2014, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Sixth
Circuit. On July 20, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to the District
Court for further proceedings. On August 14, 2018, the District
Court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On January 23, 2019, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's
petition for leave to appeal that decision.

Federal Home said, "At present, it is not possible for us to
predict the probable outcome of this lawsuit or any potential
effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, or results
of operations. In addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate
the possible loss or range of possible loss in the event of an
adverse judgment in the foregoing matter due to the following
factors, among others: pre-trial litigation is inherently
uncertain; while the District Court denied plaintiff's motion for
class certification, this denial may be appealed upon the entry of
final judgment; and the District Court has not yet ruled upon
motions for summary judgment. In particular, absent a final
resolution of whether a class will be certified, the identification
of a class if one is certified, and the identification of the
alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive motions,
we cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range of
possible loss."

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is a government-sponsored
enterprise (GSE). The Company is engaged in purchasing residential
mortgage loans originated by lenders. The Company also invests in
mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. The Company's
segments include Single-family Guarantee, Multifamily, Investments
and All Other. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.

FREDDIE MAC: Preferred Stock Purchase Deal Litig. in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that discovery is
underway in the case entitled, In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations.

This case is the result of the consolidation of three putative
class action lawsuits: Cacciapelle and Bareiss vs. Federal National
Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation and
FHFA, filed on July 29, 2013; American European Insurance Company
vs. Federal National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation and FHFA, filed on July 30, 2013; and Marneu
Holdings, Co. vs. FHFA, Treasury, Federal National Mortgage
Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, filed on
September 18, 2013. (The Marneu case was also filed as a
shareholder derivative lawsuit.)

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2013.

In the consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among
other items, that the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase
Agreement breached Freddie Mac's and Fannie Mae's respective
contracts with the holders of junior preferred stock and common
stock and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in
such contracts. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, equitable
and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorney
and expert fees.

The Cacciapelle and American European Insurance Company lawsuits
were filed purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior
preferred stock issued by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who held stock
prior to, and as of, August 17, 2012. The Marneu lawsuit was filed
purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers of junior preferred
stock and purchasers of common stock issued by Freddie Mac or
Fannie Mae over a not-yet-defined period of time.

FHFA, joined by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, moved to dismiss the In
re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement
Class Action Litigations case and the other related cases in
January 2014. Treasury filed a motion to dismiss the same day.

In September 2014, the District Court granted the motions and
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims.

All plaintiffs appealed that decision, and on February 21, 2017,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
affirmed in part and remanded in part the decision granting the
motions to dismiss. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of all
claims except certain claims seeking monetary damages for breach of
contract and breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.


In March 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs filed
petitions for panel rehearing with respect to certain claims. On
July 17, 2017, the Court of Appeals granted the petitions for
rehearing and issued a modified decision, which permitted the
institutional plaintiffs to pursue the breach of contract and
breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims that
had been remanded. The Court of Appeals also removed language
related to the standard to be applied to the implied duty claims,
leaving that issue for the District Court to determine on remand.

On October 16, 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs
filed petitions for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court
challenging whether HERA's prohibition on injunctive relief against
FHFA bars judicial review of the net worth sweep dividend
provisions of the August 2012 amendment to the Purchase Agreement,
as well as whether HERA bars shareholders from pursuing derivative
litigation where they allege the conservator faces a conflict of
interest. The Supreme Court denied the petitions on February 20,
2018.

On November 1, 2017, certain institutional and class plaintiffs and
plaintiffs in another case in which Freddie Mac was not originally
a defendant, Fairholme Funds, Inc. v. FHFA, Treasury, and Federal
National Mortgage Association, filed proposed amended complaints in
the District Court.

Each of the proposed amended complaints names Freddie Mac as a
defendant for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing claims as well as for new claims alleging
breach of fiduciary duty and breach of Virginia corporate law. On
January 10, 2018, FHFA, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae moved to
dismiss the amended complaints.

On August 16, 2018, plaintiffs in the In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations
case filed a motion for class certification in the District Court.
On September 28, 2018, the District Court dismissed all of the
claims except those alleging breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. Discovery is ongoing.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is a government-sponsored
enterprise (GSE). The Company is engaged in purchasing residential
mortgage loans originated by lenders. The Company also invests in
mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. The Company's
segments include Single-family Guarantee, Multifamily, Investments
and All Other. The company is based in McLean, Virginia.


FREIGHT HANDLERS: Ct. Certifies Class of Unloaders in Kraft Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carlos E. Mendoza adopted in part and made a part of his
order a Report and Recommendation issued by the U.S. Magistrate
Judge Gregory J. Kelly in the lawsuit titled JAMES KRAFT v. FREIGHT
HANDLERS, INC. and FHI, LLC, Case No. 6:18-cv-01469-CEM-GJK (M.D.
Fla.).

After a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with the
analysis set forth in the R&R except for the class definition,
which the parties agreed to modify.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action
and Facilitate Notice to Members of the FLSA Collective is granted
in part and denied in part.  The case is conditionally certified as
a class action for this class:

     All Employees of Freight Handlers, Inc. and FHI, LLC with
     the exception of California employees who: (1) are or were
     employed as "Freight Handlers" (also known as "Unloaders" or
     "Lumpers" or other employees performing similar duties
     however variously titled) during the three years preceding
     the filing of this suit; and (2) worked more than forty
     hours in any work week during the three years preceding the
     filing of this suit.

The proposed notice and Consent to Become Class Member Pursuant to
29 U.S.C. 216(b) (Doc. 60-2) are approved with certain revisions.
On or before August 12, 2019, the Defendants shall provide the
Plaintiff with the names, job titles, dates of employment, last
known addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses for
everyone in the class.

Within 10 days of receiving the list, the Plaintiff shall send the
approved Notice and Consent Forms containing the revision above
with a self-addressed return envelope to each putative class member
via first class mail and e-mail.  Within seven days from date of
sending Notice deadlines, the Plaintiff shall notify the Court of
the date the Notices were sent.  Potential class members may
electronically sign their consents.

The Motion is denied in all other respects.[CC]


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Request of Dismissal Made in Glock Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FTS International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the defendants in the
class action suit initiated by Carol Glock have filed Special
Exceptions to the petition and have requested dismissal if the
defects cannot be cured.

On February 22, 2019, Carol Glock filed a purported securities
class action in the 160th Civil District Court of Dallas County,
Texas (Cause No. DC-19-02668) against the Company, certain of its
officers, directors and stockholders, and certain of the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering (IPO).

The petition is brought on behalf of an alleged class of persons or
entities who purchased the company's common stock in or traceable
to its IPO, and purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The petition generally alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws relating to the disclosure in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the company's IPO. The petition
seeks, among other relief, class certification, damages in an
amount in excess of $1.0 million, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.

FTS International said, "The Company has insurance coverage on this
matter and has hired counsel to vigorously defend the case.
Defendants have filed Special Exceptions to the petition and have
requested dismissal if the defects cannot be cured. While the
outcome of this case is uncertain, we do not expect the ultimate
resolution of this case to have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial statements."

FTS International, Inc. provides hydraulic fracturing services in
North America. Its services enhance hydrocarbon flow from oil and
natural gas wells drilled by exploration and production companies
(E&P), in shale and other unconventional resource formations. FTS
International, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in
Fort Worth, Texas.


GEICO: Subbaiah Insurance Suit Moved to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case, Poonam Subbaiah, an individual, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Geico, an Iowa
corporation, and DOES 1-50, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
19STCV23085, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles) on Aug. 2, 2019. The
Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-06717 to the proceeding. The suit alleges insurance-related
violation.

Geico General Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.
The Company offers vehicle, property, motorcycle, boat, homeowners,
flood, mobile home, general liability, and pet insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for Geico General Insurance Company are:

          Ian Scott Shelton, Esq.
          EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2350
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 844-2965
          Facsimile: (916) 241-0501
          E-mail: IanShelton@eversheds-sutherland.com

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Appeal in TVPX ARX INC. Class Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that an appeal has been filed
in the class action suit entitled, TVPX ARX INC., as Securities
Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and
Annuity Insurance Company.

In September 2018, Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company
("GLAIC"), the company's indirect wholly-owned subsidiary, was
named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia captioned TVPX ARX INC., as Securities Intermediary for
Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance
Company.

Plaintiff alleged unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges
were imposed on policyholders. The complaint asserts claims for
breach of contract, alleging that Genworth improperly considered
non-mortality factors when calculating cost of insurance rates and
failed to decrease cost of insurance charges in light of improved
expectations of future mortality, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, costs, and equitable relief.

On October 29, 2018, the company filed a motion to enjoin the case
in the Middle District of Georgia, and a motion to dismiss and
motion to stay in the Eastern District of Virginia. The company
moved to enjoin the prosecution of the Eastern District of Virginia
action on the basis that it involves claims released in a prior
nationwide class action settlement that was approved by the Middle
District of Georgia. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
November 13, 2018.

On December 6, 2018, the company moved the Middle District of
Georgia for leave to file the company's counterclaim, which alleges
that plaintiff breached the covenant not to sue contained in the
prior settlement agreement by filing its current action.

On March 15, 2019, the Middle District of Georgia granted the
company's motion to enjoin and denied the company's motion for
leave to file its counterclaim. As such, plaintiff is enjoined from
pursuing its class action in the Eastern District of Virginia.

On March 29, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Middle
District of Georgia, notifying the court of its appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the
order granting our motion to enjoin.

On March 29, 2019, the company filed its notice of cross-appeal in
the Middle District of Georgia, notifying the Court of the
company's cross-appeal to the Eleventh Circuit from the portion of
the order denying the company's motion for leave to file its
counterclaim.

On April 8, 2019, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the
case without prejudice, with leave for plaintiff to refile an
amended complaint only if a final appellate court decision vacates
the injunction and reverses the Middle District of Georgia's
opinion.

On May 21, 2019, plaintiff filed its appeal and memorandum in
support in the Eleventh Circuit.

Genworth Financial said, "We intend to continue to vigorously
defend the dismissal of this action."

Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Skochin Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court has heard oral
arguments on the company's motion to dismiss in the class action
suit entitled, Jerome Skochin, SusanSkochin, and Larry Huber,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. GenworthFinancial, Inc. and Genworth Life Insurance Company.

In January 2019, Genworth Financial and  Genworth Financial
International Holdings, LLC and Genworth Life Insurance Company
(GLIC) were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit
pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia captioned Jerome Skochin, SusanSkochin, and
Larry Huber, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. GenworthFinancial, Inc. and Genworth Life
Insurance Company.

Plaintiffs seek to represent long-term care insurance
policyholders, alleging that Genworth made misleading and
inadequate disclosures regarding premium increases for long-term
care insurance policies.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, fraud,
fraudulent inducement and violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law (on behalf of the two named
plaintiffs who are Pennsylvania residents), and seeks damages
(including statutory treble damages under Pennsylvania law) in
excess of $5 million.

On March 12, 2019, the company moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint. On March 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a memorandum in
opposition to the company's motion to dismiss, which the company
replied to on April 1, 2019.

In July 2019, the court heard oral arguments on the company's
motion to dismiss.

Genworth Financial said, "We intend to continue to vigorously
defend this action."

Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Sept. 9 Oral Argument in Burkhart Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that oral argument on the
company's motion to dismiss the case, Richard F. Burkhart, William
E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt, Gerald Green,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Genworth et al., is scheduled for September 9, 2019.

In September 2018, Genworth Financial, Genworth Holdings, Genworth
North America Corporation, Genworth Financial International
Holdings, LLC and Genworth Life Insurance Company ("GLIC") were
named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit pending in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware captioned Richard F.
Burkhart, William E. Kelly, Richard S. Lavery, Thomas R. Pratt,
Gerald Green, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Genworth et al.

Plaintiffs allege that GLIC paid dividends to its parent and
engaged in certain reinsurance transactions causing it to maintain
inadequate capital capable of meeting its obligations to GLIC
policyholders and agents.

The complaint alleges causes of action for intentional fraudulent
transfer and constructive fraudulent transfer, and seeks injunctive
relief.

The company moved to dismiss this action in December 2018.

On January 29, 2019, plaintiffs exercised their right to amend
their complaint. On March 12, 2019, the company moved to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint. On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed
a memorandum in opposition to the company's motion to dismiss,
which the company replied to on June 14, 2019.

Genworth Financial said, "Oral argument on our motion to dismiss is
scheduled for September 9, 2019. We intend to continue to
vigorously defend this action."

Genworth Financial, Inc. provides insurance and homeownership
solutions in the United States and internationally. It operates
through five segments: U.S. Mortgage Insurance, Canada Mortgage
Insurance, Australia Mortgage Insurance, U.S. Life Insurance, and
Runoff. Genworth Financial, Inc. was founded in 1871 and is
headquartered in Richmond, Virginia.


GOOGLE LLC: Galvan Sues Over Illegal Google Assistant Recordings
----------------------------------------------------------------
LOURDES GALVAN and ELEEANNA GALVAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GOOGLE LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and ALPHABET INC., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 5:19-cv-04360-VKD (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2019), arises from the
Defendants' unlawful and intentional recording of individuals'
confidential communications without their consent, in violation of
the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and California Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that Google Assistant records individuals
without their consent.  Google Assistant is a voice-recognition
software program developed by Google that is pre-installed on
numerous electronic devices, including phones, speakers, displays,
cars, tv's, laptops, and tablets, manufactured by Google and other
companies ("Google Assistant Enabled Devices").

Alphabet Inc. is a Delaware corporation, organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place
of business in Mountain View, California.  Alphabet is the
successor issuer to, and parent holding company of, Google LLC.
Alphabet owns all the equity interests in Google LLC.  The
reorganization of Google LLC into Alphabet was completed in 2015.

Google LLC is a limited liability company existing under the laws
of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business
located in Mountain View, California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
          Eric S. Somers, Esq.
          LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
          503 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (415) 913-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
          E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
                  esomers@lexlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Ian Sloss, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
          E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  isloss@lowey.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169-1820
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  ecomite@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM
          P. O. Box 382434
          Birmingham, AL 35238
          Telephone: (205) 612-0243
          E-mail: kirk@woodlawfirmllc.com


GPB CAPITAL: Wade & Loch Sue over Accounting Irregularities
-----------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR WADE and KAREN LOCH, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. GPB CAPITAL HOLDINGS, LLC,
GPB HOLDINGS II, LP, GPB AUTOMOTIVE PORTFOLIO, LP, DAVID GENTILE,
ROGER ANSCHER, WILLIAM JACOBY, and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-07250 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 2, 2019), seeks to compel the
Defendants to comply with their obligation to provide timely and
accurate financial statements because Defendants have been accused
of accounting irregularities and other improprieties in their
operations.

GPB Capital Holdings, LLC is the general partner of several
investment funds and has raised over $1.5 billion from investors.
The Plaintiffs and the other Class members are limited partners of
two of these funds, GPB Holdings II, LP and GPB Automotive
Portfolio, LP.

The Plaintiffs invested in these Funds pursuant to private
placement memoranda ("PPMs") that contained limited partnership
agreements. These agreements obligate Defendants to provide the
limited partners with audited financial statements regarding the
Funds on an annual basis.

In 2018 and thus far in 2019, the Defendants have not provided
these audited financial statements. Defendants' failure to provide
timely and accurate financial statements violates Defendants'
obligations to Plaintiffs and each member of the Class, and has
prevented and continues to prevent Plaintiffs from obtaining
necessary information about the status of their investments and
taking such action as may be appropriate to avoid or mitigate any
potential investment losses.

In November 2018, Defendants' auditor resigned, and in February
2019, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the New York City
Business Integrity Commission raided Defendants' Manhattan office.
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority have also reportedly opened
investigations into Defendants' investment operations and conduct,
the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Adam L. Rosen, Esq.
          ADAM L. ROSEN PLLC
          2-8 Haven Avenue, Suite 220
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 407-3756
          E-mail: adam.rosen@alrcounsel.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Jordan Elias
          Adam E. Polk
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          711 Third Ave, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 798-0136
          Facsimile: (212) 557-2952
          Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  je@girardgibbs.com
                  aep@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          David Stein, Esq.
          Kyla Gibboney, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP
          505 14th Street, Suite 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350-9715
          E-mail: ds@classlawgroup.com
                   kjg@classlawgroup.com

GREENLIGHT ENERGY: Williams Suit Alleges Unjust Enrichment
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Greenlight Energy Inc., Case No. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens
Cty., May 13, 2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the New York General Business Law, breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiff seeks to redress the deceptive and bad faith pricing
practices of Defendant that have caused thousands of New York
consumers to pay considerably more for their electricity than they
should otherwise have paid. The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant has taken advantage of the deregulation of the retail
electricity market in New York by luring consumers into switching
energy suppliers with false promises that it offers market-based
variable rates for electricity.

The Defendant's deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of
business, trade, or commerce violates the NYGBL, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of New York residing in Shandaken, New
York. The Plaintiff was a customer of the Defendant from
approximately March 2014 through February 2019, and as a result of
Defendant's deceptive conduct, has incurred excessive charges for
electricity.

The Defendant is a citizen of New York, having been organized under
the laws of New York, and with a principal place of business or
corporate headquarters in Forest. Hills, New York, located in
Queens County. Upon information and belief, the Defendant has
thousands of customers in New York, and generates millions of
dollars in revenues through the sale of electricity. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 238-1700
      Fax: (215) 238-1968
      E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
              klaukaitis@kohnswift.com


GREENSPOON MARDER: Second Circuit Appeal Initiated in Lapan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Karena LaPan filed an appeal from a District Court
judgment dated June 19, 2019, in the lawsuit entitled LaPan v.
Greenspoon Marder P.A., Case No. 17-cv-130, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Vermont (Rutland).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
asked the Court to certify a class consisting of the people who had
their information exposed by the Defendants in mass letters sent
out.

The proposed class includes:

    "any person (1) whose name was included on a list of debtors;
     (2) the list of debtors included the amount of the debt; (3)
     the list was sent by or on behalf of Defendant to any other
     debtor or alleged debtor; and (4) within the past year."

