CAR_Public/190821.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, August 21, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 167

                            Headlines

35TH & 7TH RESTAURANT: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
3D IDAPRO: Court Denies Class Certification in Hamilton
3M CO: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Suit
3M CO: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Suit
3M CO: Sept. 27 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

3M COMPANY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit
A1 SOUVLAKI: Must Pay $57,409.18 to Papakleovoulou
A10 NETWORKS: Ruling in Shah Class Action under Appeal
ACE AMERICAN: Sandbergen Seeks Conditional Class Certification
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Wyche Securities Class Action Ongoing

ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for Oct. 27
AROMA NY LLC: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Edelstein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces J M Smith Antitrust Suit
AUTOMOTIVE PARTS: Certification of Distributors Class Sought

AVANGRID INC: Appeal from Dismissal of Breiding Suit Underway
AVANGRID INC: Dismissal of PNE Energy Supply Suit under Appeal
BANK OF AMERICA: Jenkin Sues Wrongful Property Foreclosure
BAR GIACOSA: Court Narrows Counterclaims in N. Turban Suit
BARCLAYS PLC: Rabobank et al Appeal Claims Dismissal

BIN INSURANCE: Morales Bid to Certify Terminated
BLAZIN' WINGS: Woods Files Labor Suit in N.D. California
BRASSERIE FELIX: Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff Sought
CADENCE BANCORP: Schall Law Investigating Investors' Claims
CAPITAL ONE: Fails to Protect Sensitive Information, Lipskar Says

CAVIN-MORRIS INC: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CBOE GLOBAL: Amended Complaint Filed in VIX Related Suit
CBOE GLOBAL: Providence's Securities Suit v. Bats Global Ongoing
CENTRAL CREDIT: Blonder Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
CERBERUS SECURITY: Thomas Seeks OT Wages for Security Personnel

CHESAPEAKE LODGING: Faces 2 Trust and Park Merger Related Suits
CIGNA CORP: Amara Plaintiffs Challenge Calculation of Benefits
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Settlement in Brown Suit Preliminarily Approved
CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Pending
CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Suit by J Wisbey Suit

CITIGROUP INC: Settlement in Sullivan Suit Wins Final Approval
COCA-COLA BOTTLING: Lafreniere Seeks Overtime Wages
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Removes Thompson Case to Idaho Fed. Court
CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Pending
COWEN INC: Wins Dismissal of Fletcher Class Suit

CRST VAN: Questions on Meal, Rest Breaks Sent to Calif. State Court
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Supermarket Class Suit Ongoing
DOMINION ENERGY: Federal Court 10b-5 Case v. SCANA Underway
DOMINION ENERGY: RICO Class Action Underway
DOMINION ENERGY: Santee Cooper Ratepayers Class Suit Still Ongoing

DOMINION ENERGY: Settlement in Ratepayer Suit Wins Final Approval
EAGLE BANCORP: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
EVERCORE INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Adeptus' 2014 IPO Pending
FABER AND BRAND: Rochelle Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
FANNIE MAE: Dismissal of D.C. Class Suit under Appeal

FITBIT INC: Consolidated Class Action in California Ongoing
FITBIT INC: Settlement in Sleep Tracking Suit Awaits Final Approval
FITBIT INC: Settlement Inked in Heart Rate Tracking Device Suit
FLOOR & DECOR: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Hubert Suit Moved to Eastern District of Michigan

FRED'S BLUELIGHT: Fails to Pay Exotic Dancers, Jones Suit Alleges
GADSDEN REGIONAL: Court Dismisses M. Brown Suit
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Mahar Class Action Pending
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Varga Class Suit Still Pending
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Defends Consolidated Class Action Suit in NY

GENERAL MOTORS: 5 Suits Filed over Defective Airbag Inflators
GENERAL MOTORS: Economic Loss-Related Suits Still Ongoing
GLOBAL PAYMENT: Maloney Sues over Debt Collection Practices
GOLDCO DIRECT: Judson Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
GOPRO INC: Final Judgment in 2018 Class Suit Favors Defendants