The appellate case is captioned as LaPan v. Greenspoon Marder P.A.,
et al., Case No. 19-2220, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Karena LaPan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated is represented by:

          Andrew B. Delaney, Esq.
          MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          100 North Main Street
          P.O. Box 607
          Barre, VT 05641
          Telephone: (802) 479-0568
          Facsimile: (802) 479-5414
          E-mail: andrew@martinassociateslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee Greenspoon Marder LLP is represented by:

          Justin Barnard, Esq.
          DINSE, KNAPP & MCANDREW, P.C
          209 Battery Street
          P.O. Box 988
          Burlington, VT 05402
          Telephone: (802) 864-5751
          E-mail: jbarnard@dinse.com


HALO OF MIAMI: Romanelli Seeks Overtime Wages for Sales Staff
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANA P. ROMANELLI and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. HALO OF MIAMI LLC, I LOVE MIAMI LLC, BLISS OF MIAMI
LLC, and RAMI DABAKH, and YOGEV BEN SHITRIT, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-23248-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2019),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid half-time overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other current and
former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked in
excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after July 2016
without being properly compensated.

The Plaintiff performed as salesperson, cashier, customer service,
receiving person, stocking clerk, and cleaning person.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

HELLERMANNTYTON CORP: Smith Seeks OT Pay for Employees
------------------------------------------------------
JASMINE SMITH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HELLERMANNTYTON CORPORATION, 7930
North Faulkner Road Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53224, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:19-cv-00636 (W.D. Wisc., Aug. 2, 2019), seeks unpaid wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys'
fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws.

The Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful
compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate all
current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt manufacturing employees
for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at
an overtime rate of pay, by failing to compensate said employees,
including at an overtime rate of pay, for meal periods during which
they were not completely relieved of duty or free from work for at
least 30 consecutive minutes, in violation of the FLSA and WWPCL,
the lawsuiy says.

HellermannTyton manufactures and supplies cable management and
protection products.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                 sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com

HICKORY FOODS: Burkett Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Ronald Burkett, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Hickory Foods, Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-00563 (M.D. Fla., May 13,
2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant deprived the Plaintiff of proper overtime
compensation for his hours worked in excess for forty hours each
week. Additionally, the Defendant failed to maintain proper time
records as mandated by the FLSA, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Georgia, residing in the
county of Ware. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant by welding,
building, rebuilding, troubleshooting, and repairing meat
manufacturing equipment, from at least January 26, 2010 and
continuing through July 2, 2018

The Defendant is a Florida Profit Corporation, with its principal
place of business located in Jacksonville, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P. A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Fax: (954) 327-3016
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


HIGHBURY CONCRETE: Class Certification Sought in Fabre Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying the matter
captioned Alan Fabre, Cristhian Vega, and Aldo Jara, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Highbury
Concrete Inc., Thomas Gorman, Thomas Fogarty, and Benny Griffin,
Case No. 17-CV-984(CBA)(PK) (E.D.N.Y.), as a class action pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


HILL AND DALE: Cevallos Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
MAURICIO JOSE GOMEZ CEVALLOS, PAULINO GUZMAN RAMIREZ, and ADOLFO
RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HILL AND DALE RESTAURANT GROUP LLC (D/B/A HILL AND
DALE), ARON WATMAN, WILLIAM WAITE (A.K.A. BILLY), RYAN STECKOWSKI,
and ARTURO DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07278 (S.D. N.Y., Aug.
5, 2019) is an action on behalf of themselves, and other similarly
situated individuals, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for
violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of
hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of
Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any
hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any
additional overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which
they had to work over 10 hours a day; and repeatedly failed to pay
Plaintiffs wages on a timely basis, says the complaint.

Plaintiffs were employed as dishwashers, food preparers and cooks
at the Defendants' restaurant.

Defendants own, operate, or control a restaurant and a bar, located
at 115 Allen Street, New York, NY 10002 under the name "Hill and
Dale".[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


HOTELS.COM LP: San Antonio Appeals W.D. Texas Order to 5th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff City of San Antonio, Texas, filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in its lawsuit entitled City of San Antonio, Texas v.
Hotels.Com, L.P., et al., Case No. 5:06-CV-381, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in 1987, the
Texas legislature authorized municipalities to impose a tax on a
person who pays for the use or possession or for the right to the
use or possession of a room that is in a hotel.  Pursuant to this
enabling act, Texas municipalities enacted hotel occupancy tax
ordinances.

San Antonio filed the diversity action in May 2006, against online
travel companies ("OTCs") for violations of the Texas tax code and
municipal ordinances, and for conversion.  In May 2008, the
District Court certified a class of 175 Texas municipalities whose
ordinances contain language that requires every person owning,
operating, managing or controlling any hotel to collect and remit
hotel occupancy taxes.  After the class was certified, however, two
cities, including Houston, opted out.

The remaining 173 municipalities (cities) sought, inter alia, money
damages for unpaid or underpaid hotel occupancy taxes, and a
declaration that an OTC is required to collect and remit hotel
occupancy taxes based on the amount it collects for the discounted
room rate and service fee (the retail rate).

The appellate case is captioned as City of San Antonio, Texas v.
Hotels.Com, L.P., et al., Case No. 19-50701, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, On Behalf Of Itself
And All Other Similarly Situated Texas Municipalities, is
represented by:

          Michael D. Bernard, Esq.
          DYKEMA COX SMITH PLLC
          112 E. Pecan Street
          Weston Centre
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 554-5500
          E-mail: mbernard@dykema.com

               - and -

          Gary Cruciani, Esq.
          MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
          300 Crescent Court
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 978-4009
          E-mail: gcruciani@mckoolsmith.com

               - and -

          Ferdinand Frank Fischer, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER
          115 E. Travis
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 224-6000

               - and -

          Frank Kay Herrera, Jr., Esq.
          HERRERA LAW FIRM
          111 Soledad Street
          Riverview Towers
          San Antonio, TX 78205
          Telephone: (210) 224-1054

               - and -

          Patrick J. O'Connell, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK J. O'CONNELL, P.L.L.C.
          2525 Wallingwood Drive
          Austin, TX 78746-0000
          Telephone: (512) 852-5918
          E-mail: pat@pjofca.com

               - and -

          Martha Guadiana Sepeda, Esq.
          CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          100 S. Flores Street
          San Antonio, TX 78204-0000
          Telephone: (201) 207-8940

               - and -

          Thomas M. Sims, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          E-mail: tsims@baronbudd.com

Defendants-Appellees HOTELS.COM, L.P.; HOTWIRE, INCORPORATED;
EXPEDIA, INCORPORATED; and TRAVELNOW.COM, INCORPORATED are
represented by:

          Deborah Savarese Sloan, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          2727 N. Harwood Street
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 969-5203
          E-mail: dsloan@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Les J. Strieber, III, Esq.
          DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INCORPORATED
          755 E. Mulberry Avenue
          McCombs Plaza
          San Antonio, TX 78212-0000
          Telephone: (210) 822-6666
          E-mail: lstrieber@lawdcm.com

Defendants-Appellees TRIP NETWORK, INCORPORATED, doing business as
Cheaptickets.com; INTERNETWORK PUBLISHING CORPORATION, doing
business as Lodging.Com; and ORBITZ, L.L.C. are represented by:

          Elizabeth Brooke Herrington, Esq.
          MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY, L.L.P.
          444 W. Lake Street
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 984-7763
          E-mail: eherrington@mwe.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Rossman, Esq.
          FREEBORN & PETERS, L.L.P.
          311 S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 315-0190
          E-mail: jrossman@freeborn.com

               - and -

          Les J. Strieber, III, Esq.
          DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INCORPORATED
          755 E. Mulberry Avenue
          McCombs Plaza
          San Antonio, TX 78212-0000
          Telephone: (210) 822-6666
          E-mail: lstrieber@lawdcm.com

               - and -

          Tedd M. Warden, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, L.L.P.
          77 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 324-1000
          E-mail: tedd.warden@morganlewis.com

Defendant-Appellee PRICELINE.COM, INCORPORATED is represented by:

          Jason D. Russell, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, L.L.P.
          300 S. Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-6858
          Telephone: (213) 687-5328
          E-mail: Jason.Russell@skadden.com

               - and -

          Les J. Strieber, III, Esq.
          DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INCORPORATED
          755 E. Mulberry Avenue
          McCombs Plaza
          San Antonio, TX 78212-0000
          Telephone: (210) 822-6666
          E-mail: lstrieber@lawdcm.com

Defendants-Appellees SITE59.COM, L.L.C. and TRAVELOCITY.COM, L.P.
are represented by:

          Brian Scott Stagner, Esq.
          KELLY, HART & HALLMAN, L.L.P.
          201 Main Street
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 878-3567
          E-mail: brian.stagner@kellyhart.com

               - and -

          Les J. Strieber, III, Esq.
          DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INCORPORATED
          755 E. Mulberry Avenue
          McCombs Plaza
          San Antonio, TX 78212-0000
          Telephone: (210) 822-6666
          E-mail: lstrieber@lawdcm.com

Defendant-Appellee TRAVELWEB, L.L.C. is represented by:

          Stacy Rene Horth-Neubert, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, L.L.P.
          300 S. Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-6858
          Telephone: (213) 687-5434
          E-mail: stacy.horth-neubert@skadden.com

               - and -

          Les J. Strieber, III, Esq.
          DAVIS, CEDILLO & MENDOZA, INCORPORATED
          755 E. Mulberry Avenue
          McCombs Plaza
          San Antonio, TX 78212-0000
          Telephone: (210) 822-6666
          E-mail: lstrieber@lawdcm.com


IBM CORP: Supreme Court to Hear ERISA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
International Business Machines Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
lawsuit alleging violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act is underway in New York.

In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York related
to the company's October 2014 announcement that it was divesting
its global commercial semiconductor technology business, alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).


Management's Retirement Plans Committee and three current or former
IBM executives are named as defendants. On September 29, 2017, the
Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint.

On December 10, 2018, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the District Court order. On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court of the
United States granted defendants' request to hear the case.

International Business Machines Corporation operates as an
integrated technology and services company worldwide. The company
was formerly known as Computing-Tabulating-Recording Co. and
changed its name to International Business Machines Corporation in
1924. The company was incorporated in 1911 and is headquartered in
Armonk, New York.


INOVALON HOLDINGS: Xiang Class Suit Concluded
---------------------------------------------
Inovalon Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court in Xiang v.
Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et al., has entered an order and final
judgment, granting final approval of the parties' settlement and
dismissing the litigation.

Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-04923 was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on June 24, 2016 against the Company, certain officers,
directors and underwriters in the Company’s initial public
offering.

On February 20, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement,
which was subject to Court approval, providing for the dismissal of
all claims against the defendants in connection with the securities
class action suit, and providing for a payment to the class of $17
million, of which the Company agreed to contribute $1.7 million,
which was recorded in the Company's 2018 financial statements, with
the remaining amounts paid by the Company's insurance carriers.

On July 15, 2019, the Court entered an Order and Final Judgment,
granting final approval of the settlement and dismissing the
litigation.

Inovalon Holdings, Inc., a technology company, provides cloud-based
platforms empowering data-driven healthcare. Inovalon Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Bowie, Maryland.


INSTABOOST: Schaffer et al. Sue over Unwanted Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES SCHAFFER, SID NAIMAN, and ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. INSTABOOST; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06781 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2019), seeks
to recover damages and any other available legal or equitable
remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiffs on
Plaintiffs' cellular telephones in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy and
causing them to incur unnecessary and unwanted expenses.

InstaBoost is a service that helps businesses reach out to users of
Instagram.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: 877 206 4741
          Facsimile: 866-633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com

INTUIT INC: Allwein Files Suit Over Deceptive, Misleading Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darleen Allwein, as assignee of Judith Hyland, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Intuit Inc., Case No.
5:19-cv-02567 (N.D. Calif., May 13, 2019), is brought against the
Defendant for Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act and the California False Advertising Law.

The Defendant employed deceptive and misleading advertising to
fraudulently induce taxpayers into unnecessarily purchasing costly
TurboTax products when they were eligible for free services
pursuant to Defendant's agreement with the Internal Revenue
Service, asserts the complaint.

The Plaintiff Allwein, assignee of Judith L. Hyland, is a citizen
of the state of Maryland and resides in Annapolis, Maryland. The
Plaintiff Hyland, assignor, is a citizen of the state of Maryland
and resides in Annapolis, Maryland. On or about March 18, 2019,
Plaintiff Hyland filed her federal and state taxes for the year
ended December 31, 2018, online with the Defendant using its
TurboTax platform, for which she was charged $119.98.

The Defendant is the maker of TurboTax, a series of widely used
electronic tax preparation and filing software products and
services, and is a member of the Free File Alliance, a nonprofit
coalition of twelve tax software companies under an agreement with
the IRS to provide free electronic tax services to eligible
American taxpayers the Free File Program. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
      Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
      Jenny Paquette, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ
      MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 400-3000
      Fax: (415) 400-3001
      E-mail: egreenstein@ktmc.com
              skaplan@ktmc.com
              jpaquette@ktmc.com

         - and -

      Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
      Melissa L. Troutner, Esq.
      Natalie Lesser, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ
      MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Tel: (610) 667-7706
      Fax: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
              mtroutner@ktmc.com
              nlesser@ktmc.com


J&J INC: Garcia's Bid to Certify Painters Class Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beth Bloom grants in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification and Facilitation of Court-Authorized
Notice in the lawsuit captioned JOSE GARCIA, LEDVIN ALARCON, and
all others similarly situated under 219 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v.
J&J, INC., d/b/a EAGLE PAINTING, JANET S. FIELD and JOHN H. FIELD,
Case No. 0:19-cv-60728-BB (S.D. Fla.).

The Court conditionally certifies this collective under Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act:

    "All individuals that: 1) performed work for Eagle Painting
     as painters, 2) worked more than forty hours in one or more
     workweeks from March 20, 2016 through March 20, 2019 (the
     "Relevant Period"), and were not paid at time-and-a-half
     their regular rate of pay for all hours worked above forty
     (40) in any workweek during the Relevant Period."

The Defendants shall produce a list in Excel spreadsheet format
containing the names of all individuals who worked for Defendants
as painters from March 20, 2016 through March 20, 2019, along with
each person's last known mailing address and email address, if
known (the "Class List), no later than ten (10) days from the date
of this Order.  Upon delivery of the Class List, the Defendants
shall promptly file a Notice of Compliance with this part of the
Court's Order.

The parties shall jointly file for the Court's approval a revised
Notice and Consent consistent with this Order no later than two (2)
weeks from the date of this Order.  The parties shall also propose
a timeline for providing notice and obtaining consent from opt-in
plaintiffs for the Court's consideration.

However, the Court declines to approve the Notice and Consent for
the various reasons and requires that the parties submit a revised
form of Notice and Consent for the Court's approval.  Among other
things, Judge Bloom opines that the Consent improperly contains
language in which opt-in plaintiffs agree to be represented by the
Plaintiffs' counsel.  Such language, Judge Bloom notes, must be
removed as it does not give potential opt-in plaintiffs the right
to choose their own attorney.[CC]


JANUS HENDERSON: VelocityShares Daily Class Suits Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Henderson Group plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Company and/or its
subsidiaries continue to face several class action lawsuits related
to VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX.

On March 15, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
("SDNY") against Janus Index & Calculation Services LLC, which
effective January 1, 2019, was renamed Janus Henderson Indices LLC
("Janus Indices"), a subsidiary of the Group, on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased VelocityShares Daily Inverse
VIX Short-Term ETN (Ticker: XIV) between January 29, 2018, and
February 5, 2018 (Eisenberg v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices).
Credit Suisse, the issuer of the XIV notes, is also named as a
defendant in the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs generally allege statements by Credit Suisse and
Janus Indices, including those in the registration statement, were
materially false and misleading based on its discussion of how the
intraday indicative value ("IIV") is calculated and that the IIV
was not an accurate gauge of the economic value of the notes.

On April 17, 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against Janus Indices
and Credit Suisse in the United States District Court of the
Northern District of Alabama by certain investors in XIV (Halbert
v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices).

On May 4, 2018, a third lawsuit, styled as a class action on behalf
of investors who purchased XIV between January 29, 2018, and
February 5, 2018, was filed against Janus Indices and Credit Suisse
AG in the SDNY (Qiu v. Credit Suisse AG and Janus Indices). The
Halbert and Qiu allegations generally copy the allegations in the
Eisenberg case.

On August 20, 2018, an amended complaint was filed in the Eisenberg
and Qiu cases (which have been consolidated in the SDNY under the
name Set Capital LLC, et al. v. Credit Suisse AG, et al.), adding
Janus Distributors LLC, doing business as Janus Henderson
Distributors, and Janus Henderson Group plc as parties, and adding
allegations of market manipulation by all of the defendants.

On February 7, 2019, a fourth lawsuit was filed against Janus
Indices, Janus Distributors LLC, Janus Henderson Group plc, and
Credit Suisse in the United States District Court of the Eastern
District of New York ("EDNY") by certain investors in XIV (Y-GAR
Capital LLC v. Credit Suisse Group AG, et al.) The allegations in
Y-GAR generally assert that the disclosures relating to XIV were
false and misleading. On March 29, 2019, the plaintiff withdrew the
suit from the EDNY and re-filed it in the SDNY.

On February 4, 2019, a fifth lawsuit was filed against Janus Index,
Janus Distributors LLC, Janus Henderson Group plc and various
Credit Suisse persons in the SDNY (Rubinstein v. Credit Suisse
Group AG, et al.). The Janus Henderson defendants were served with
the complaint on April 1, 2019. The suit is styled as a class
action and involves VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX Medium-Term
ETN (Ticker: ZIV), but otherwise generally copies the allegations
in the XIV cases described above.

Janus Henderson said, "The Group believes the claims in these
exchange-traded note lawsuits are without merit and is strongly
defending the actions. As of June 30, 2019, the Group cannot
reasonably estimate possible losses from the claims in the
exchange-traded note lawsuits."

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

Janus Henderson Group plc is an asset management holding entity.
Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides services to
institutional, retail clients, and high net worth clients. It
manages separate client-focused equity and fixed income portfolios.
The firm also manages equity, fixed income, and balanced mutual
funds for its clients. It invests in public equity and fixed income
markets, as well as invests in real estate and private equity.
Janus Henderson Group plc was founded in 1934 and is based in
London, United Kingdom with additional offices in Jersey, United
Kingdom and Sydney, Australia.