GOPRO INC: Settlement in N.D. Cal. Class Suit Wins Preliminary OK
GREAT DESTINATIONS: Accused by Kaufman Suit of Privacy Invasion
GUARDIAN PROTECTION: Danganan Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
HCP INC: Continues to Defend Boynton Beach Pension Fund Class Suit
HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Rodgers Class Action Ongoing

HERC HOLDINGS: Request to File 5th Amended Complaint Pending
HYATT HOTELS: Still Defends Suits Over Alleged Antitrust Matters
HYPER STRUCTURE: Sanchez et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Workers
INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Bids to Dismiss LIBOR Case Due Aug. 30
INTEREXCHANGE INC: Court OKs $65MM Settlement in Beltran

IVERIC BIO: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NY Class Suit Pending
JET.COM INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: NJ Class Suit over Talc-Based Products Ongoing
LAKEMOOR VILLAGE: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Knutson
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Pending

LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Still Ongoing
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against Unit, Voya Still Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Faces 2017 COI Rate Litigation
MDL 2875: Collins vs Prinston over Tainted Valsartan Consolidated
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Kent Suit

MENLO THERAPEUTICS: McKay Suit Consolidated with Savelstrov
MICROSOFT CORP: Oral Argument in Moussouris Appeal Set for Oct.
MOUNTAIRE CORP: Special Master's Report in Cuppels Trimmed
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Dismissal of Texas Class Suit under Appeal
NEW 168: Martinez Seeks Overtime Pay for Laborers

NISSAN NORTH: Briefing Schedule in California Litigation
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Court OKs Dismissal of Morgan FDCPA Suit
OLD VIENNA: Morales Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
OLIN CORP: Suits Against Unit over Sale of Caustic Soda Underway
ORION GROUP: Securities Class Action in Houston Ongoing

PBF ENERGY: Hearing on Renewed Class Cert. Bid Set for Sept. 23
PBF ENERGY: Mediation Hearing in Kendig Suit Set for August 23
PHILIPS ORAL: Sued by M Papadopoulos for Sending Unsolicited Ads
POST HOLDINGS: Trial Against Opt-Out Plaintiff Set for October
QFLORIST INC: Ramirez Seeks OT Wages for Floral Designers

RE/MAX HOLDINGS: 3 Antitrust Class Action Complaints Ongoing
REAL REAL: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RENTGROW INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss McIntyre FCRA Suit
RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Response in Miller Complaint Due Aug. 30
ROSEBOX, LLC: Mal Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages

SABRE CORP: Air Fare Prices Suit Proceeds on Individual Basis
SANTA MARIA NOVELLA: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SCIPLAY CORPORATION: Fife Class Action Ongoing
SILVER STAR: Court Denies Approval of Rivera Settlement
SONDER USA: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SOTHEBY'S: Stevens Challenges BidFair Merger Deal
SOUTH DAKOTA: Court Dismisses Inmates' Class Certification Bid
SPROUTS FARMERS: Phishing Scam Related Suits Ongoing
SPROUTS FARMERS: Securities Class Suit in Arizona Concluded
TD AMERITRADE: Briefing on Appeal in Ford Class Suit Completed

TD AMERITRADE: Settlement Hearing in Ciuffitelli Set for Nov. 26
TEXAS: 5th Cir. Revises Ruling on Brown Consent Decree
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Continues to Defend PERS Class Suit
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Negrete Class Suit v. Ralcorp Holdings Ongoing
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Seeks Approval of Accord in Suit v. Sturm Foods

TWILIO INC: Agreement Reached in Bauman Class Action
TWILIO INC: Feb. 2020 Final Compliance Hearing in Flowers Suit
UNDER ARMOUR: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Securities Suit Underway
UNDER ARMOUR: Suit Over MyFitnessPal Data Breach Ongoing
VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Gordon Class Suit

VHX CORPORATION: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WAYFAIR INC: Massachusetts Securities Class Suits Underway
WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Appeal in Smallen Class Suit Underway
WESTERN UNION: Class Suit v. Argentina Unit Still Ongoing
WESTERN UNION: Frazier Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration

WHOLE FOODS: Nichols Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
WILLIS TOWERS: 5th Cir. Affirms Stanford Settlement
WILLIS TOWERS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Class Complaint Granted
WILLIS TOWERS: UC Regents' Appeal in Securities Suit Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: Continues to Defend Labul Class Suit

XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement Payments Made in Intermodal Drayage Suits
XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement Reached in Last Mile Logistics Suits
ZAZZLE INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

                            *********

35TH & 7TH RESTAURANT: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 35th & 7th Restaurant
Management LLC. The case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz And On
Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. 35th &
7th Restaurant Management LLC d/b/a Rock and Reilly's, Defendant,
Case No. 1:19-cv-07435 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019).

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

35th & 7th Restaurant Management LLC d/b/a Rock and Reilly's is an
intimate, seated-only cocktail bar that offers various meals and
drinks.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3D IDAPRO: Court Denies Class Certification in Hamilton
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification in the case captioned ANDREA HAMILTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. 3D IDAPRO SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant. No.
18-cv-54-jdp. (W.D. Wis.).

In this proposed class action, plaintiff Andrea Hamilton is suing
defendant 3D Idapro Solutions, LLC for nuisance and negligence,
alleging that foul-smelling odors are emanating from a
food-dehydrating plant that 3D Idapro owns.

Hamilton seeks to certify a class of all owner/occupants and
renters of residential property residing within 1.5 miles of 3D
Idapro's facility's property boundary.

There are three requirements for class certification under Rule 23:
(1) the class must be defined clearly using objective criteria (2)
the class must satisfy the threshold requirements of numerosity,
commonality, adequacy, and typicality under Rule 23(a); and (3) the
class must meet the requirements of at least one of the types of
class actions listed in Rule 23(b).

In this case, Hamilton seeks certification under Rule 23(b)(3),
which applies when the questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members and a class action is superior to other available methods
for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

Survey results

The 1.5-mile radius of the class area is based on the results of a
survey conducted by Hamilton's lawyers. In the survey, Hamilton's
counsel asked Wisconsin Rapids residents to indicate where they
lived, how long they have lived there, and whether they had ever
noticed any offensive odors from the 3D Idapro Solutions facility.
Respondents who noticed odors were asked to describe them. Hamilton
says that residents of about 160 houses responded to the survey,
and her liability expert created a map that shows where the
complaints fell within the proposed class area. The survey results
roughly correlate with the proposed class area.

But it's not clear that every person who responded to the survey
was complaining about the same smell. There are several other
possible sources of noxious odors within or near the proposed class
area including a landfill, a paper mill, and retaining ponds used
by the paper mill to treat wastewater.

Hamilton contends that 3D Idapro is the sole source of all these
odors because multiple residents filed complaints with the City of
Wisconsin Rapids and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
about 3D Idapro, and because the City of Wisconsin Rapids cited 3D
Idapro several times for odor violations.  

But this shows only that 3D Idapro's facility released odors, it
does not provide any information about where those odors travelled
or the proper scope of the class area. 3D Idapro was not the only
business to receive complaints; residents also filed odor
complaints about other businesses in the area, including several
complaints about the paper mill located 1.5 miles east of 3D
Idapro's plant.  And on at least one occasion, the city
investigated a complaint against 3D Idapro and determined that the
odor actually came from either the paper mill or a nearby landfill.
The survey results do not differentiate between these sources.