JLB ENTERPRISES: Sykes Seeks Minimum Wages for Exotic Dancers
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARQUETIA SYKES, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. JLB ENTERPRISES, LLC, D/B/A THE
FACTORY GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, AND JOHN BURYS, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-05251 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 2, 2019), alleges that Defendants
owe Plaintiffs minimum wages, house fee charges, tips, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, and costs.

Defendant required Ms. Sykes and others similarly situated to work
as exotic dancers at their adult entertainment club but refused to
compensate them at the applicable minimum wage. In fact, Defendants
refused to compensate Plaintiffs whatsoever for any hours worked.

Plaintiffs' only compensation was in the form of tips from club
patrons and even some of those tips were illegally confiscated by
the club.

Defendants took money from Plaintiffs in the form of "house fees"
or "rent". Plaintiffs were also required to divide tips with
Defendants’ managers and employees who do not
customarily receive tips.

Defendants misclassify dancers, including Plaintiffs, as
independent contractors so that they do not have to compensate them
at the federally mandated minimum wage rate.  Defendants' practice
of failing to pay employees wages violates the FLSA's minimum wage
provision, and Defendants' practice of charging house fees and
dividing tips also violates Federal Law because for at least one
workweek in the relevant statutory period, these practices caused
Plaintiffs to be paid below the minimum wage, the lawsuit
says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

JUUL LABS: Swearingen et al. Suit Moved to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ELIZABETH ANN SWEARINGEN and JOHN THOMAS VIA PEAVY, the
Plaintiffs, vs. JUUL LABS, INC., ALTRIA GROUP, INC., and PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 7:19-cv-00779 (Filed May
22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (Oakland) on Aug. 2, 2019. The
Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:19-cv-04424-DMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the
Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu.

Pursuant to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the
Plaintiffs and the class make claims for actual damages, treble
damages, attorney's fees and costs. The damages suffered by the
Plaintiffs and the class were directly and proximately caused by
the deceptive, misleading and unfair practices of Defendants.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Courtney Cooper Gipson, Esq.
          METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY,
          STEPHENS MILLER, P.C.
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-0199
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: cgipson@mtattorneys.com

               - and -

          David J. Hodge, Esq.
          38 Miller Ave. No. 157
          Mill Valley, CA 94941

               - and -

          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          Patrick Clayton Marshall, Esq.
          R G Methvin , Jr, Esq.
          MCCALLUM METHVIN & TERRELL PC
          The Highland Building
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939-3006
          Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
          E-mail: pmarshall@mmlaw.net
                  rgm@mmlaw.net

               - and -

          Mahaley P McInnes, Esq.
          WEBB & ELEY PC
          7545 Halcyon Pointe Drive
          P O Box 240909
          Montgomery, AL 36124
          Telephone: (334) 262-1850
          Facsimile: (334) 262-1772
          E-mail: mmcinnes@webbeley.com

               - and -

          Christina D Crow, Esq.
          JINKS CROW & DICKSON PC
          219 Prairie Street N, PO Box 350
          Union Springs, AL 36089
          Telephone: (334) 738-4225
          Facsimile: (334) 738-4229
          E-mail: ccrow@jinkslaw.com

Attorneys for Juul Labs, Inc. are:

          Lana Alcorn Olson, Esq.
          Jeffrey P Doss, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
          The Clark Building
          400 20th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
          Telephone: (205) 581-0700
          Facsimile: (205) 380-9314
          E-mail: lolson@lightfootlaw.com
                  jdoss@lightfootlaw.com

Attorneys for Altria Group Inc. and Phillip Morris USA, Inc. are:

          R. Bruce Barze , Jr., Esq.
          Lisa Jane McCrary, Esq.
          BARZE TAYLOR NOLES LOWTHER LLC
          2204 Lakeshore Drive, Suite 330
          Birmingham, AL 35209
          Telephone: (205) 872-1015
          E-mail: bbarze@btnllaw.com
                  lmccrary@btnllaw.com

KB HOME: Partly Compelled to Reply to AIIRAM Suit Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AIIRAM LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KB HOME, Defendant,
Case No.19-cv-00269-LHK (VKD) (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Virginia K. DeMarchi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, granted in part and
denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery from the
Defendant.

The case is a putative class action asserting state law claims
arising out of a contractual relationship between the parties for
the purchase of real property.  Plaintiffs AIIRAM LLC and Mariia
Kravchuk move to compel discovery from the Defendant KB Home.  KB
Home opposes discovery relating to the Plaintiffs' class action
claims as well as discovery that it says overlaps with discovery
the Plaintiffs served in a separate state court action.

KB Home removed the action from state court to federal court on
Jan. 16, 2019.  The Plaintiffs and KB Home are parties to a
separate action that is currently pending in state court.

On April 15, 2019, the presiding judge issued a scheduling order
adopting the parties' proposed schedule.  That order advises the
parties that discovery is not stayed pending the initial case
management conference and should begin immediately.  In addition,
the scheduling order sets a single deadline for the close of fact
discovery.  It does not distinguish between discovery relating to
the class allegations and discovery related to the Plaintiffs'
individual claims or the merits.  The order specifically advises
the parties that the Court will also not bifurcate discovery.

On April 24, 2019, KB Home filed a motion to stay the action or,
alternatively, to strike the Plaintiffs' class allegations and to
dismiss all claims except the Plaintiffs' individual claim for
breach of contract.  That motion is pending.

The Plaintiffs move to compel KB Home's responses to document
requests, interrogatories, and requests for admission.  In its
written responses, KB Home asserts multiple objections to each
request.  However, in the parties' joint submission, KB Home
resists discovery based on only two of those objections: (i)
whether KB Home may refuse to provide discovery in the case on the
ground that the Plaintiffs' requests are duplicative of discovery
sought in a separate state court action; and (ii) whether KB Home
may refuse to provide discovery relating to Plaintiffs' class
allegations.

Magistrate Judge DeMarchi finds that KB Home may not rely on the
alleged duplicative nature of discovery requests in the state court
action to avoid responding to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests in
the action.  Whatever the merits of KB Home's motion may be,
discovery has not been stayed, and KB Home may not refuse or delay
discovery on its own initiative simply because a motion to stay is
pending, particularly where the presiding judge has set a schedule
for completion of discovery and directed the parties to proceed
"immediately" with discovery.  KB Home has not also shown that the
discovery requests at issue in the dispute are unreasonably
cumulative or duplicative of other discovery plaintiffs have
already served in the action.  And, the pendency of a discovery
dispute in a separate action in state court has no bearing on KB
Home's discovery obligations in the case before the Court.

The Magistrate has reviewed Exhibits A-C to the joint submission
and observes that KB Home has made an objection based on Rule 23 to
the following requests: Requests for Admissions Nos. 29-33,
Interrogatories Nos. 1-9, and Requests for Production Nos. 6-11 and
17-18.  She rejects KB Home's categorical argument that it may
refuse discovery related to the Plaintiffs' class claims because
the Plaintiffs have not made a prima facie showing that their
claims satisfy Rule 23's requirements.  She will not bar the
Plaintiffs from obtaining discovery regarding their class
allegations on the basis of the counsel's alleged conflict of
interest raised in this discovery dispute resolution proceeding.
KB Home also does not argue that discovery of its subsidiaries
encompasses discovery that is outside KB Home's possession,
custody, or control.  She concludes that, absent a more substantial
showing, the Plaintiffs may only obtain class-related discovery
that is strictly commensurate with their class and subclass
definitions and necessary to a determination of the existence,
size, and membership of the class and subclass.

With respect to KB Home's overbreadth objection, the Magistrate is
reluctant to limit discovery to a single subsidiary where the
claims here are made against KB Home (the parent company), KB Home
has made no showing that the requested discovery is burdensome, and
KB Home does not otherwise object to the scope of the Plaintiffs'
class-related discovery requests.

Accordingly, KB Home must respond to the following class-related
discovery requests: Requests for Admissions Nos. 31-32,
Interrogatories Nos. 2, 7-8, and Requests for Production Nos. 6, 9,
17-18.  KB Home must respond with respect to information and
documents within its possession, custody, or control (not limited
to its subsidiary KB Home South Bay).  The Plaintiffs' motion to
compel is denied without prejudice with respect to KB Home's class
action discovery objection as to the following discovery requests:
Requests for Admissions Nos. 29-30, 33, Interrogatories Nos. 1,
3-6, 9, and Requests for Production Nos. 7-8, 10-11.

KB Home must serve responses to the Plaintiffs' discovery, in
accordance with the Order, by July 15, 2019.

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

AIIRAM LLC & Mariia Kravchuk, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael
John Hassen -- mjhassen@reallaw.us -- Reallaw, APC.

KB Home, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by John B.
Major -- John.Major@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles Olson LLP & Bruce
Andrew Abbott -- Bruce.Abbott@mto.com -- Munger Tolles & Olson
LLP.


KEANE GROUP: Faces Wuollet Class Action in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------
Keane Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in a putative class action suit entitled,
Wuollet v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al.

On June 17, 2019, Keane and C&J announced that they entered into an
agreement and plan of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with King
Merger Sub Corp. ("Merger Sub") providing that,  Merger Sub will
merge with and into C&J, with C&J surviving and continuing as the
surviving corporation as a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of Keane
(the "Merger").

Following the public announcement of the merger, a purported
stockholder of C&J filed a putative class action complaint on
behalf of himself and all owners of C&J common stock (other than
defendants and related or affiliated persons) against C&J, the C&J
board of directors and Keane captioned Wuollet v. C&J Energy
Services, Inc., et al., on July 29, 2019 in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.

The complaint contains allegations contending, among other things,
that the registration statement on Form S-4 filed by Keane with the
SEC on July 16, 2019, misleads and fails to disclose certain
allegedly material information in violation of federal securities
laws.

The lawsuits seek injunctive relief enjoining the merger, damages
and costs, among other remedies. The defendants have not yet
answered or otherwise responded to the complaints.

Keane believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously.

Keane Group, Inc., incorporated on October 13, 2016, is provider of
integrated well completion services in the United States, with a
focus on demanding completion solutions. The Company's segments
include Completion Services, which comprises hydraulic fracturing
and wireline divisions, and Other Services, which consists of
coiled tubing, cementing and drilling divisions.  The company is
based in Houston, Texas.


KIA MOTORS: Smith et al Sue over Defective Airbag Control Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against seven automotive
manufacturers and a tier-one parts supplier, alleging that they
have concealed a deadly airbag defect in 12.3 million U.S. cars.

On the heels of the Takata recall, and the $1.5 billion in class
action settlements that accompanied it, the manufacturers -- Acura,
Honda, Toyota, FCA, Mitsubishi, Kia and Hyundai -- have known of
this new airbag defect for years, and have yet refused to issue a
recall to fix it.

At issue is the vehicles' airbag control unit ("ACU") manufactured
by supplier ZF-TRW that becomes over-stressed by excess electrical
energy generated during a crash. The "electrical over-stress"
forces the ACU to seize-up at the moment of impact, causing the
airbags to not deploy and the seatbelt locks to fail.

After numerous reports of deaths and serious injuries, in 2018 the
National Highway Safety Traffic Administration ("NHTSA") launched
an investigation into the matter, only to find out that ZF-TRW had
been having in-depth discussions with manufacturers about the
defective ACU since at least 2011.

Under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, manufacturers are
required to issue a full vehicle recall within five days of
learning of a defect.

In April 2019, NHTSA elevated the investigation to an Engineering
Analysis and expanded the scope of the investigation to include
other manufacturers who had installed the ZF-TRW made ACU in their
production vehicles. At its early investigation stages, NHTSA has
confirmed that the defective ACU has been linked to at least four
deaths; however, NHTSA complaint logs confirm that many more
fatalities have been reported to NHTSA that are still under
investigation.

The complaint brings claims against each of the seven automotive
manufacturers and the tier-one parts supplier for violations of the
Magnuson Moss Act, violations of California consumer protection
statutes and violations of common law claims of fraud and unjust
enrichment, the lawsuit says.

The case is captioned as ALICE SMITH, HARRY SMITH, CHRISTINA
MCCORMICK, CYNTHIA ACKER, and LINDA COOPER, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. KIA
MOTORS AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; HYUNDAI MOTOR
AMERICA, a California corporation; FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; MITSUBISHI MOTORS AMERICA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., a California
corporation; ACURA, a Division of American Honda Motor Co., Inc.;
TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., a California corporation; ZF TRW
AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP., a Delaware corporation, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:19-cv-06785 (C. D. Cal.).

The Defendants are manufacturer and distributor of motor
vehicles.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Justin B. Farar, Esq.
          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Mario B. Choi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 820
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: 310-575-8604
          Facsimile: 310-444-1913

               - and -

          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415-772-4700
          Facsimile: 415-772-4707
          E-mail: jfarar@kaplanfox.com
                  lking@kaplanfox.com
                  mchoi@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Jonathan A. Michaels, Esq.
          Kyle Gurwell, Esq.
          Ryan Jones, Esq.
          MLG, APLC
          151 Kalmus Dr., Suite A-102
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: 949-581-6900
          Facsimile: 949-581-6908
          E-mail: jmichaels@mlgaplc.com
                  kgurwell@mlgaplc.com
                  rjones@mlgaplc.com

               - and -

          Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
          EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
          Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: 215-867-2399
          Facsimile: 267-685-0676
          E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com

               - and -

          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          GRABAR LAW OFFICE
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3750
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: 267-507-6085
          Facsimile: 267-507-6048
          E-mail: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

LABORATORY CORP: Removes Jan Employee Suit to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
LabCorp removed on July 30, 2019, the lawsuit titled MEER JAN, on
her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 34-2019-00259413, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Of
California.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-at-00553 to the
proceeding.

On June 26, 2019, Plaintiff Meer Jan commenced this action in the
Superior Court.  The Plaintiff and the class of employees she
purports to represent seek premium pay for meal and rest periods
that were not provided and civil penalties for untimely wages,
including waiting time penalties, and for erroneous paycheck
stubs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          Kiley L. Brombacher, Esq.
          Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
          BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
          2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (805) 270-7100
          Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
          E-mail: mbradley@bradleybrombacher.com
                  kgrombacher@bradleybrombacher.com
                  temerson@bradleygrombacher.com

               - and -

          Walter L. Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256-1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
          E-mail: walter@whaines.com

Defendant LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Delaware Corporation
is represented by:

          Benjamin J. Kim, Esq.
          Irene Scholl-Tatevosyan, Esq.
          Andrea Chavez, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3151
          Telephone: (213) 629-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 629-6001
          E-mail: bkim@nixonpeabody.com
                  itatevosyan@nixonpeabody.com
                  andrea.chavez@nixonpeabody.com


LADAH LAW: Sloan Seeks Overtime Pay for Legal Services Staff
------------------------------------------------------------
LUCIA SLOAN, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, vs. LADAH LAW FIRM PLLC, and RAMZY LADAH,
an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01343 (D. Nev.,
Aug. 3, 2019), seeks overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, even though the Plaintiff and the
putative FLSA collective and class members were/are to be
compensated on a salary basis, the Defendants routinely and
regularly required overtime work to be performed.

The Plaintiff and others similarly situated routinely and regularly
worked 49 hours per week.  They worked under the direction of
attorneys, and assisted in handling personal injury, general
liability, medical malpractice and bad faith cases, as well as
interpleader actions and minor compromises.

The Defendants are in business of providing legal services and
employed Plaintiff to perform duties of a paralegal in Las Vegas,
Nevada.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          James P. Kemp, Esq.
          Victoria L. Neal, Esq.
          KEMP & KEMP
          7435 W. Azure Drive, Ste 110
          Las Vegas, NV 89130
          Telephone: 702 258-1183
          Facsimile: 702 258-6983
          E-mail: jp@kemp-attorneys.com
                  vneal@kemp-attorneys.com

LSB INDUSTRIES: Request for Exclusion from Class Dropped
--------------------------------------------------------
LSB Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has reached
a preliminary settlement in the case, Dennis Wilson vs. LSB
Industries, Inc., et al., and the requesting party has withdrawn
its request for exclusion from the class.  

In 2015, a case styled Dennis Wilson vs. LSB Industries, Inc., et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The plaintiff purports to represent a class
of the company's shareholders and asserts that the company violated
federal securities laws by allegedly making material misstatements
and omissions about delays and cost overruns at our El Dorado
Chemical Company manufacturing facility and about the company's
financial well-being and prospects. The lawsuit, which also names
certain current and former officers, sought an unspecified amount
of damages.

In October 2018, LSB entered into a preliminary, binding term sheet
to settle Dennis Wilson vs. LSB Industries, Inc., et al., which was
subject to approval by the court. On January 17, 2019, the parties
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Wilson
Settlement Agreement"), pursuant to which the settlement amount of
approximately $18.5 million was paid in March by the company's
insurers on behalf of LSB and certain current and former officers
in exchange for, among other things, a release of all claims.  

On May 23, 2019, one request for exclusion from the settlement
class was made.

On June 28, 2019, the court held a settlement hearing and entered a
Judgement Approving Class Action Settlement, which includes a
provision whereby the party requesting exclusion may withdraw its
exclusion from the settlement and file by July 23, 2019 to rejoin
the class.

On July 23, 2019, LSB reached a preliminary settlement and the
requesting party withdrew its request for exclusion from the class.


LSB Industries said, "It is expected that the additional settlement
amount will be paid to the requesting party by our insurers on
behalf of LSB and certain current and former officers in exchange
for, among other things, an appropriate release of claims. A
liability for the additional settlement amount has been accrued and
a receivable for the loss recovery from our insurers for the
additional settlement amount has been recognized as of June 30,
2019."

LSB Industries, Inc., incorporated on January 21, 1977, is a
holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, is engaged
in the manufacture and sale of chemical products. The Company
operates through chemical business segment. The Company is a
manufacturer and distributor of nitrogen fertilizer and other
nitrogen products in North America. The company is based in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.


LTC DELIVERY: Does not Properly Pay Drivers, Says Suit
------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HERBERT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LTC DELIVERY, LLC and MEDICINE CHEST
INSTITUTIONAL PHARMACY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01856-N
(N.D. Tex., Aug. 5, 2019) is an action brought on behalf of
individuals who are current and former delivery drivers of
Defendants, challenging their unlawful misclassification as
independent contractors instead of employees.