AERMOD analysis

Hamilton says that her expert, Mark Cal, will use AERMOD to
determine, on a class-wide basis, whether 3D Idapro's odors reached
class members' properties. AERMOD is an atmospheric dispersion
modeling system used by the Environmental Protection Agency to
chart the spread of particulate matter through the air.1 Hamilton
says that Cal can use AERMOD to identify the source of odors and
rule out alternative sources. But Cal has not actually run any
AERMOD simulations. His report says only that AERMOD would be
capable of modeling odors within and around the class area. Dkt.
60. He makes no opinion about what those simulations will show or
whether 3D Idapro's emissions will correlate, even roughly, with
the proposed class area.

In this regard, Hamilton's motion for class certification presents
issues that are nearly identical those in to Brooks v. Darling
Int'l, Inc., No. 114CV01128DADEPG, 2017 WL 1198542, at *14 (E.D.
Cal. Mar. 31, 2017), an odor-nuisance class action that was brought
by Hamilton's lawyers in California.

In Brooks, the plaintiffs alleged that an animal rendering facility
(a plant that breaks down animal waste into usable products)
released noxious odors into their neighborhood. As in this case,
plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all residents living within
1.5 miles of the facility and said that the class area reflected
counsel's survey of residents in the area.

Also as in this case, they submitted a preliminary report from an
expert who said that he could use AERMOD to model the spread of
odors from the facility, but who had not actually run any
simulations. The court denied certification, concluding that
without any actual modeling or testing of the odors, there was no
evidence that residents within the proposed class area had suffered
from a common injury.  

Hamilton argues that Cal does not need to conduct an AERMOD
analysis until after certification because, at this point, it is
premature to determine whether the class members actually
experienced odors. Hamilton is correct that she need not prove
success on the merits a class may be certified even if it consists
largely or entirely of members who will ultimately be shown to have
suffered no harm. But if a class is defined so broadly as to
include a great number of members who for some reason could not
have been harmed by the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct for
example, because they lived too far outside the range of the
facility's emissions then the class is defined too broadly to
permit certification.  

In general, when a class definition is overbroad, the court should
attempt to narrow the class definition instead of flatly denying
certification. But in this case, Hamilton has not provided the
information necessary to craft an appropriately narrow class
definition. There is simply no evidence that the court could rely
on to determine which areas have potentially been subjected to 3D
Idapro's emissions and which areas have not.

Because Hamilton has not established an issue of law or fact common
to the proposed class members, much less one that predominates over
questions affecting individual class members, the court will deny
her motion for class certification.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 1, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4te9xu3 from
Leagle.com.

Andrea Hamilton, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Keith E. Trower, Warshafsky,
Rotter, Tarnoff, 839 N. Jefferson St. #300, Milwaukee, WI 53202 &
Laura Sheets, Liddle & Dubin, PC. 975 East Jefferson Ave., Detroit,
MI 48207

3D Idapro Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by David B. Goroff
-- dgoroff@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP, Joseph S. Harper --
jharper@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, Kevin Michael LeRoy --
kleroy@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner, LLP, Megan Renee Stelljes --
mstelljes@foley.com -- Foley & Lardner LLP & Michael D. Leffel.

3M CO: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in 3M Company (MMM) of the Sept. 27, 2019
deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities
class action that has been filed against the Company.

If you invested in 3M stock or options between February 9, 2017 and
May 28, 2019 and would like to discuss your legal rights, click
here: www.faruqilaw.com/MMM There is no cost or obligation to you.

You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at
877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all those who purchased 3M
securities between February 9, 2017 and May 28, 2019 (the "Class
Period"). The case, Heavy & General Laborers' Locals 472 & 172
Welfare Fund V. 3M Company, No. 2:19-cv-15982 was filed on July 29,
2019, and has been assigned to Judge Claire C. Cecchi.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements to conceal the truth about the Company's exposure to
legal liability associated with its most lucrative product
offerings: manmade chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS").

Specifically, while publicly denying that PFAS cause harm to humans
and the environment, defendants concealed and misrepresented: (1)
3M's vast internal evidence dating back decades confirming that
PFAS are toxic (which was first publicly revealed in February 2018
by Minnesota's Attorney General); (2) 3M's decades-long history of
suppressing negative information and/or damaging data about PFAS;
and (3) 3M's legal exposure to state, county, and local governments
and individuals around the country as a result of its knowledge and
intentional concealment of the toxic harm caused by the use of
PFAS. These omissions and misrepresentations caused 3M's stock
price to trade at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class
Period.

On this news, 3M's stock price fell from $219.08 per share on April
24, 2019 to $190.72 per share on April 25, 2019-a $28.36 or a
12.95% drop.

On May 14, 2019, New Jersey filed suit against 3M and other PFAS
manufacturers alleging environmental and consumer fraud claims in
connection with making and selling firefighting foam products for
decades in New Jersey that contained toxic chemicals. Noting that
nearly one in five New Jersey residents had received tap water that
contained at least trace amounts of one of these chemicals, some of
which have been linked to cancer, the lawsuit alleged that the
companies knew that their firefighting foam posed a significant
health threat.

On May 29, 2019, New Hampshire filed two lawsuits against 3M and
others for PFAS contamination. New Hampshire Attorney General
Gordon MacDonald said the goal was to recoup damages for the PFAS
contamination that had been found in all ten New Hampshire
counties, noting that, in towns like Merrimack and Portsmouth, the
contamination had put hundreds of families on bottled water. "‘It
is my hope that those responsible for the manufacture and
distribution of PFAS will recognize the severity of the issues
they've caused and will become part of the solution,'" MacDonald
was quoted saying.

On this news, the price of 3M common stock declined from its close
of $163.35 per share on May 28, 2019 to trade as low as $160.50 per
share in intraday trading and close at $161.40 per share on May 29,
2019.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding 3M's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Contact:

         Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
         Email: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com [GN]


3M CO: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded company 3M
Company (MMM).

To determine your eligibility and get free access to our
shareholder support tools that provide you with case updates,
automated loss calculations and claims recovery assistance, please
contact the firm via the links below.  There will be no cost or
obligation to you.

According to the filed complaint, during the class period, 3M
Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) 3M had vast internal evidence dating
back decades confirming that polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS")
are toxic (which was first publicly revealed in February 2018 by
Minnesota's Attorney General); (ii) 3M had a decades-long history
of suppressing negative information and/or damaging data about
PFAS; and (iii) 3M has legal exposure to state, county, and local
governments and individuals around the country as a result of its
knowledge and intentional concealment of the toxic harm caused by
the use of PFAS.

You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys
have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in
securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders.

CONTACT:

         Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         55 Broadway, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10006
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         Website: www.zlk.com
         Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN]


3M CO: Sept. 27 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP reminds investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company
("3M") (MMM) on behalf of all purchasers of common stock during the
period between February 9, 2017 and May 28, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, and had losses greater
than $200,000, you must move the Court no later than September 27,
2019. If you wish to discuss this action, have any questions
concerning this notice, or your rights or interests, please contact
lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If
you email, please include your phone number.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) 3M's vast internal evidence dating back decades confirmed that
man-made chemicals or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS")
are toxic (which was first publicly revealed in February 2018 by
Minnesota's Attorney General); (2) 3M had a long history of
suppressing negative information and damaging data about PFAS; (3)
3M had significant legal exposure to state, county, and local
governments and individuals around the country as a result of its
knowledge and intentional concealment of the toxic harm caused by
the use of PFAS; and (4) as a result, 3M's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you are a long-term shareholder of 3M continuously holding
shares before February 9, 2017, you may have standing to hold 3M
harmless from the alleged harm caused by the officers and directors
of the Company by making them personally responsible. You may also
be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate governance
to prevent future wrongdoing.