Pursuant to the Defendants' schedules and business needs, Plaintiff
worked a minimum of 6 days per week. Plaintiff typically worked a
minimum of 42 hours per week, but often 50 hours per week or more.
Plaintiff and the putative collective members are paid a lump sum
to perform their daily route and are not paid any overtime premium
for hours work in excess of 40 hours. The Defendants'
misclassification of Plaintiff and the putative collective members
as independent contractors and the additional violations of the
FLSA were willful and undertaken in bad faith, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Herbert was a delivery driver, classified as an
independent contractor, making deliveries for Defendants LTC
Delivery and M Chest between April 2018 and May 2019.

LTC Delivery conducts business throughout the state of Texas in
medical and nursing facilities, senior living facilities, and
distribution centers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
     Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
     HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
     801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Phone: 817-479-9229
     Fax: 817-887-1878
     Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com
            pamela@herrmannlaw.com

          - and –

     Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
     Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston St., Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 994-5800
     Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
            zrubin@llrlaw.com


MACQUARIE INFRASTRUCTURE: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's
motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint is
pending.

On April 23, 2018, a complaint captioned City of Riviera Beach
General Employees Retirement System v. Macquarie Infrastructure
Corp., et al., Case 1:18-cv-03608 (VSB), was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

A substantially identical complaint captioned Daniel Fajardo v.
Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-03744 (VSB) was filed in the same court on April 27, 2018.


Both complaints asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all purchasers of MIC
common stock between February 22, 2016 and February 21, 2018.

The named defendants in both cases were the Company and four
current or former officers of MIC and one of its subsidiaries, IMTT
Holdings LLC. The complaints in both actions allege that the
Company and the individual defendants knowingly made material
misstatements and omitted material facts in its public disclosures
concerning the Company's and IMTT's business and the sustainability
of the Company's dividend to stockholders.

On January 30, 2019, the Court issued an opinion and order
consolidating the two cases, appointing Moab Partners, L.P. (Moab)
as Lead Plaintiff and approving Moab's selection of lead counsel.
On February 20, 2019, Moab filed a consolidated class action
complaint.

In addition to the claims noted above, the consolidated class
action complaint also asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to the Company's
November 2016 secondary public offering of common stock.

The consolidated amended complaint also adds Macquarie
Infrastructure Management (USA) Inc., Barclays Capital Inc. and
seven additional current or former officers or directors of MIC as
defendants.

On April 22, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint in its
entirety, with prejudice. Briefing concluded on July 22, 2019.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the claims
asserted, which the Company believes are entirely meritless.

Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation owns and operates a portfolio
of businesses that provide services to other businesses, government
agencies, and individuals. It operates through: International-Matex
Tank Terminals (IMTT), Atlantic Aviation, and MIC Hawaii segments.
The company was founded in 2004 and is based in New York, New
York.



MAJESTIC STAR: Clack Suit Moved to Northern District of Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Bobbie Clack On behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. The Majestic Star Casino,
LLC and Majestic Mississippi, LLC, doing business as: Fitz Tunica
Casino & Hotel, the Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-2019-900518, was
removed from the Calhoun County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Eastern) on Aug. 5,
2019. The Northern District of Alabama Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:19-cv-01248-ACA to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
the Hon. Judge Annemarie Carney Axon.

Majestic Star is a gaming holding company founded in Gary, Indiana
by Don H. Barden and currently based in Las Vegas, Nevada.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

Attorneys for The Majestic Star Casino, LLC are:

          Daniel S. Wolter, Esq.
          DANIEL WOLTER LAW FIRM LLC
          402 Office Park Dr. Ste 100
          Birmingham, AL 35223
          Telephone: (205) 983-6440
          Facsimile: (205) 983-6443
          E-mail: dwolter@wolterlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Majestic Mississippi, LLC are:

          David A. Lee, Esq.
          Kendall Ann Lee, Esq.
          PARSONS LEE & JULIANO PC
          600 Vestavia Parkway, Suite 300
          P O Box 661228
          Birmingham, AL 35266
          Telephone: (205) 326-6600
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7097
          E-mail: dlee@pljpc.com
                  klee@pljpc.com

MDL 2492: Ruiz Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case, ALEJANDRO RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-01882 (Filed May 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on
Aug. 2, 2019. The Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-05124 the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
student-athletes.

The Ruiz case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re: NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION INJURY
LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013. These
actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former
student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered
concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

MDL 2492: Scott Suit v. NCAA over Health Issues Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Cephus Scott, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-01885 (Filed
May 9, 2019), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Chicago) on Aug. 2, 2019. The
Northern District of Illinois Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:19-cv-05127 the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against NCAA to
obtain redress for injuries sustained as result of Defendant's
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
student-athletes.

The Scott case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2492, Re:
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION STUDENT-ATHLETE CONCUSSION
INJURY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Dec. 18, 2013.
These actions seek medical monitoring for putative classes of
former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they
suffered concussions. The Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed
information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion
injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1)
the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not
sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions
pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. Opponents'
arguments, while persuasive when the Section 1407 motion was first
filed, are less compelling now given the current state of the
litigation, the Panel said.

Since the motion for centralization was filed, an additional eight
related actions have been filed, most alleging overlapping putative
classes of former football players at NCAA-member schools. The
Northern District of Illinois Arrington action involves
student-athletes who participated in additional sports, and the
putative class alleged in that action is more limited in scope.
Most of the actions now pending, however, involve nearly completely
overlapping putative classes and claims. Moreover, the Panel is
persuaded that the overlap between Arrington and the remaining
actions is sufficient to warrant centralization. Regardless of the
scope of the putative classes alleged, all actions share common
factual questions concerning the NCAA's knowledge of the risks of
concussions in football players and its policies governing the
protection of players from such injuries. Plaintiffs in all actions
seek medical monitoring for putative class members.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation. These actions share factual questions
relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries
sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions,
including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to
class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties,
their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is
Hon. Judge John Z. Lee Paul. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727.

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

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER S LANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: 713 554 9099
          Facsimile: 713 554 9098
          E-mail: jefile@raiznerlaw.com

MDL 2885: Kuhn Suit over Combat Arms Earplugs Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER HAMBAUGH, MATTHEW KUHN,
and RYAN FRANKS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No.
3:19-cv-00853 (Filed July 22, 2019), was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola) on
Aug. 5, 2019. The Northern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:19-cv-02939-MCR-GRJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M liable for hearing loss or damage
Plaintiffs allegedly suffered while serving variously in the U.S.
military, including during foreign conflicts. The Plaintiff
contends that Combat Arms TM Earplugs, Version 2 ("CAEv2")
manufactured and sold by Aearo were defectively designed and failed
to provide adequate hearing protection.

3M denies these allegations. CAEv2, designed by Aearo in close
collaboration with the U.S. military, represented a revolutionary
breakthrough in hearing protection for service members. CAEv2
helped servicemembers better maintain situational awareness (e.g.,
to hear nearby voice commands) while also maintaining some
protection from gunfire and other higher decibel sounds.  3M claims
CAEv2 met the U.S. military's specifications and helped the
military provide hearing protection to service members.

The Kuhn case is being consolidated with MDL 2885 in re: 3M Combat
Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on April 3, 2019. These actions share common factual
questions and centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery;
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings on Daubert issues and other
pretrial matters; and conserve the resources of the parties, their
counsel, and the judiciary.

In the April 3, 2019 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in
this MDL involve common questions arising out of allegations that
the Defendants' Combat Arms earplugs were defective, causing
plaintiffs to develop hearing loss and/or tinnitus. Issues
concerning the design, testing, sale, and marketing of the Combat
Arms earplugs are common to all actions. Presiding Judge in the MDL
is Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers. The lead case is
3:19-md-02885-MCR-GRJ.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE PA - MIAMI FL
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 1205
          MIAMI, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          Facsimile: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

               - and -

          Ricardo J. Marenco, Esq.
          Mark Jeffrey Dearman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
          120 E Palmetto Pk Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 650-7200
          Facsimile: (561) 650-1509
          E-mail: rmarenco@rgrdlaw.com
                  mdearman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          1945 Biscayne Blvd. # 607
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 975-3320
          E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com

MERCHANTS & MEDICAL: Johnson Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
JUMOKA JOHNSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT CORPORATION INC.
and CAPITAL ONE N.A., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-01121-NJ (E.D.
Wis., Aug. 5, 2019) is a class action seeking redress for
collection practices that violate the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and Wisconsin Consumer Act.

On August 13, 2018, Plaintiff was mailed an account statement
referencing an alleged debt associated with a "Kohl's"
store-branded credit card account. On September 5, 2018, Merchants
mailed Plaintiff a debt collection letter regarding the alleged
debt associated with the same "Kohl's" store-branded credit card
account. The Letter states that the creditor had waived any rights
to accelerate the account under the optional acceleration clause
until, at the earliest, September 8, 2018. The Letter mailed on
September 5, 2018, represented that payment in full of the total
account balance of Plaintiff's alleged debts was due as of the date
of the letter, misrepresenting the amount of the debt it was
legally entitled to collect, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jumoka Johnson is an individual who resides in the
Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee County).

Merchants is engaged in the business of a collection agency, using
the mails and telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed
to others.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



MESA LABORATORIES: $3,300 Orrington Settlement to be Paid in Q3
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mesa Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company will pay the
settlement amount of $3,300 in the Orrington suit during its
quarter ending September 30, 2019.

In February 2018, Dr. James L. Orrington II filed a putative civil
class action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging that the company
sent unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines.

The complaint included counts alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
Conversion, Nuisance, and Trespass to Chattels.  The plaintiff
sought monetary damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

In January 2019, the company received preliminary court approval of
a class action settlement with Dr. James L. Orrington II and the
class in the amount of $3,300, and the company received final
approval on May 28, 2019.

Mesa Laboratories said, "We recorded the final settlement amount on
our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income during the year
ended March 31, 2019 and a corresponding liability is included as
legal liability on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. We
anticipate that we will pay the settlement amount of $3,300 during
our quarter ending September 30, 2019."

Mesa Laboratories, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets quality
control instruments and disposable products. Mesa Laboratories,
Inc. was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Lakewood,
Colorado.


MOLSON COORS: Illinois Class Action Transferred to Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Company  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the securities class
action suit filed with the Illinois District Court was transferred
to the Colorado District Court, but has not been consolidated with
any of the other class action suits filed in that district.

On February 15, 2019, two purported stockholders filed
substantially similar putative class action complaints against the
Company, Mark R. Hunter, and Tracey I. Joubert (the "Defendants")
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
(the "Colorado District Court"), and in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Illinois District
Court").

On February 21, 2019, another purported stockholder filed a
subsantialy similar complaint in the Colorado District Court. The
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of the Company's
stockholders and assert that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's
restatement of consolidated financial statements for the years
ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2017, and that the Company
purportedly lacked adequate internal controls over financial
reporting.

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an unspecified amount of
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other
costs.

On April 16, 2019, motions to consolidate and appoint a lead
plaintiff were filed in each case. On May 24, 2019, the securities
class action suit filed with the Illinois District Court was
transferred to the Colorado District Court, but has not been
consolidated with any of the other class action suits filed in that
district.

Molson Coors said, "We intend to defend the claims vigorously. A
range of potential loss is not estimable at this time."

Molson Coors Brewing Company manufactures, markets, and sells beer
and other malt beverage products in the United States, Canada,
Europe, and internationally. Molson Coors Brewing Company was
founded in 1786 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Novell Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD L. LAMKAY and ARTHUR NOVELL, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO
COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-04124-VC (S.D.N.Y., June
13, 2019), seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, as
a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligent and
wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development,
manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising,
distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM),
containing the active ingredient glyphosate.

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul D. Rheingold, Esq.
          RHEINGOLD GIUFFRA
          RUFFO & PLOTKIN LLP
          551 Fifth Avenue, 29 th Floor
          New York, NY 10176
          Telephone: (212) 684-1880

MONSANTO COMPANY: Shafer Sues over Defective Roundup Herbicide
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Monsanto Company
for negligence, strict liability, failure to warn, defective design
and manufacture, and for breach of implied warranties in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the herbicide Roundup. The case is captioned, ESTATE OF
VIOLA TORGESON, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
0:19-cv-01847 (D. Minn., July 15, 2019). It is also included as a
member case of In Re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 16-MD-2741. Plaintiff, Rosemarie Shafer for the Estate of Viola
Torgeson, maintains that Roundup and/or glyphosate is defective,
dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and
sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to
the dangers associated with its use.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation with a principal place
of business in St. Louis, Missouri. It is a multinational
agricultural biotechnology corporation and is the world's leading
producer of glyphosate. Monsanto discovered the herbicidal
properties of glyphosate during the 1970's and subsequently began
to design, research, manufacture, sell and distribute glyphosate
based "Roundup" as a broad-spectrum herbicide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles H. Johnson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES H. JOHNSON
     PA 2599 Mississippi Street
     New Brighton, MN 55112-5060
     Telephone: (651) 633-5685
     Facsimile: (651) 633-4442
     E-mail: bdehkes@charleshjohnsonlaw.com

MUNG MEE: Rosas Seeks OT Pay for Restaurant Staff
-------------------------------------------------
TIBURSIO BLANCO ROSAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. MUNG MEE THAI INC., dba
PRIK THAI KITCHEN, and JACKRAPOP PANURACH, and KANITHA CHANCHARD,
as individuals, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04461-LDH-CLP
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 2, 2019), seeks to recover damages for Defendants'
violation of wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of the Defendants whose duties
were as food preparer, kitchen worker, cleaner, and food deliver
while performing other miscellaneous duties from June 2013 to
November 2018. He worked approximately 72 hours per week but
Defendants did not pay them 1.5 times for hours worked over
40.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Roman Avsshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Court Terminates Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, John Doe, Charles Coe, Jane Roe, and Deborah A.
Taylor, as guardian of Scott Stephen Johnstone, the Plaintiffs, vs.
Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human
Services, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01039-JD
(D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. entered an order
on July 24, 2019:

   1. denying without prejudice New Hampshire Circuit Court's
motions
      to dismiss due to the amended complaints; and

   2. denying without prejudice NHDHHS's motions to dismiss due
      to the amended complaints.

The putative class action plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is
superseded by the amended motion to certify a class, and the
original motion is terminated. The Defendants shall respond to the
amended complaints as may be appropriate under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure, the Court says.[CC]

NIELSEN HOLDINGS: PERS Mississippi Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Nielsen Holdings plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit headed by the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi.

In August 2018, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants
Nielsen, former Chief Executive Officer Dwight Mitchell Barns, and
former Chief Financial Officer Jamere Jackson.

Another lawsuit, which alleges similar facts but also names other
defendants, including former Chief Operating Officer Stephen
Hasker, was filed in the Northern District of Illinois in September
2018 and transferred to the Southern District of New York in
December 2018.

These lawsuits assert violations of certain provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly
false and materially misleading statements relating to the outlook
of Nielsen's Buy (now "Connect") segment, the Company's
preparedness for changes in global data privacy laws and
Nielsen’s reliance on third-party data.

The actions were consolidated on April 22, 2019, and the Public
Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi was appointed lead
plaintiff for the putative class.

An amended complaint was filed on June 21, 2019, and the Company
anticipates filing a motion to dismiss the suit in the forthcoming
months.

Nielsen Holdings plc, together with its subsidiaries, operates as
an information and measurement company. It operates through Buy and
Watch segments. Nielsen Holdings plc was founded in 1923 and is
headquartered in Oxford, the United Kingdom.


NISOURCE INC: Settlement Reached in Greater Lawrence Incident
-------------------------------------------------------------
NiSource Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Company, Columbia of
Massachusetts and NiSource Corporate Services Company, a subsidiary
of the Company, have entered into a term sheet with the class
action plaintiffs under which they agreed to settle the class
action claims in connection with the Greater Lawrence Incident.

On September 13, 2018, a series of fires and explosions occurred in
Lawrence, Andover and North Andover, Massachusetts related to the
delivery of natural gas by Columbia of Massachusetts (the "Greater
Lawrence Incident"). The Greater Lawrence Incident resulted in one
fatality and a number of injuries, damaged multiple homes and
businesses, and caused the temporary evacuation of significant
portions of each municipality.

Various lawsuits, including several purported class action
lawsuits, have been filed by various affected residents or
businesses in Massachusetts state courts against the Company and/or
Columbia of Massachusetts in connection with the Greater Lawrence
Incident. A special judge has been appointed to hear all pending
and future cases and the class actions will be consolidated into
one class action.

On January 14, 2019, the special judge granted the parties' joint
motion to stay all cases until April 30, 2019 to allow mediation,
and the parties subsequently agreed to extend the stay until July
25, 2019.

The class action lawsuits allege varying causes of action,
including those for strict liability for ultra-hazardous activity,
negligence, private nuisance, public nuisance, premises liability,
trespass, breach of warranty, breach of contract, failure to warn,
unjust enrichment, consumer protection act claims, negligent,
reckless and intentional infliction of emotional distress and gross
negligence, and seek actual compensatory damages, plus treble
damages, and punitive damages.

On July 26, 2019, 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 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 DPU 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.

Many residents and business owners have submitted individual damage
claims to Columbia of Massachusetts. The company also has received
notice from three parties indicating an intent to assert wrongful
death claims. In Massachusetts, punitive damages are available in a
wrongful death action upon proof of gross negligence or willful or
reckless conduct causing the death.

In addition, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is seeking
reimbursement from Columbia of Massachusetts for its expenses
incurred in connection with the Greater Lawrence Incident. The
outcomes and impacts of such private actions are uncertain at this
time.

The company is discussing potential settlements with plaintiffs
asserting certain bodily injury and wrongful death claims. On April
25, 2019, the company entered into a settlement agreement with
certain of these plaintiffs involving bodily injury claims, subject
to certain conditions, including court approval. On July 3, 2019,
the company entered into a settlement with one of the parties that
indicated an intent to assert a wrongful death claim.

On May 7, 2019, Columbia of Massachusetts and the municipalities of
Lawrence, Andover and North Andover jointly announced that they
reached a settlement for expenses incurred by the municipalities in
connection with the Greater Lawrence Incident, and for compensating
the municipalities to repave affected streets, roadways and
sidewalks.

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.


OBALON THERAPEUTICS: Bids to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case, Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00352 (S.D. Cal.), are awaiting a ruling on
defendants' motion to dismiss the case.

Judge J. Battaglia held in a July 30 order that these motions to
dismiss the lawsuit are suitable for determination on the papers
and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule
7.1.d.1.  Accordingly, no appearances are required and the motions
will be deemed submitted as of this date.  Motions to Dismiss were
filed by:

     1. BTIG, LLC, Canaccord Genuity Inc., Stifel, Nicolaus &
Company, Incorporated, and UBS Securities LLC; and

     2. Raymond Dittamore, Douglas Fisher, Les Howe, Nooshin
Hussainy, Kim Kamdar, Ph.D., Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., William
Plovanic, Andrew Rasdal, Sharon Stevenson, DVM Ph.D.

In a June 5 Order, Judge Battaglia granted a Joint Motion to
Continue Hearing Date on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. Motion
The hearing was continued to Aug. 1.

Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 24, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that on February 14 and 22,
2018, plaintiff stockholders filed class action lawsuits against
the company and certain of its executive officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California
(Hustig v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-00352-AJB-WVG, and Cook v. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. et
al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00407-CAB-RBB).

On July 24, 2018, the court appointed Inter-Local Pension Fund
GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff. On October 5, 2018, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.

The amended complaint alleges that the company and certain of its
executive officers made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the company's business,
operations, and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act.

The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 11 of the
Exchange Act arising out of the Company's initial public offering.
The plaintiffs seek damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief.

The underwriters from the company's initial public offering have
also been named as defendants in this case and the company have
certain obligations under the underwriting agreement to indemnify
them for their costs and expenses incurred in connection with this
litigation.

Obalon Therapeutics said, "We believe the complaint is without
merit, and on December 4, 2018, we moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. The court has scheduled a hearing for August 1, 2019 on
the motion to dismiss."

Obalon Therapeutics, Inc., a vertically integrated medical device
company, focuses on developing and commercializing medical devices
to treat people who are obese and overweight. The company offers
the Obalon balloon system designed to provide weight loss in obese
patients. Obalon Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 2008 and is
headquartered in Carlsbad, California.


PANDORA MEDIA: Continues to Defend Flo & Eddie Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that in the class action suit
initiated by Flo & Eddie Inc., the California Supreme Court has
issued an order dismissing consideration of certified questions.

On October 2, 2014, Flo & Eddie Inc. filed a class action suit
against Pandora in the federal district court for the Central
District of California. The complaint alleges a violation of
California Civil Code Section 980, unfair competition,
misappropriation and conversion in connection with the public
performance of sound recordings recorded prior to February 15, 1972
(which we refer to as, "pre-1972 recordings").

On December 19, 2014, Pandora filed a motion to strike the
complaint pursuant to California’s Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against
Public Participation ("Anti-SLAPP") statute, which following denial
of Pandora's motion was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

In March 2017, the Ninth Circuit requested certification to the
California Supreme Court on the substantive legal questions. The
California Supreme Court accepted certification.

In May 2019, the California Supreme Court issued an order
dismissing consideration of the certified questions on the basis
that, following the enactment of the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte
Music Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-264, 132 Stat. 3676 (2018)
(the "MMA"), resolution of the questions posed by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals was no longer "necessary to . . . settle an
important question of law."

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


PANDORA MEDIA: Ponderosa Twins Plus One Suit Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the class action suit
initiated by Ponderosa Twins Plus One against Pandora Media, LLC, a
company subsidiary, is still stayed.

In September 2016, Ponderosa Twins Plus One and others filed a
class action suit against Pandora alleging claims similar to those
asserted in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc.

This action is also currently stayed in the Northern District of
California pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie,
Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.

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

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


PANDORA MEDIA: Sheridan Suits on Pre-1972 Recordings Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the Sheridan lawsuits in
California and New Jersey remain stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Pandora Media, Inc.

In September and October 2015, Arthur and Barbara Sheridan filed
separate class action suits against Pandora in the federal district
courts for the Northern District of California and the District of
New Jersey.

The complaints allege a variety of violations of common law and
state copyright statutes, common law misappropriation, unfair
competition, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of rights
of publicity arising from allegations that Pandora owes royalties
for the public performance of pre-1972 recordings.

The Sheridan actions in California and New Jersey are currently
stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v.
Pandora Media, Inc.

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

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


PEMC LLC: Fails to Properly Pay Exotic Dancers, Horn Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LINDSAY HORN, On behalf of herself and All Other Similarly Situated
Individuals v. PEMC LLC d/b/a LEGENDS GENTLEMEN'S ENTERTAINMENT
CLUB, AND BO SALIMA, Case No. 2:19-cv-12243-MAG-MKM (E.D. Mich.,
July 30, 2019), alleges that the Defendants required the Plaintiff
and others to work as exotic dancers at their adult entertainment
club but refused to compensate dancers at the applicable minimum
wage under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan
Minimum Wage Law.

PEMC LLC is a domestic limited liability company incorporated in
Michigan and doing business as Legends Gentlemen's Entertainment
Club in Detroit, Michigan.  Bo Salima is an individual owner and/or
manager of Legends.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Detroit,
Michigan, under the name of "Legends."  They employ exotic dancers,
including the Plaintiff and the class.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C.
          25892 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910
          Telephone: (248) 542-6300
          E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com


POWELL PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY: Sandoval Sues over Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A class and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) action complaint
has been filed against Powell Pediatric Dentistry for alleged
violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business
and Professions Code. The case is captioned BONNIE SANDOVAL;
individually, and on behalf of all other members of the general
public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act,
Plaintiff, vs. POWELL PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19CECG02613 (Cal. Super., Fresno Cty., July 16, 2019). Plaintiff
asserts several allegations against Powell Pediatric Dentistry
including unpaid overtime, failure to provide meal breaks, unpaid
minimum wages, failure to provide rest breaks, failure to pay wages
upon termination, and non-compliant wage statements.

Powell Pediatric Dentistry has four locations California, including
the office located at 7005 N. Chesnut Avenue, Suite 101 Fresno,
California. The company provides dental services Monday through
Friday and commits to respond on children's dental emergencies
regardless of time. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Romina Keshishyan, Esq.
     RK LEGAL, PC
     655 N. Central Ave., Suite 1700
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Telephone: (323) 744-4124
     Facsimile: (323) 763-7770

              - and -

     Alexander G. Mardirossian, Esq.
     Rami F. Hamoui, Esq.
     HM LEGAL GROUP
     790 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 790
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Telephone: (818) 660-5088
     Facsimile: (818) 806-9067


PREFERRED STAFFING: Sanford's Bid for Class Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David E. Jones denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned ALLEN SANFORD, et al. v.
PREFERRED STAFFING INC., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01071-DEJ (E.D.
Wisc.).

"Even though Plaintiffs have satisfied the Rule 23(a)
prerequisites, because Plaintiffs failed to establish that
questions common to the class predominate over individual
questions, the Court is unable to grant class certification," Judge
Jones opines.

According to the Court's Decision and Order, written objections to
the Order or part thereof may be filed within 14 days of service of
the Order.  Objections are to be filed in accordance with the
Eastern District of Wisconsin's electronic case filing procedures.
Failure to file a timely objection with the district judge shall
result in a waiver of a party's right to appeal.  If no response or
reply will be filed, the parties will notify the Court in writing.

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, bring suit against Defendants Preferred Staffing,
StaffWorks, and Kleen Test for failing to pay minimum and overtime
wages to its employees, in violation of Wisconsin Administration
Code Sections 272.12 and 274.03.[CC]


PRIMAL LIFE: Sent Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Jennings Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN JENNINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRIMAL LIFE ORGANICS, LLC an Ohio Limited Liability
Company, Case No. 9:19-cv-81076-RKA (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2019),
seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's illegal conduct of
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending
unsolicited telemarketing text messages.

Primal Life is an Ohio limited liability company whose principal
office is located in Aurora, Ohio.  The Defendant directs, markets,
and provides its business activities throughout the State of
Florida.

The Defendant is an online holistic health and beauty products
vendor.  To promote its services, the Defendant engages in
unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the
process.[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


RESEARCH AMERICA: Initial Hearing in Byer Suit Set for Aug. 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer set an initial status hearing
for August 28, 2019, at 9:00 a.m., in the lawsuit entitled Byer
Clinic of Chiropractic, Ltd. v. Research America, Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-05080 (N.D. Ill.).

The Hearing on the Plaintiff's motion to certify class set for
August 20, 2019, is stricken and re−set to August 28, 2019, at
9:00 a.m.[CC]


RISE PARTNERS: Rodriguez et al Seek OT Pay for Construction Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ, JESUS AREVALO, NELSON GONZALEZ, SANTOS GARCIA,
ANASTACIO RODRIGUEZ, and FINES DIAZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. RISE DEVELOPMENT
PARTNERS, LLC, RISE CONCRETE LLC, LBS MAINTENANCE CORP., and BARRY
CALDWELL and JOSE ALVAREZ, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04462-DLI-RML (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 2, 2019), seeks to recover
damages for Defendants' violation of wage and hour laws.

The Plaintiffs are former employees of the Defendants who performed
construction and carpentry duties at various job sites through New
York City. They worked approximately 72 hours per week but
Defendants did not pay them 1.5  for hours  worked over 40.

Rise Partners is doing business in commercial real estate.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Roman Avsshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263 9591

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Class Action Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the securities
class action suit entitled, Deka Investment GmbH et al. v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., remains stayed.  

The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action
lawsuit (the Deka Lawsuit) in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al.
v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.


The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 26, 2014, was brought
against the Company, certain of its current and former directors
and executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's  initial public offering (IPO) on
behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014.


The complaint alleges, among other things, that our IPO
registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public
disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing
misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay
dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and
oversight.

In December 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the
plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes.

In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit
pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order
in In re Cobalt Int’l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017).

In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka
Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be
stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification.

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

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a specialized consumer
finance company, provides vehicle finance and third-party servicing
in the United States. Its products and services include retail
installment contracts and vehicle leases, as well as dealer loans
for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital, and
revolving lines of credit. The company was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. is a subsidiary of Santander Holdings USA, Inc.


SERVICE CORP: Appeal in Moulton Class Suit Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Karen Moulton,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation International and
others ; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil District Court Parish of
New Orleans, Louisiana.

This case was filed as a class action in June 2013 against SCI and
a subsidiary in connection with SCI's acquisition of Stewart
Enterprises, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that SCI (the company)
aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by Stewart
Enterprises and its board of directors in negotiating the
combination of Stewart Enterprises with a subsidiary of SCI.

The plaintiffs seek damages concerning the combination.

The company filed exceptions to the plaintiffs' complaint that were
granted in June 2014. Thus, subject to appeals, SCI will no longer
be party to the suit. The case has continued against the company's
subsidiary Stewart Enterprises and its former individual directors.
However, in October 2016, the court entered a judgment dismissing
all of plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.

Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

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

Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and
services in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in
1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: Bernstein Suit Over Sales Practices Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Caroline
Bernstein, on behalf of herself and Marla Urofsky on behalf of Rhea
Schwartz, and both on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SCI Pennsylvania Funeral Services, Inc. and Service Corporation
International, Case No. 2:17-cv-04960-GAM; in the United States
District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

This case was filed in November 2017 as a purported national or
alternatively as a Pennsylvania class action regarding SCI's Forest
Hills/Shalom Memorial Park in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania and
its Roosevelt Memorial Park Cemetery in Trevose, Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs allege wrongful burial and sales practices.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and injunctive relief.

Service Corporation said, "Given the nature of this lawsuit, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or ranges of loss,
if any."

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

Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and
services in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in
1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


SERVICE CORP: Romano Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a California
court has granted the parties' Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement in Nicole Romano, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCI Direct, Inc., et al;
Case No. BC656654; in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Los Angeles.

This lawsuit was filed in April 2017 against SCI subsidiaries and
purports to have been brought on behalf of persons who worked as
independent sales representatives in the U.S. during the four years
preceding the filing of the complaint. In addition, this lawsuit
also asserts claims under PAGA provisions on behalf of other
similarly situated California persons.

The plaintiff alleges numerous causes of action for alleged wage
and hour pay violations, including misclassifying the independent
sales representatives as independent contractors instead of
employees.

The plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, compensatory and punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and injunctive
relief. The parties reached a settlement of this lawsuit and the
Doyle lawsuit in November 2018. The settlement agreement is subject
to court approval.

The financial terms of the settlement call for SCI Direct to pay a
total of $2.5 million in relation to both the Romano and Doyle
lawsuits.

On May 21, 2019, the Court granted the parties' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Service Corporation International provides deathcare products and
services in the United States and Canada. The company operates
through Funeral and Cemetery segments. The company was founded in
1962 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


SIRIUS XM: Memorandum of Understanding Reached in Buchanan Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM Holdings Inc. in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has entered
into a memorandum of understanding to settle the class action suit
initiated by Thomas Buchanan.

On March 13, 2017, Thomas Buchanan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
against Sirius XM in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The plaintiff in this
action alleges that Sirius XM violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA") by, among other things, making
telephone solicitations to persons on the National Do-Not-Call
registry, a database established to allow consumers to exclude
themselves from telemarketing calls unless they consent to receive
the calls in a signed, written agreement, and making calls to
consumers in violation of internal Do-Not-Call registry.

The plaintiff is seeking various forms of relief, including
statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the
alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and
willful violation of the TCPA and a permanent injunction
prohibiting the Company from making, or having made, any calls to
land lines that are listed on the National Do-Not-Call registry or
the Company's internal Do-Not-Call registry.

Following a mediation, in April 2019, Sirius XM entered into an
agreement to settle this purported class action suit. The
settlement resolves the claims of consumers for the period October
2013 through January 2019.

As part of the settlement, Sirius XM paid $25 into a
non-reversionary settlement fund from which cash to class members,
notice, administrative costs, and attorney's fees and costs will be
paid.

The settlement also contemplates that Sirius XM will provide three
months of service to its All Access subscription package for those
members of the class that elect to receive it, in lieu of cash, at
no cost to those class members and who are not active subscribers
at the time of the distribution. The availability of this
three-month service option will not diminish the $25 common fund.
As part of the settlement, Sirius XM will also implement certain
changes relating to its "Do-Not-Call" practices and telemarketing
programs. Settlement of this matter is subject to, among other
things, final approval by the Court.

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

Sirius XM Holdings Inc. provides satellite radio services in the
United States. The company broadcasts music, sports, entertainment,
comedy, talk, news, traffic, and weather channels, including
various music genres ranging from rock, pop and hip-hop, country,
dance, jazz, Latin, and classical; live play-by-play sports from
principal leagues and colleges; multitude of talk and entertainment
channels for various audiences; national, international, and
financial news; and limited run channels. The company was founded
in 1990 and is headquartered in New York, New York. Sirius XM
Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corporation.


SLEEPY'S LLC: Wins Prelim. Nod of Settlement in Sullivan Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Richard G. Stearns grants the parties' joint motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement agreement in the lawsuit
styled LAURITA SULLIVAN and CARLOS BRYANT, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. SLEEPY'S LLC; MATTRESS FIRM,
INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-12009-RGS (D. Mass.).

The Court preliminarily approves the Settlement and Stipulation of
Settlement and adopts the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement
for the purpose of this Order.  The Court provisionally certifies a
settlement class consisting of:

     all individuals who worked as commission sales employees at
     Sleepy's stores in Massachusetts during the time period from
     September 11, 2014 to October 22, 2016.

The Court approves, in form and content, the Notice of Proposed
Class Action Settlement.  Within 21 days, the Defendants will
provide the Claims Administrator, Optime Administration, LLC, a
list of all Class Members and their last known addresses, and the
Parties will provide the Claims Administrator a copy of the
Settlement Notice and Claim Form as approved by the Court.

Within 14 days, the Claims Administrator shall send the Settlement
Notice, Opt-out Form, and Objection Form approved by the Court to
all Class Members, via First Class U.S. mail, using the most
current mailing addresses presently available to the Defendants.

A Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for December 18, 2019, at
2:00 p.m.[CC]


SOTHEBY'S: Class Suits Challenge Bidfair USA Merger
---------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's, incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in three putative class action suits related
to its merger with Bidfair USA LLC.

On June 16, 2019, Sotheby's entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and among Sotheby's, Bidfair USA
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent") and BidFair
MergeRight Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary
of Parent ("Merger Sub"). Parent and Merger Sub are ultimately
controlled by Patrick Drahi. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub will be merged with and into Sotheby's (the "Merger"),
with Sotheby's continuing as the surviving company in the Merger.

Following the announcement on June 17, 2019 of the pending Merger,
Sotheby's and members of its Board of Directors have been named in
three putative class action complaints, Shiva Stein vs. Sotheby's,
et al. and Eli D. Goffmna vs. Sotheby's, et al. filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and a third
putative class action complaint, Michael Kent vs. Sotheby's, et al.
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, by
alleged stockholders of Sotheby's.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the preliminary
proxy statement filed with the SEC by Sotheby's on July 12, 2019 in
connection with the pending Merger misstates or omits material
information regarding Sotheby's financial projections, the analyses
performed by Sotheby's financial advisors, and the process leading
up to the pending Merger, in violation of the federal securities
laws.

Sotheby's said, "Litigation such as this is routine in the United
States following the announcement of a pending acquisition, and
additional, duplicative actions may be filed in the future. We
believe that any claim that the preliminary proxy statement is
inaccurate or misleading in any way is without merit, and we will
vigorously defend against any assertions in these or in any similar
actions that may be filed against Sotheby's. Therefore, at this
time, we do not believe the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits
will have a material adverse effect on Sotheby's."

Sotheby's, incorporated on March 30, 2006, is a global art business
company. The Company is engaged in offering its clients
opportunities to connect with and transact in a range of objects.
The Company offers a range of art-related services, including the
brokerage of private art sales, private jewelry sales through
Sotheby's Diamonds, private selling exhibitions at its galleries,
art-related financing, and art advisory services, as well as retail
wine locations in New York and Hong Kong. The Company operates
through two segments: Agency and Finance. The company is based in
New York, New York.


SOUTHERN POWER: Suit by Monroe Employees' Retirement Sys. Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Power Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a putative class action lawsuit initiated by Monroe County
Employees' Retirement System.