                    About Johnson Fistel, LLP

Johnson Fistel, LLP -- http://www.johnsonfistel.com-- is a
nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in
California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual
and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and
securities class action lawsuits. [GN]


3M COMPANY: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company (NYSE: MMM) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired 3M securities between February 9, 2017 and May
28, 2019 both dates inclusive.  Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/mmm.

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

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) 3M's vast internal evidence dating back decades confirmed
that man-made chemicals or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
("PFAS") are toxic (which was first publicly revealed in February
2018 by Minnesota's Attorney General); (2) 3M had a long history of
suppressing negative information and/or damaging data about PFAS;
(3) 3M had significant legal exposure to state, county, and local
governments and individuals around the country as a result of its
knowledge and intentional concealment of the toxic harm caused by
the use of PFAS; and (4) as a result, 3M's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/mmm or you may contact Peretz
Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in 3M you have until September 27, 2019 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff acts on
behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.

Contact:

         Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
         Yael Hurwitz, Esq.
         Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
         Tel.No.: 212-697-6484
         Email: info@bgandg.com
                peret@bgandg.com [GN]


A1 SOUVLAKI: Must Pay $57,409.18 to Papakleovoulou
--------------------------------------------------
A judgment directing A1 Souvlaki Corp. to pay Charalambos
Papakleovoulou $57,409.18 was entered on July 26, 2019, in the
class action lawsuit captioned Charalambos Papakleovoulou, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
vs. A1 Souvlaki Corp. and Antonias Manolas, in his individual and
professional capacity, Case No. 718071/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Ct., Nov.
26, 2018).
 
As reported by the Class Action Reporter on December 12, 2018, this
action involves an unpaid Stipulation of Settlement supported by a
confession of judgment signed and authorized by Defendants from an
action for unpaid wages in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York, bearing Case No.:
1:16-CV-01626-ENV-RML.  According to the complaint, the Plaintiff
seeks to collect $50,000.00 that is due and owing under a
stipulation of settlement and confession of judgment executed by
Defendants.

In 2016, as reported by the Class Action Reporter, Papakleovoulou
sued Defendants for unpaid overtime pay.  That case was captioned,
Charalambos Papakleovoulou, on behalf of himself, Plaintiff, v. A1
Souvlaki Corp. and Antonias Manolas in his individual and
professional capacity, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-01626 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 1, 2016), and sought recovery of minimum and overtime pay,
spread-of-hours premium, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Defendants operate a food truck where Plaintiff prepared food,
serviced customers and manned the cash register. He worked over 68
hours per week without overtime compensation and was not issued
work stubs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
     35-10 BROADWAY, SUITE 201
     ASTORIA, NY 11106

A10 NETWORKS: Ruling in Shah Class Action under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
A10 Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a notice of appeal has
been initiated in the securities class action suit entitled, Shah
v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al.

On March 22, 2018, the Company, our Chief Executive Officer, our
Chief Financial Officer, and certain former officers, were named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
captioned Shah v. A10 Networks, Inc. et al., 3:18-cv-01772-VC (the
"Securities Action").

On August 31, 2018, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. On
October 5, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint names the same defendants as the initial
complaint, in addition to one of the Company's former executive
vice presidents.

The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The amended complaint named the same defendants as the
initial complaint, in addition to one of the Company's former
executive vice presidents.

The Company and individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. On February 21, 2019, the court granted the
motions to dismiss with leave to amend within 21 days. The lead
plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the Court-ordered
deadline.

Instead, on March 21, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On April 5, 2019, the clerk of court suspended briefing on the
appeal and ordered that, by April 26, 2019, appellants shall either
move for voluntary dismissal or show cause why the appeal should
not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On April 25, 2019, appellants moved to voluntarily dismiss the
appeal without prejudice, and that motion was granted on May 1,
2019. The district court entered final judgment dismissing lead
plaintiff's claims on May 8, 2019. The lead plaintiff subsequently
filed a notice of appeal on June 6, 2019.

A10 Networks, Inc. provides software and hardware solutions in the
United States, Japan, other Asia Pacific and EMEA countries, and
Latin America. A10 Networks, Inc. was incorporated in 2004 and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


ACE AMERICAN: Sandbergen Seeks Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as MARK SANDBERGEN,
individually, on behalf of others similarly situated, and on behalf
of the general public, the Plaintiff, vs. ACE American Insurance
Co. d/b/a Chubb Group of Insurance Companies; Federal Insurance Co.
d/b/a/ Chubb Group of Insurance Companies; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case 3:18-cv-04567-SK (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on September 9, 2019, for an order:

   1. granting conditional certification and approving a 90 day
      opt-in period for the following proposed Collective:

      "all persons who are or have been employed by Defendants
      as insurance underwriters including but not limited to
      Underwriter I, Underwriter II, Underwriter III, and
      individuals with similar job duties, within the United
      States at any time from July 27, 2015 through the date of
      certification of the Collective. This excludes any
      individual for whom Defendants have produced a signed
      individual arbitration agreement";

   2. approving Plaintiff's proposed form of Notice and Consent
      to Join form and authorizing both forms to be sent by U.S.
      Mail, email, and text-message to all potential Collective
      Action Members, with identical reminder notices to
      potential Collective Action Members to issue after the
      expiration of 30 days and 60 days from the day that the
      original notice is transmitted to any potential Collective
      Action Member who has not responded;

   3. permitting potential Collective Action Members to file
      Consent to Join Forms, by email, fax, or email until 90
      days after the day the original notice is transmitted to
      potential Collective Action Members’

   4. granting equitable tolling from February 25, 2019 to the
      date of the Court's order granting conditional
      certification to all putative collective action members
      based on Defendants' summarily-rejected Ninth Circuit writ
      on a discovery order, which postponed these proceedings
      and prejudiced putative collective action members' federal
      wage claims through no fault of their own.[CC]

Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiff and the
Putative Class are:

          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          David Borgen, Esq.
          Ginger Grimes, Esq.
          Beth Holtzman, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com
                  dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
                  ggrimes@gbdhlegal.com
                  bholtzman@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          Bryan Schwartz, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1380
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444-9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444-9301
          E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com

ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Wyche Securities Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a stockholder class action suit entitled,
Christopher Wyche, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al.

On July 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action, Christopher
Wyche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al. (Case No.
1:15-cv-05955-KPF), was commenced in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York (the "District Court"), naming
the Company, along with Joseph A. Chlapaty, the Company's former
Chief Executive Officer, and Mark B. Sturgeon, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, as defendants and alleging violations of
the federal securities laws.

An amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2016. The amended
complaint alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during
the period from July 25, 2014 through March 29, 2016, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On March 10, 2017, the District Court dismissed plaintiff's claims
against all defendants in their entirety and with prejudice.
Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, and on October 13, 2017 the District Court's
judgment was affirmed by the Second Circuit.

On October 27, 2017, plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing with
the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit denied the petition for
rehearing on November 28, 2017.

On November 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed with the District Court a
motion for relief from final judgment and for leave to file an
amended complaint, which, the defendants opposed.

On July 3, 2019, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion.


Advanced Drainage said, "While it is reasonably possible that this
matter ultimately could be decided unfavorably to the Company, the
Company is currently unable to estimate the range of the possible
losses, but it could be material."

Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets
thermoplastic corrugated pipes and related water management
products, and drainage solutions for use in the underground
construction and infrastructure marketplace in the United States
and internationally. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. was founded in
1966 and is headquartered in Hilliard, Ohio.


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Set for Oct. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a hearing on the motion
to dismiss a consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California is scheduled for
October 27, 2019.

On November 5, 2018, a class action lawsuit against Align, and
three of the company's executive officers, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock
between July 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018.