In January 2017, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed against Southern Company, certain of its officers, and
certain former Mississippi Power officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Monroe County
Employees' Retirement System on behalf of all persons who purchased
shares of Southern Company's common stock between April 25, 2012
and October 29, 2013.

The complaint alleges that Southern Company, certain of its
officers, and certain former Mississippi Power officers made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Kemper
County energy facility in violation of certain provisions under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and
litigation costs and attorneys' fees.

In 2017, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that provided
additional detail about their claims, increased the purported class
period by one day, and added certain other former Mississippi Power
officers as defendants. Also in 2017, the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint with prejudice, to
which the plaintiffs filed an opposition.

In March 2018, the court issued an order granting, in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss. The court dismissed certain claims
against certain officers of Southern Company and Mississippi Power
and dismissed the allegations related to a number of the statements
that plaintiffs challenged as being false or misleading.

In April 2018, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of
the court's order, seeking dismissal of the remaining claims in the
lawsuit. In August 2018, the court denied the motion for
reconsideration and denied a motion to certify the issue for
interlocutory appeal.

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

Southern Power Company, a public utility company, develops,
acquires, constructs, owns, and manages generation assets,
including renewable energy projects. The company was founded in
2001 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Southern Power Company is a
subsidiary of The Southern Company.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Suit Related to Boeing Aircraft Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company and Boeing
are facing a class action suit related to their concealment of
defects with the MAX aircraft.

On July 11, 2019, a complaint alleging violations of federal and
state laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed
against Boeing and the Company in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman.

The complaint alleges that Boeing and the Company colluded to
conceal defects with the MAX aircraft, in violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.

The initial complaint seeks damages on behalf of putative classes
of customers who purchased tickets for air travel from either the
Company or American Airlines between August 29, 2017, and March 13,
2019.

The complaint generally seeks money damages, equitable monetary
relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and other costs.

Southwest Airlines said, "The time for the Company to respond to
the complaint has not yet expired. The Company denies all
allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the complaint. The
Company believes the plaintiffs' positions are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself."

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settlement Objectors to Drop Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that two objectors to the
class action settlement have moved to dismiss their appeals from
the court order granting final approval of the deal.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company,
American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit
capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act.

Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed
in the United States District Courts for the Central District of
California, the Northern District of California, the District of
Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of
Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of
Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of
Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,
the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of
Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern
District of Wisconsin.

On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District
Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to
restrict capacity from 2009 to present.

The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of
persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the
defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble
damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this
motion.

On December 20, 2017, the Company reached an agreement to settle
these cases with a proposed class of all persons who purchased
domestic airline transportation services from July 1, 2011, to the
date of the settlement. The Company agreed to pay $15 million and
to provide certain cooperation with the plaintiffs as set forth in
the settlement agreement.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on January
3, 2018, and the plaintiffs provided notice to the proposed
settlement class. The Court held a fairness hearing on March 22,
2019, and it issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement on May 9, 2019.

On June 10, 2019, three objectors filed notices of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, but two of the objectors have moved to dismiss their
appeals. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing.

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Still Awaits Service of Saskatchewan Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a class action complaint
in Saskatchewan court has not been served on the Company.

On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in the Federal Court in Canada alleging that the
Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United
Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and maintain higher fares
for Canadian residents traveling in the United States and for
travel between the United States and Canada.

Similar lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia on July 15, 2015, Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
on August 4, 2015, Superior Court of the Province of Quebec on
September 21, 2015, and Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
October 6, 2015.

In December 2015, the Company entered into Tolling and
Discontinuance agreements with putative class counsel in the
Federal Court, British Columbia, and Ontario proceedings and a
discontinuance agreement with putative class counsel in the Quebec
proceeding.

The other defendants entered into an agreement with the same
putative class counsel to stay the Federal Court, British Columbia,
and Quebec proceedings and to proceed in Ontario. On June 10, 2016,
the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to discontinue that
action against the Company without prejudice and stayed the action
against the other defendants.

On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff unilaterally discontinued the
action against the Company in British Columbia. On February 14,
2017, the Quebec Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
discontinue the Quebec proceeding against the Company and to stay
that proceeding against the other defendants. On March 10, 2017,
the Ontario Court granted the plaintiff's motion to discontinue
that proceeding as to the Company.

On September 29, 2017, the Company and the other defendants entered
into a tolling agreement suspending any limitations periods that
may apply to possible claims among them for contribution and
indemnity arising from the Canadian litigation. The Saskatchewan
claim has not been served on the Company, and the time for the
Company to respond to that complaint has not yet begun to run.

The plaintiff in that case generally seeks damages (including
punitive damages in certain cases), prejudgment interest,
disgorgement of any benefits accrued by the defendants as a result
of the allegations, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
other costs.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend this civil case in Canada. The Company does not
currently serve Canada.

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

Southwest Airlines Co. operates a passenger airline that provides
scheduled air transportation services in the United States and
near-international markets. Southwest Airlines Co. was founded in
1967 and is based in Dallas, Texas.



STAR GROUP: Settlement of Donnenfeld Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Star Group, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the
class action suit entitled, Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc.,
remains pending.

On April 18, 2017, a civil action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled M.
Norman Donnenfeld v. Petro, Inc., Civil Action Number
2:17-cv-2310-JFB-SIL, against Petro, Inc.  

By amended complaint filed on August 15, 2017, the Plaintiff
alleged he did not receive expected contractual benefits under his
protected price plan contract when oil prices fell and asserts
various claims for relief including breach of contract, violation
of the New York General Business Law and fraudulent inducement.  

The Plaintiff also seeks to have a class certified of similarly
situated Petro customers who entered into protected price plan
contracts and were denied the same contractual benefits. No class
has yet been certified in this action. The Plaintiff seeks
compensatory, punitive and other damages in unspecified amounts.  

On September 15, 2017, Petro filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint as time-barred and for failure to state a cause of
action. On September 12, 2018, the district court granted in part
and denied in part Petro's motion to dismiss. The district court
dismissed the Plaintiff's claims for breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing and fraudulent inducement, but declined to
dismiss the Plaintiff's remaining claims. The district court
granted the Plaintiff leave to amend to attempt to replead his
fraudulent inducement claim.  

On October 10, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint attempted to replead a
fraudulent inducement claim and is otherwise substantially similar
or identical to the prior complaint.  

On November 13, 2018, Petro moved to dismiss the fraudulent
inducement and unjust enrichment claims in the second amended
complaint. On January 31, 2019, the court granted the motion and
dismissed the fraudulent inducement and unjust enrichment claims
with prejudice.  

On February 22, 2019, counsel for Petro and the Plaintiff
participated in a mediation which, after arms-length negotiations,
resulted in a memorandum of understanding to settle the litigation,
subject to the completion of confirmatory discovery, negotiation of
a final settlement agreement and court approval.  

In an order dated March 27, 2019, the district court stayed all
discovery deadlines in light of the pending settlement. On May 6,
2019, the Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement which remains pending before
the court.  

Star Group said, "The anticipated settlement is not an admission of
liability or breach to any customers by Petro and the Company
continues to believe the allegations lack merit. If the settlement
is not approved or finalized for any reason, the Company will
continue to vigorously defend the action; in that case, we cannot
assess the potential outcome or materiality of this matter."

Star Group, L.P., formerly Star Gas Partners, L.P., incorporated on
October 16, 1995, is a service energy provider. The Company is a
home heating oil and propane distributor and services provider. The
Company also sells gasoline and diesel fuel to customers on a
delivery only basis. The Company installs, maintains and repairs
heating and air conditioning equipment, and provides these services
outside its customer base, including service contracts for natural
gas and other heating systems. The company is based in Stamford,
Connecticut.


STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL: Thomas et al. Sue over Burial Fee
----------------------------------------------------------
The case, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company v. St. Stephens
Cemetery Association, Case No. 17-CI-001663, was transferred from
the Jefferson Circuit Court to the United States District Court to
the Western District of Kentucky on July 15, 2019. The United
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky assigned
Case No. 3:19-cv-00513-RGJ for further proceedings.

In this complaint, Plaintiffs, Robin Thomas, Tina Seaton, Kelly
Bryant, Pamela Wilkerson, Crystal Ray, and Tina Clark,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring
this Second Amended Class Action Complaint against Defendants St.
Stephen's Cemetery Association, Bruce D. Zimmerman, Sr., Herb
Zimmerman, Tony Bostic, Mark Holland, and Barbara Ann Houser.
Defendants charged Plaintiffs, members of the proposed Class,
and/or their family members, fees for cemetery and burial services,
and gained the trust of Plaintiffs, members of the proposed class
and/or their family members, and then engaged in grossly negligent,
wanton and reckless behavior, including failing to provide the
grave sites purchased by Plaintiffs and members of the proposed
class and/or their family members, losing records related to the
location of bodies, burying bodies in improper locations,
wrongfully mishandling corpses, trespass, causing property damage
and physical injury to grave sites, failing to follow Kentucky
cemetery laws for the proper interment of bodies or cremated
remains, selling burial plots multiple times, and failing to
provide headstones and other burial services, in violation of the
Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, Kentucky Revised Statutes,
Kentucky statutory law, and Kentucky common law.

St. Stephen's Cemetery Association is a Kentucky corporation having
its principal place of business at 1808 S. Preston St., Louisville,
KY 40217. It maintains a registered agent in Louisville and a board
of directors. Bruce D. Zimmerman, Sr., Herb Zimmerman, Mark
Holland, and Tony Bostic are former members of the Board of
Directors of the Cemetery Association. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark K. Gray, Esq.
     Matthew L. White, Esq.
     Jacob E. Levy, Esq.
     GRAY & WHITE
     713 East Market Street Suite 200
     Louisville, KY 40202

           - and -

     Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
     Alex C. Davis, Esq.
     Sean McCarty, Esq.
     JONES WARD PLC
     1205 E. Washington Street, Suite 111
     Louisville, KY 40206
     Telephone: (502) 882- 6000
     Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
     E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com
             alex@jonesward.com
             ashton@jonesward.com

             - and -

     Stephen A. Brooks, Esq.
     STEPHEN BROOKS PSC
     105 S. Sherrin Avenue
     Louisville, KY 40207


SUNRUN, INC: Saunders Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. SUNRUN, INC., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:19-cv-04548 (N.D. Cal., Aug.
5, 2019), contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its
merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to
wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Defendant is a national retailer and servicer of residential
solar power. In a misguided attempt to promote solar power products
and services, the Defendant engaged in an unlawful form of
marketing: sending unauthorized automated text message
advertisements to consumers' cellphones.

Defendant's conduct has harm Plaintiff and other consumers, not
only because they were subjected to the aggravation and invasion of
privacy that necessarily accompanies unauthorized automated text
message advertisements, but also because consumers like Plaintiff
frequently have to pay their cellphone service providers for the
receipt of such text messages.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the putative class

          Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          10728 Lindbrook Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893-7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
          E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com

SWISSPORT USA: Sandhu Seeks OT Wages for Hourly Agents
------------------------------------------------------
SHAMINDER SANDHU, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SWISSPORT USA, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 702946/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Aug. 2, 2019), alleges that
Defendant has engaged and continues to engage in illegal and
improper wage practices. The case is assigned to the Hon. Pam B.
Jackman-Brown.

The Defendant's practices include requiring hourly paid agents to
perform work without compensation during the meal breaks and
failing to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 in a
week, in violation of the New York Labor Law.

Swissport USA, Inc. provides airport services. The Company offers
ground handling, passenger, baggage and cargo handling, and
aircraft loading and unloading services for airlines.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625-0105

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          ROBINSON & COLE
          666 Third Ave., 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 451-2900

TABLEAU SOFTWARE: Faces 3 Salesforce.com-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Tableau Software, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in three lawsuits related to the company's
proposed transaction with Salesforce.com.

On July 10 and 11, 2019, respectively, three civil actions were
filed against Tableau and each of the current members of Tableau's
board of directors asserting claims under Sections 14(e), 14(d),
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 challenging the
adequacy of certain public disclosures made by Tableau concerning
the Company's proposed transaction with Salesforce.com.

Specifically, on July 10, 2019, Shiva Stein, a purported
stockholder of Tableau, commenced an action in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware (the "Stein Action").


That same day, Marcy Curtis, a purported stockholder of Tableau,
commenced a putative class action in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware (the "Curtis Action").  And, on
July 11, 2019, Cathy O'Brien, a purported stockholder of Tableau,
commenced an action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "O'Brien Action").  

The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction preventing
consummation of the proposed transaction with Salesforce,
rescission of the proposed transaction or rescissory damages in the
event it is consummated, an accounting by the defendants for all
damages caused to the plaintiffs, and the award of attorneys' fees
and expenses. Defendants have not answered the complaints in the
Stein, Curtis, or O'Brien Actions.  

Tableau Software, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
business analytics software products. The company sells its
products directly, as well as through indirect sales channels, such
as technology vendors, resellers, original equipment manufacturers,
independent software vendor, and distributors in the United States,
Canada, and internationally. Tableau Software, Inc. was founded in
2003 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.


TABLEAU SOFTWARE: Scheufele Class Action Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Tableau Software, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend "Scheufele Action".

On July 28, 2017, and August 2, 2017, respectively, two
substantially similar securities class action complaints were filed
against the Company and two of its current and former executive
officers.  The first complaint was filed in the U.S. District for
the Southern District of New York (the "Scheufele Action"). The
second complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington (the "Abarrientos Action").

On October 17, 2017, the Abarrientos Action was voluntarily
dismissed. On October 18, 2017, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel in the Scheufele Action. On December 8,
2017, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which alleged that
between February 5, 2015 and February 4, 2016, the Company and
certain of its executive officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with statements regarding the Company's business and
operations by allegedly failing to disclose that product launches
and software upgrades by competitors were negatively impacting the
Company's competitive position and profitability. The amended
complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
other costs.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
January 12, 2018. On February 2, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint (the "SAC"), which contains substantially
similar allegations as the amended complaint, and adds as
defendants two of the Company's current and former executive
officers and directors. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
SAC on March 13, 2018. On February 8, 2019, the court denied
Defendants' motion to dismiss the SAC. Defendants filed an answer
to the SAC on March 1, 2019, and subsequently amended their answer
on April 18, 2019. The court entered a scheduling order on May 29,
2019, but did not set a trial date.

Tableau Software, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
business analytics software products. The company sells its
products directly, as well as through indirect sales channels, such
as technology vendors, resellers, original equipment manufacturers,
independent software vendor, and distributors in the United States,
Canada, and internationally. Tableau Software, Inc. was founded in
2003 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.


TELADOC HEALTH: Continues to Defend Reiner Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a purported securities class action complaint entitled,
Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al.

On December 12, 2018, a purported securities class action complaint
(Reiner v. Teladoc Health, Inc., et.al.) was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"SDNY") against the Company and certain of the Company's officers
and a former officer.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company's common stock during the period March 3,
2016 through December 5, 2018.

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements and omissions with respect to, among other
things, the alleged misconduct of one of the Company's previous
Executive Officers.

The complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that the claims against the Company and its
officers are without merit, and the Company and its named officers
intend to defend the Company vigorously, including filing a motion
to dismiss the complaint.

Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


TELADOC HEALTH: Unit Continues to Defend Thomas TCPA Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Teladoc Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Best Doctors, Inc., a
company subsidiary, continues to defend a purported class action
suit entitled, Thomas v. Best Doctors, Inc.

On May 14, 2018, a purported class action complaint (Thomas v. Best
Doctors, Inc.) was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts against the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, Best Doctors, Inc. The complaint alleges that on or
about May 16, 2017, Best Doctors violated the U.S. Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited facsimiles to
plaintiff and certain other recipients without the recipients’
prior express invitation or permission.

The lawsuit seeks statutory damages for each violation, subject to
trebling under the TCPA, and injunctive relief.

The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit and any potential
loss is currently deemed to be immaterial.

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

Teladoc Health, Inc. provides telehealth services. It offers a
portfolio of services and solutions covering 450 medical
subspecialties, such as flu and upper respiratory infections,
cancer, and congestive heart failure. Teladoc Health, Inc. was
founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.


TMC 777 ASSETS: Torres-Solorio Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against TMC 777 Assets,
Inc. and Theodore Michael Cavallini for alleged violations of the
California Business and Professions Code, the Private Attorneys
General Act, and several provisions of the California Labor Code
including minimum wages, overtime wages and meal periods. The case
is captioned JOSEFINA TORRES-SOLORIO, an individual; and EDYTH
FRANCELA ESCORCIA, an individual; on behalf of other persons
similarly situated, the State of California and other aggrieved
employees, Plaintiffs, vs. TMC 777 ASSETS, INC., a California
Corporation; THEODORE MICHAEL VALLINI, DBA TMC 777 ASSETS, INC., an
individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
19CV350966 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., July 17, 2019).

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have violated numerous
provisions of the Labor Code due to their unlawful policies and
practices including, but not limited to, the following: failing to
compensate Plaintiffs and the Class for all hours worked at the
applicable minimum, overtime, and/or contractual wage rates;
failing to provide meal periods or premium wages in lieu thereof;
failing to provide paid rest breaks or premium wages in lieu
thereof; and failing to furnish timely each pay period accurate
itemized statements separately stating, among other things, total
hours worked, gross wages earned at all applicable hourly rates,
and all used, available and accrued paid sick days.

TMC 777 Assets, Inc. is a California corporation with its place of
principal place of business at 17971 Rose Court, Monte Sereno, CA
95030. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Michael Flynn, Esq.
     FLYNN LAW OFFICE
     1736 Franklin Street, Ste. 400
     P.O. Box 70973
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Telephone: (510) 893-3226
     E-mail: michael@flo-law.com

             - and -
          
     Marco A. Palau, Esq.
     Joseph D. Sutton, Esq.
     Eric S. Trabucco, Esq.
     ADVOCATES FOR WORKER RIGHTS LLP
     212 9th Street, Suite 314
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Telephone: (510) 269-4200
     E-mail: marco@advocatesforworkers.com
             jds@advocatesforworkers.com
             est@advocatesforworkers.com

TRANSPORTATION MEDIA: Class Certification Sought in TJF Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled TJF SERVICES, INC. d/b/a CAPE
FEAR FLOORING & RESTORATION, CHAPPELL CREATIVE, INC., RUSTY ALLEN
INSURANCE, LLC and CHRIS HERRMANN, on behalf of each of them and
all others similarly situated v. TRANSPORTATION MEDIA, INC., d/b/a
BENCH CRAFT COMPANY, Case No. 5:17-cv-00626-RN (E.D.N.C.) seeks
entry of an order certifying the matter as a class action pursuant
to Rule 23 (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to certify them as
representatives of the Class and to appoint a Class counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq.
          Kelly A. Stevens, Esq.
          HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C
          5540 McNeely Drive, Suite 202
          Raleigh, NC 27612
          Telephone: (919) 277-0161
          Facsimile: (919) 277-0162
          E-mail: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com
                  kstevens@hemmingsandstevens.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Randal B. Acker, Esq.
          ACKER + ASSOCIATES PC
          525 SW Jackson St.
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: (503) 228-2495
          E-mail: acker@ackerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Anderson, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN W. ANDERSON, PLLC
          2021 Fairview Road
          Raleigh, NC 27608
          Telephone: (919) 578-3075
          E-mail: jon@lawofficejwa.com


TWITTER INC: Consolidated Class Suit in California Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Twitter, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Beginning in September 2016, multiple putative class actions and
derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts in the
United States against Twitter, Twitter's directors, and/or certain
former officers alleging that false and misleading statements, made
in 2015, are in violation of securities laws and breached fiduciary
duty.

The putative class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. On October 16, 2017,
the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion
to dismiss. On July 17, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the consolidated securities action. The
Company disputes the claims and intends to continue to defend the
lawsuits vigorously.

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

Twitter, Inc. operates as a platform for public self expression and
conversation in real time. The company offers various products and
services, including Twitter, a platform that allows users to
consume, create, distribute, and discover content; and Periscope, a
mobile application that enables user to broadcast and watch video
live with others. The company operates in the United States and
internationally. Twitter, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.


ULTA SALON: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in Scarpino Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Ulta Salon, Cosmetics and Fragrance, Inc. filed an appeal
from a Court ruling in the lawsuit styled Victoria Rowe, et al. v.
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics and Fragrance, Inc., Case No.
2:19-cv-01074-PA-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
asserts eight causes of action: California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 penalties; meal period violation;
rest period violation; wage and hour violation; wage statement
penalty; work expenditure reimbursement; waiting time penalty; and
violation of Unfair Competition Law.

The appellate case is captioned as Victoria Rowe, et al. v. Ulta
Salon, Cosmetics and Fragrance, Inc., Case No. 19-55875, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Ulta Salon, Cosmetics and Fragrance, Inc.'s
      opening brief is due on September 27, 2019;

   -- Appellees Victoria Rowe and Paulina Scarpino's answering
      brief is due on October 28, 2019; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellee VICTORIA ROWE and PAULINA SCARPINO,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individual are
represented by:

          Adam M. Rose, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STARR
          23277 Ventura Blvd.
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (818) 225-9040
          E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant ULTA SALON, COSMETICS AND FRAGRANCE, INC. is
represented by:

          David D. Jacobson, Esq.
          David D. Kadue, Esq.
          Kiran A. Seldon, Esq.
          Jinouth Desiree Vasquez Santos, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: djacobson@seyfarth.com
                  dkadue@seyfarth.com
                  kseldon@seyfarth.com
                  jvasquezsantos@seyfarth.com


VICAL INC: Sabatini Balks at Brickell Biotech Merger
----------------------------------------------------
ERIC SABATINI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. VICAL INCORPORATED, VIJAY B. SAMANT,
ROBER C. MERTON, R. GORDON DOUGLAS, RICHARD M. BELESON, GEORGE J.
MORROW, GARY A. LYONS, and THOMAS E. SHENK, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01457-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 2, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with a proposed transaction
announced on June 3, 2019, pursuant to which Vical Incorporated
will merge with Brickell Biotech, Inc. and Victory Subsidiary,
Inc.

On June 2, 2019, Vical's Board of Directors caused Vical to enter
into an agreement and plan of merger with Brickell and Merger Sub.
Following the consummation of the Proposed Transaction, Brickell's
stockholders will own approximately 60% of the combined company,
and Vical's stockholders will own approximately 40% of the combined
company.

On July 12, 2019, the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with
the Proposed Transaction, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the
Proposed Transaction for August 30, 2019.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the
Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and
misleading, the lawsuit says.

Vical develops biopharmaceutical products for the prevention and
treatment of chronic or life-threatening infectious diseases, based
on patented DNA delivery technologies and other therapeutic
approaches.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

VIEGA LLC: Accurate Backflow Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accurate Backflow and Plumbing Services, Inc. and Homestead Heating
& Plumbing, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Viega LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-00822 (M.D. Pa., May 13,
2019), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

The Plaintiffs also seek damages pursuant to state antitrust laws
allowing indirect-purchaser remedies under the Court's supplemental
jurisdiction.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant engaged in anticompetitive
and exclusionary conduct to undercut its competitors by refusing to
sell its carbon steel press fittings unless a wholesale distributor
purchases only the Defendant's copper press fittings. The Defendant
further coerces wholesale distributors not to purchase copper press
fittings from its competitors by withholding discounts, rebates and
other pricing concessions for its carbon steel press fittings, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff Accurate Backflow and Plumbing Services, Inc., has
been licensed in the State of North Carolina since 2008 and is
headquartered in Apex, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff Homestead Heating & Plumbing LLC., has been licensed
in the State of Vermont since 2006 and is headquartered in
Brattleboro, Vermont.

The Plaintiffs made purchases of the Defendant's copper press
fittings from one or more of the Defendant's wholesale
distributors.

The Defendant Viega manufactures and distributes plumbing, heating,
and pipe joining systems for industrial, commercial, and
residential projects. Its U.S. headquarters is located at 12303
Airport Way, Suite 395, Broomfield, Colorado 80021. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Walter W. Cohen, Esq.
      OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL
      & HIPPEL LLP
      200 Locust Street, Suite 400
      Harrisburg, PA 17101
      Tel: (717) 234-9730
      Fax: (717) 236-2485
      E-mail: walter.cohen@obermayer.com

          - and -

      John A. Kehoe, Esq.
      Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
      KEHOE LAW FIRM. P.C.
      Two Penn Center Plaza
      1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 792-6676
      E-mail: jkehoe@kehoelawfirm.com
              myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com


WATERSTONE FINANCIAL: Court Closes Herrington Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Waterstone Financial, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court in Herrington
et al. v. Waterstone Mortgage Corporation vacated the July 5, 2017
arbitration award in its entirety, and closed the case.

Waterstone Mortgage Corporation was a defendant in a class action
lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin and subsequently compelled to
arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.

The plaintiff class alleged that Waterstone Mortgage Corporation
violated certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and failed to pay loan officers consistent with their employment
agreements.

On July 5, 2017, the arbitrator issued a Final Award finding
Waterstone Mortgage Corporation liable for unpaid minimum wages,
overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, and liquidated damages
under the FLSA. On December 8, 2017, the District Court confirmed
the award in large part, and entered a judgment against Waterstone
in the amount of $7,267,919 in damages to Claimants, $3,298,851 in
attorney fees and costs, and a $20,000 incentive fee to Plaintiff
Herrington, plus post-judgment interest.

On February 12, 2018, the District Court awarded post-arbitration
fees and costs of approximately $98,000. The judgment was appealed
by Waterstone to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where oral
argument was held on May 29, 2018.  On October 22, 2018, the
Seventh Circuit issued a ruling vacating the District Court's order
enforcing the arbitration award.  

If the District Court determined the agreement only allows for
individual arbitration, the award would be vacated and the case
sent to individual arbitration for a new proceeding. If the
District Court determined the arbitration agreement nevertheless
allows for collective arbitration, the District Court could have
confirmed the prior award.

On December 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a post-remand brief. In it,
Plaintiff asked the District Court to reaffirm the arbitration
award entered by the arbitrator in full. Alternatively, she asked
the Court to affirm her individual damage award and the awards of
123 other opt-ins whose arbitration agreements permit joinder or
class actions.

Lastly, Plaintiff asked the District Court to have 154 opt-ins
intervene and file an amended complaint for individual relief in
court. Waterstone opposed the motion on January 28, 2019, and asked
the District Court to vacate the prior Final Award in full because
Herrington’s arbitration agreement only allowed for individual
arbitration. Plaintiff filed its reply on February 14, 2019.

On April 25, 2019, the District Court held that Plaintiff's claims
must be resolved through single-plaintiff arbitration. As a result,
it vacated the July 5, 2017 arbitration award in its entirety, and
closed the case.

In May 2019, Herrington and approximately 90 of the prior Claimants
filed new demands in arbitration asserting similar claims.
Waterstone is in the process of responding to those demands.
Waterstone will continue to vigorously defend its interests in
these matters and does not believe a loss is probable at this
time.

Waterstone Financial, Inc. operates as a bank holding company for
WaterStone Bank SSB that provides various financial services to
customers in southeastern Wisconsin, the United States. It operates
through two segments, Community Banking and Mortgage Banking. The
company was formerly known as Wauwatosa Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Waterstone Financial, Inc. in August 2008. Waterstone
Financial, Inc. was founded in 1921 and is based in Wauwatosa,
Wisconsin.


WELCH FOODS: Labajo Claims Juices Contain Lead and Arsenic
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against Welch Foods Inc.
for alleged violations of the California Business and Professions
Code, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and for unjust
enrichment. The case is captioned CHRISTINA LABAJO, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELCH
FOODS INC. Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-01306-GW-SP (C.D. Cal., July
16, 2019).

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and remedy Defendant's
continuing failure to warn individuals that Welch's White Grape
Juice and Concord Grape Juice expose consumers to heightened levels
of lead and arsenic.

In January 2019, Consumer Reports published a study on the problem
of lead and arsenic in fruit juices. Consumer Reports determined
that Welch's White Grape Juice and Concord Grape Juice were among
the worst offenders, stating that drinking a 1/2 cup or more per
day posed a risk to adults and children. Heightened levels of lead
and arsenic in foods can cause cancer, birth defects, and other
health risks. The amount of toxic heavy metals present in a single
serving of the Welch's White Grape Juice and Concord Grape Juice is
sufficient to expose consumers to a substantial risk of birth
defects and other reproductive harm. In accordance with California
Business and Professions Code Section 17203, Plaintiff seeks an
order enjoining Defendant from continuing to conduct business
through its fraudulent conduct and further seeks an order requiring
Defendant to conduct a corrective advertising campaign.

Welch's is a foreign corporation with its headquarters in
Concord, Massachusetts. Welch's manufactures, markets, and sells
Welch's juice products, and is the food processing and marketing
arm of the National Grape Cooperative Association. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     Joel D. Smith, Esq.
     Blair E. Reed, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Telephone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
             jsmith@bursor.com
             breed@bursor.com

WOOD GROUP: Worley Seeks Overtime Wages for HSE Inspectors
----------------------------------------------------------
JIMMY WORLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. WOOD GROUP USA, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 4:19-cv-02872 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 2, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Wood Group workers like Worley are typically scheduled for 12 hour
shifts, 7 days a week, for weeks at a time.

But Wood Group does not pay all of these workers overtime for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.

Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Wood Group pays
these workers a day-rate ,the lawsuit says.

From approximately March 2018 until December 2018, Worley worked
for Wood Group as an HSE Inspector. Throughout his employment with
Wood Group, he was paid a day-rate with no overtime compensation.

Wood Group is a professional staffing business providing personnel
and support services for the oil and gas industry.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

XOTICPC.COM: Tatro Sues over Defective Computers & Laptops
----------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL TATRO, on behalf of himself and all other similary situated,
vs. XOTICPC.COM, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each
of them, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06732 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 2,
2019), seeks remedy from Defendants' sales of defective computers
and laptops.

The Plaintiff bring this action individually for himself and on
behalf of all persons who purchased certain personal computers from
Defendant that were damaged and defective, and which was designed,
manufactured, distributed, warranted, marketed, and sold or leased
by XOTICPC.COM, INC.

On or about January 9, 2018, Plaintiff purchased a new personal
computer from XOTIC, Serial No. HAN0CX31M76543A, Manufactured by
ASUS.

In consideration for the purchase of the Class Product,
Manufacturer issued and supplied to Plaintiff and the Class Members
several written warranties, as well as other standard warranties
fully outlined in the Manufacturer's Warranty section of
Defendant's website.

As a result of the defective products being sold, Plaintiff and the
putative class lost thousands of dollars each, in damages, while
Defendant profited from their misdeeds, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1 Suit vs. Advance Stores Filed in Alameda County
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Northern California Record reported that the following cases
categorized as "asbestos" cases were on the docket in the Alameda
County Superior Court on Aug. 2:

   * Bryan Navarro; Lucia A Navarro; Paul Navarro v. Advance Stores
Company, RG19029800

David L Amell


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avborne, et al., Dismissed From Thomas-Fish Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maryellen Noreika of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware dismissed Defendants Avborne Accessory Group, Inc.;
Dover Corporation; Dover Engineered Systems, Inc. (sued as Dover
Engineered Systems, Inc. f/k/a Dover Diversified, Inc.); Roller
Bearing Company Of America, Inc. (improperly sued as RBC Bearings
Incorporated f/k/a Roller Bearing Company, Inc.); Sargent Aerospace
& Defense, LLC (improperly sued as RBS Sargent Airtomic); and
Sargent Industries, Inc., a dissolved entity, are dismissed with
prejudice from the case styled Helen Thomas-Fish, Individually and
as Executrix of the Estate of Robert C. Fish, Plaintiff, v. Avborne
Accessory Group, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. 18-1195 (MN) (SRF),
(D. Del.).

A copy of the Order dated August 6, 2019, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3slg8cy from Leagle.com.

Helen Thomas-Fish, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of
Robert C. Fish, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin --
lsoler@gawthrop.com -- Gawthrop Greenwood, PC.

John Doe Corporation 1-50 & John Doe Corporations 51-100,
Defendants, represented by Janine L. Faben -- jfaben@mccarter.com
-- McCarter & English, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Inc. Had 8,762 Claims at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. has 8,762 asbestos-related claims pending as of
June 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019.

The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies that have
historically operated in the United States, the Company, or parties
that the Company is obligated to indemnify, continues to be named
as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury
actions.  The Company vigorously defends against these claims, and
has been successful in obtaining the dismissal of the majority of
the claims asserted against it without any payment.  Due to the
nature of the fibers used in certain types of automotive products,
the encapsulation of the asbestos, and the manner of the products'
use, the Company believes that these products were and are highly
unlikely to cause harm.  Furthermore, the useful life of nearly all
of these products expired many years ago.  The Company likewise
expects that no payment on these claims will be made by the Company
or its insurance carriers in the vast majority of current and
future asbestos-related claims.  

"From the mid-2000s through June 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018,
the Company incurred US$596 million and US$574 million,
respectively, in asbestos-related claim resolution costs (including
settlement payments and judgments) and associated defense costs.
During the six months ended June 30, 2019 and 2018, the Company
paid US$15 million and US$28 million, respectively, in
asbestos-related claim resolution costs and associated defense
costs.  These gross payments are before tax benefits and any
potential insurance receipts.  Asbestos-related claim resolution
costs and associated defense costs are reflected in the Company's
operating cash flows."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/PxO406


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Morris' P.I. Claims Against BW/IP Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert S. Lasnik dismissed Daniel W. Morris' claims
against defendant BW/IP, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries,
incorrectly identified as "BW/IP, Inc., f/k/a Borg-Warner
Industrial Products, as successor-in-interest to Byron Jackson
Pumps" in the case entitled DANIEL W. MORRIS, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of WILLIAM A. MORRIS, Plaintiffs, v.
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, ET AL. Defendants, Cause No.
2:18-cv-01876-RSL, (W.D. Wash.) without prejudice in accordance
with the Parties' stipulation.

A copy of the Order dated Aug. 6, 2019, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyff9gmb from Leagle.com.

Daniel W. Morris, as Personal Representative of the Estate of
William A. Morris, Plaintiff, represented by David Corliss ,
BERGMAN DRAPER OSLUND & Glenn S. Draper -- glenn@bergmanlegal.com
-- BERGMAN DRAPER OSLUND.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, as Successor by Merger to Buffalo
Pumps, Inc. & Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendants, represented by
Kevin J. Craig -- kcraig@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
LLP, Mark B. Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com -- GORDON REES SCULLY
MANSUKHANI LLP & Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com -- GORDON REES
SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Barry N.
Mesher & Rachel Tallon Reynolds --
Rachel.Reynolds@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles
Serko -- aserko@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, Christopher S.
Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & Malika Johnson
-- mjohnson@tktrial.com -- TANENBAUM KEALE LLP.

Hanson Permanente Cement Inc, formerly known as Kaiser Cement
Corporation & Kaiser Gypsum Company Inc, Defendants, represented by
J. Scott Wood -- swood@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD,
Zackary A. Paal -- zpaal@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD &
Howard Terry I. Hall -- thall@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY &
MANSFIELD.

IMO Industries Inc, individually and as De Laval Turbine Inc.,
Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne -- jhorne@gth-law.com
-- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts --
mricketts@gth-law.com -- GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

ITT Corporation, successor in interest Foster Valves, Defendant,
represented by Ronald C. Gardner -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com --
GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

Lone Star Industries Inc, individually and as Pioneer Sand & Gravel
Company, Defendant, represented by Brian Bernard Smith --
bsmith@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD, Howard Terry I.
Hall -- thall@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD, Melissa K.
Roeder -- mroeder@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD & Zackary
A. Paal -- zpaal@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Richard G. Gawlowski -- gawlowski@wscd.com -- WILSON SMITH COCHRAN
& DICKERSON.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by George S.
Pitcher -- George.Pitcher@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS
BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds --
Rachel.Reynolds@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD &
SMITH LLP.

Warren Pumps LLC, individually and as Quimby Pump Company,
Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut -- aeraut@rizzopc.com --
RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC & Shaun Mary Morgan --
smorgan@rizzopc.com -- RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Lockheed Shipbuilding Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey D.
Dunbar -- jdunbar@omwlaw.com -- OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC.

Vigor Shipyards Inc, Defendant, represented by D. David Steele ,
YARON & ASSOCIATES, pro hac vice & Walter Eugene Barton --
gbarton@karrtuttle.com -- KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newport Council Pay Out GBP250,000 in 5 Years
--------------------------------------------------------------
Niall Griffiths, writing for South Wales Argus, reported that more
than GBP250,000 in compensation has been paid out by Newport City
Council since 2014 for 'asbestos-related injuries' dating back
decades.

Four claims have been made against the authority in the last five
years, according to figures obtained through a Freedom of
Information request.

Illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos can take years to develop,
including aggressive and incurable conditions such as asbestosis
and mesothelioma.

It is unclear whether the claims made against the council related
to either of these conditions, or if they were submitted by the
individual exposed or their families.

Two claimants who were exposed to the harmful substance in the
1970s received pay-outs worth GBP160,633 and GBP29,069
respectively.

One individual received GBP60,000 after encountering asbestos in
the early 1960s, with another claimed exposure in the 1990s and
received GBP5,243.

Newport City Council paid out GBP254,946 in total, which accounted
for 19 per cent of the GBP1.3 million in compensation paid out to
personal injury claims in the last five years.

Individual claims relating to mesothelioma, an aggressive form of
cancer caused by asbestos, can range between GBP100,000 to
GBP500,000 -- and in some cases beyond.

A total of 42 patients were diagnosed with mesothelioma at the
Royal Gwent Hospital in Newport between 2014 and 2016, according to
the most recent National Mesothelioma Audit.

Richard Green, of Cardiff-based law firm Hugh James, said around
2,500 people are diagnosed with the disease in the UK each year,
with around 100 cases in Wales.

Mr Green, who heads a team of solicitors who specialise in
asbestos-related disease compensation claims, said: "From
diagnosis, the life expectancy of someone with mesothelioma is nine
months.

"These people become very unwell very quickly and require high
levels of assistance.

"The number of people diagnosed with mesothelioma is projected to
peak in 2020, and it is anticipated that in excess of 2,000 people
will be diagnosed with mesothelioma each year over the coming
decade."

The British Lung Foundation says compensation can release "huge
financial burdens" during a stressful time, adding that the
significant sums of money reinforce the impact of asbestos-related
diseases.

A spokesman said: "A diagnosis can often be shocking as patients
come to terms with the fact that their lungs have slowly been
developing a killer disease over many years

"Conditions such as asbestosis -- scarring and hardening of the
lungs -- and mesothelioma are both treatable but cannot be cured.

"The situation in Newport highlights the need to eliminate the risk
of asbestos exposure and avoid further cases of these horrible
diseases another 40 to 60 years into the future."

The charity also stressed the importance of raising awareness about
the risks of asbestos and supporting those living with
asbestos-related illnesses.

The spokesman added: "This will in turn avoid significant costs to
both the NHS and local authorities and help us improve the overall
respiratory health of the nation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Piscatelli Widow Files Wrongful Death Suit in Del.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Carole Jean Piscatelli, individually and as proposed successor of
the estate of Richard Piscatelli, deceased, filed a lawsuit with
the Superior Court of the State of Delaware alleging that during
her husband's employment, he was wrongly exposed to asbestos from
various sources which were mixed, mined, manufactured, distributed,
sold, removed, installed, and/or used by the defendants including,
but not limited to electrical component, gaskets, valves,
insulation and furnaces, and that as a result of the Defendants'
wrongful conduct, Mr. Piscatelli suffered from mesothelioma, and
eventually died of the same disease on December 7, 2018.

Mr. Piscatelli's former employers include, but are not limited to,
the following:

   a. United States Navy (Service No. 9017972) -- located in
Bainbridge, MD (Basic Training), Norman, OK (Aviation School),
Lakehurst, NJ (Weather School), Jacksonville Florida Air Station
(Duty Station) and Guam (Duty) from approximately 1954 to 1958 as a
Weatherman;

   b. Raytheon Co. -- located in Waltham, MA from approximately
1958 to 1964 as a Lathe Operator. Plaintiff RICHARD PISCATELLI ran
a lathe and made parts for the official radio and radar apparatus;

   c. British Thermal Units Factory -- located in Waltham, MA from
approximately 1964 to 1976 as an Electrician. As an Electrician at
British Thermal Units Factory, Plaintiff RICHARD PISCATELLI wired
and tested furnaces for large concerns such as IBM, Exxon and Cross
Pens;

   d. Asbury Methodist Seminary -- located in Wilmore, KY from
approximately 1978 to 1984 as a Student/Part-Time Painter.
Plaintiff RICHARD PISCATELLI patched holes in the dorms rooms,
applied joint compound, let is harden and then sanded it, cleaned
up and painted; and

   e. Williamsville United Methodist -- located in Williamsville,
IL from approximately 1984 to 2018 as a Minister.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION. CAROLE JEAN PISCATELLI,
Individually and as proposed successor of the estate of RICHARD
PISCATELLI, deceased, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, as successor by merger to BUFFALO PUMPS, INC.; AURORA
PUMP COMPANY; BLACKMER PUMP COMPANY; BW/IP INC., as successor to
BYRON JACKSON PUMPS; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a
VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to CBS CORPORATION, a
Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
as successor in interest to THE BRYANT ELECTRIC COMPANY; CRANE CO.;
ELLIOT TURBOMACHINERY CO. INC.; FLOWSERVE U.S., INC., individually
and solely as successor to DURCO, DURIRON, ANCHOR DARLING, SUPERIOR
GROUP, EDWARD VOGT, VOGT VALVES, NORDSTROM VALVES, EDWARD VALVE,
INC., and ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY; FMC CORPORATION,on behalf
of its former CHICAGO PUMP & NORTHERN PUMP BUSINESSES; GARDNER
DENVER, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GOULDS PUMPS, LLC; IMO
INDUSTRIES, INC.; ITT LLC; WARREN PUMPS, LLC, Defendants.

Case No. N19C-05-124 ASB

Attorneys for Plaintiff

     Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq.
     Ipek K. Medford, Esq.
     Andrew C. Dalton, Esq.
     Michael C. Dalton, Esq.
     DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     Cool Spring Meeting House
     1106 West Tenth Street
     Wilmington, DE 19806
     Tel: (302) 652-2050
     Email: IMedford@BDaltonlaw.com

        -- and --

     Adam Balick, Esq.
     Patrick J. Smith, Esq.
     BALICK & BALICK, LLC
     711 North King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 658-4265
     Email: abalick@balick.com

OF COUNSEL:

     WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
     700 Broadway
     New York, NY 10003
     Tel: (212) 558-5500


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Prairie du Chien Inmates Sue Over Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Garza, writing for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reported
that ten inmates at the Prairie du Chien Correctional Institution
say the prison is exposing people to dangerous levels of black
mold, asbestos and lead-contaminated water, according to a lawsuit
filed in federal court.

In addition to the suit filed in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin, the group has also filed a motion
for a preliminary injunction and restraining order for emergency
transfers to minimum-security correctional facilities.

Eleven staff members at the prison, three identified as "John Doe,"
are named as defendants in the suit.

The suit alleges the inmates have suffered continuous exposure to
asbestos and asbestos-related materials; lead, lead filings,
radium, gross alpha and rust particles in the prison's water
supply; and arbitrary denial of access to sanitary cleaning
supplies to prevent the spread of disease and bacteria.

The  inmates also claim denial of proper medical care and attention
to medical issues, and staff mismanagement of taxpayer funds meant
for improvements to rehabilitative programs, educational and legal
library resources.

The suit seeks about $5 million in damages, an emergency
investigation and testing of all buildings at the prison, and
evacuation of all inmates and staff from the facility.

State Department of Corrections officials did not respond to an
email from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Thursday afternoon
seeking a response to the lawsuit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that "currently there are a few thousand
claimants" in asbestos-related lawsuits that name the Company as
defendants, together with hundreds of other companies.

The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of our products many years ago.  Currently there are a few thousand
claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with
hundreds of other companies.  In some cases, the claims involve
products from divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most
of the costs.  However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify
asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by
our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor
repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which
occurred on January 31, 2007.  We are also responsible for half of
the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against
our former Rockwell International Corporation's divested
measurement and flow control business.  But in all cases, for those
claimants who do show that they worked with our products or
products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we
nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial
part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature
of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any
impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants.  We
defend those cases vigorously.  Historically, we have been
dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to
claimants.

"We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley
subsidiary.  Following litigation against Nationwide Indemnity
Company (Nationwide) and Kemper Insurance (Kemper), the insurance
carriers that provided liability insurance coverage to
Allen-Bradley, we entered into separate agreements on April 1, 2008
with both insurance carriers to further resolve responsibility for
ongoing and future coverage of Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.  In
exchange for a lump sum payment, Kemper bought out its remaining
liability and has been released from further insurance obligations
to Allen-Bradley.  Nationwide entered into a cost share agreement
with us to pay the substantial majority of future defense and
indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims.  We believe that
this arrangement with Nationwide will continue to provide coverage
for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
the asbestos liability.

"We also have rights to historic insurance policies that provide
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for claims arising out of certain asbestos liabilities
relating to the divested measurement and flow control business.
Following litigation against several insurers to pursue coverage
for these claims, we entered into separate agreements with the
insurers that resulted in both lump sum payments and
coverage-in-place agreements.  We believe these arrangements will
provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity costs
for these asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of asbestos
liability.

"The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult
to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims.
That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings
or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the
settlement process.  Subject to these uncertainties and based on
our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these
lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial
condition or results of operations.

"We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses.
In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims and
proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related to the
period that we owned the businesses, either because we agreed to
retain certain liabilities related to these periods or because such
liabilities fall upon us by operation of law.  In some instances
the divested business has assumed the liabilities; however, it is
possible that we might be responsible to satisfy those liabilities
if the divested business is unable to do so.

"In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive
business, semiconductor systems business and Rockwell Collins
avionics and communications business, the spun-off companies have
agreed to indemnify us for substantially all contingent liabilities
related to the respective businesses, including environmental and
intellectual property matters.

"In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance
Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to
indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to
certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these
businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum
exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/UPl0f1


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Schexnayder Sues Bossier, et al., in Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Record reported that the following cases categorized
as "asbestos" cases were on the docket in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana on July 19:

   * Denis Schexnayder Jr v. Albert L Bossier; CBS Corporation;
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London; Crane Co.; Eagle Inc.;
Foster Wheeler LLC; Hopeman Brothers Inc; Huntington Ingalls
Incorporated; International Paper Company; Lamorak Insurance
Company; Liberty Mutual Insurance Company; McCarty Corporation;
Owens Illinois Inc; Roberts John David; Taylor Seidenbach, Inc.;
Travelers Insurance Company; United States Fidelity & Guaranty
Company; Warren Pumps LLC, 2:19-cv-11773-JTM-DMD

David Michael Melancon; Kristin L. Beckman; Laura Cannon; Dean M.
Arruebarrena (defendant's attorneys)


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit vs. Insultech Filed in Pa. Court on Aug. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Record reported that the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reported the following
activities in the suit brought by International Association of Heat
and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local No. 14 and Michael
Burns against Insultech Inc. on Aug. 5:

   * Complaint Against Insultech, Inc. (Filing Fee $ 400 Receipt
Number 201656.), Filed By International Association Of Heat And
Frost Insulators And Asbestos Workers Local No. 14, Michael Burns.

   * Summons Issued As To Insultech, Inc.. Forwarded To: Counsel On
8/6/2019

Case number 2:19-cv-03540-CMR was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 5.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Faces 12,122 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation has 12,122 unresolved asbestos-related
claims at June 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

Union Carbide states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products
that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc. ("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted
from exposure to UCC's products.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants.  As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or
any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are
alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury.  In fact,
there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation
and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants.  For these reasons and
based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement experience,
the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged against it
and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any
potential asbestos-related liability."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/aM6YJ9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $1.2-Bil. Liability at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,218
million at June 30, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

Union Carbide states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts during the past four decades.  These suits principally
allege personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and
punitive damages.  The alleged claims primarily relate to products
that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing
products located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for
asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem
Products, Inc. ("Amchem").  In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to
demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a
result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted
from exposure to the Corporation's products.

"The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.

"The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims and defense and processing costs was US$1,218 million
at June 30, 2019, and approximately 17 percent of the recorded
liability related to pending claims and approximately 83 percent
related to future claims."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/aM6YJ9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Washington Couple Sues AO Smith, et al., in Del.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale A. Raymond and Cheryl A. Raymond, his wife, residents of Sedro
Woolley, Washington, filed a lawsuit with the Superior Court of the
State of Delaware alleging that beginning in the late 1950s through
the 1980s, Mr. Raymond was wrongly exposed to asbestos from various
sources which were mixed, mined, manufactured, distributed, sold,
removed, installed, and/or used by the Defendants including, but
not limited to insulation, pipe cement, pumps, valves, packing,
joint compound and asbestos fibers.

Mr. Raymond's former employers include, but are not limited to, the
following:

   a. Plaintiff Dale A. Raymond's Father's fishing boat -- located
in Port Angeles, WA from approximately 1955 to 1964 as a Deck
Hand;

   b. Laynoee Motor Chrysler Dealership -- located in Seattle, WA
from approximately 1964 to 1965 as a Lot Boy/Mechanic;

   c. Edison Vocational Technical School -- located in Seattle, WA
from approximately 1965 to 1966;

   d. United States Marine Corp. -- located in various cities,
states and United States territories from approximately 1966 to
1969 as a Truck Driver;

   e. Edison Vocational Technical School -- located in Seattle, WA
from approximately 1969 to 1971 as a Student;

   f. West Seattle Auto Parts -- located in Seattle, WA from
approximately 1969 to 1970 as a Salesman;

   g. Commercial Fisherman -- located in Seattle, WA from
approximately 1970 to 1978 as an Owner/Operator;

   h. Marine Power & Equipment -- located in Seattle, WA from
approximately 1970 to 1976 as a Marine Diesel Mechanic;

   i. Detroit Diesel -- located in Seattle, WA from approximately
1976 to 1995 as a Certified Mechanic;

   j. Alliant TechSystems -- located in Seattle, WA from
approximately 1994 to 2001 as an Engineer;

   k. North Harbor Diesel -- from approximately 2001 to 2011 as a
Marine Diesel Mechanic; and

   l. Marine Diesel Mechanic -- from approximately 2011 to 2016 as
a Marine Diesel Mechanic.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, Mr. Raymond
suffers from mesothelioma.  Mr. Raymond first became aware that he
suffered from said disease(s) on or about November of 2018.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION.  DALE A. RAYMOND and CHERYL
A. RAYMOND, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION; AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as successor by merger to BUFFALO
PUMPS, INC.; ATWOOD & MORRILL CO., d/b/a WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS
USA, INC.; BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware
Corporation, f/k/a VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to CBS
CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE
ELECTRIC CORPORATION, as successor in interest to THE BRYANT
ELECTRIC COMPANY; CRANE CO., individually and as successor to
JENKINS VALVE, INC.; EATON CORPORATION, individually as successor
in interest to CUTLER-HAMMER, INC.; ELLIOTT COMPANY; FEDERAL-MOGUL
ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, as a successor to FELT PRODUCTS
MFG. CO.; FLOWSERVE U.S., INC.,individually and solely as successor
to DURCO, DURIRON, ANCHOR DARLING, SUPERIOR GROUP, EDWARD VOGT,
VOGT VALVES, NORDSTROM VALVES, EDWARD VALVE, INC., and ROCKWELL
MANUFACTURING COMPANY; FMC CORPORATION, on behalf of its former
CHICAGO PUMP & NORTHERN PUMP BUSINESSES; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; FOSTER
WHEELER LLC; GARDNER DENVER, INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GOULDS
PUMPS, LLC; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a ALLIED SIGNAL,
INC., as successor in interest to THE BENDIX CORPORATION; IMO
INDUSTRIES, INC.; ITT LLC;
J.A. SEXAUER, INC.; J.R. CLARKSON COMPANY LLC, Individually and as
successor to THE KUNKLE VALVE COMPANY and J.E. LONERGAN COMPANY;
MANNING, MAXWELL & MOORE, INCORPORATED; OIL STATES SKAGIT SMATCO;
PECORA CORPORATION; PNEUMO ABEX LLC,individually and as successor
in interest to PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION; REXNORD INDUSTRIES, LLC,as
successor in interest to THE FALK CORPORATION, and HAMILTON
SUNDSTRAND;ROCKFORD POWERTRAIN INC.;
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC., individually and as successor in
interest to SQUARE D COMPANY; TWIN DISC, INC.;
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendants.

Case No. N19C-05-125 ASB

Attorneys for Plaintiff

     Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq.
     Ipek K. Medford, Esq.
     Andrew C. Dalton, Esq.
     Michael C. Dalton, Esq.
     DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     Cool Spring Meeting House
     1106 West Tenth Street
     Wilmington, DE 19806
     Tel: (302) 652-2050
     Email: IMedford@BDaltonlaw.com

        -- and --

     Adam Balick, Esq.
     Patrick J. Smith, Esq.
     BALICK & BALICK, LLC
     711 North King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 658-4265
     Email: abalick@balick.com

OF COUNSEL:

     WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
     700 Broadway
     New York, NY 10003
     Tel: (212) 558-5500


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wilson Elser Partner Wins Dismissal of Meso Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Wilkinson, Esq., a partner at Wilson Elser, secured
dismissal of a case before the Court of Common Pleas in
Philadelphia County in which the plaintiff was diagnosed with
mesothelioma allegedly caused by asbestos.

At trial deposition, the plaintiff testified he worked near
products at our client's work site but he did not know whether they
contained asbestos. When the plaintiff died, his Estate took over
the case, and opposed our Summary Judgment Motion claiming that the
Court could find as a matter of judicial notice that the products
did contain asbestos. The Estate also made a very large settlement
demand. The Court rejected the arguments made by the Estate,
granted summary judgment and dismissed our client.  

Ms. Wilkinson can be reached at:

     Kathleen D. Wilkinson, Esq.
     WILSON ELSER
     Two Commerce Square
     2001 Market Street, Suite 3100
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: 215.606.3905
     Fax: 215.627.2665
     Email: kathleen.wilkinson@wilsonelser.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***