The complaint generally alleges claims under the federal securities
laws and seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount and costs
and expenses incurred in the litigation.

On December 12, 2018, a similar lawsuit was filed in the same court
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's
common stock between April 25, 2018 and October 24, 2018 (together
with the first lawsuit, the "Securities Actions").

On May 10, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
against Align and four of the company's executive officers alleging
similar claims as the initial complaints on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock between April 25,
2018 and October 24, 2018.

On June 24, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.

A hearing on that motion is scheduled for October 27, 2019.

Align believes these claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself. Align is currently unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.

Align Technology, Inc., incorporated on April 3, 1997, designs,
manufactures and markets a system of clear aligner therapy,
intra-oral scanners and computer-aided design/computer-aided
manufacturing (CAD/CAM) digital services used in dentistry,
orthodontics and dental records storage. The Company operates
through two segments: Clear Aligner segment and Scanner and
Services (Scanner) segment. The company is based in San Jose,
California.


AROMA NY LLC: Delacruz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aroma NY, LLC. The
case is styled as Emanuel Delacruz And On Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Aroma NY, LLC, 3A Cafe,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07434 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019).

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

Aroma is a restaurant near the financial district of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Edelstein Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Credit
Services, Inc. The case is styled as Yitty Edelstein individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Associated Credit Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 7:19-cv-07412
(S.D. N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019).

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

Associated Credit Service, Inc. is a collection agency based in
Spokane, WA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Barshay Sanders, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces J M Smith Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
J M SMITH CORPORATION d/b/a, SMITH DRUG COMPANY, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. ASTRAZENECA
PHARMACEUTICALS L.P.; ASTRAZENECA L.P.; ASTRAZENECA UK LIMITED;
HANDA PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC; and PAR PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., Case No.
1:19-cv-07233 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 2, 2019), arises from the Defendants'
alleged violations of the antitrust laws concerning the
pharmaceutical drug Seroquel XR(R) (quetiapine fumarate
extended-release tablets).

The lawsuit is a civil antitrust action seeking treble damages
arising out of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct that delayed
generic competition in the United States and its territories for
Seroquel XR, a prescription drug product approved by U.S. Food and
Drug Administration in the United States for, among other things,
add-on treatment to an antidepressant for patients with major
depressive disorder ("MDD") who did not have an adequate response
to antidepressant therapy.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP is a limited partnership organized
under the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business
located in Wilmington, Delaware.  AstraZeneca LP is a Delaware
limited partnership with its principal place of business located in
Wilmington.  AstraZeneca UK Limited is a company operating and
existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, with its principal
place of business located in London, United Kingdom.

AstraZeneca and Par manufactured, sold, and/or shipped Seroquel XR
and/or generic Seroquel XR since September 29, 2011, in a
continuous and uninterrupted flow of interstate commerce.

Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC is a limited liability corporation
organized under the laws of California, with a principal place of
business located in San Jose, California.  Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.
is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
located in Chestnut Ridge, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
          Andrew W. Kelly, Esq.
          ODOM & DES ROCHES, LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 522-0077
          E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com
                  akelly@odrlaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Joseph Opper, Esq.
          Kimberly M. Hennings, Esq.
          Dan Litvin, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
          88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 398-0055
          E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
                  jopper@garwingerstein.com
                  khennings@garwingerstein.com
                  dlitvin@garwingerstein.com

               - and -

          Russell A. Chorush, Esq.
          HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
          1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 221-2000
          E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com

               - and -

          Susan C. Segura, Esq.
          David C. Raphael, Jr., Esq.
          Erin R. Leger, Esq.
          SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL, LLP
          3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111
          Alexandria, LA 71303
          Telephone: (318) 445-4480
          E-mail: ssegura@ssrllp.com
                  draphael@ssrllp.com
                  eleger@ssrllp.com

               - and -

          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
          Michaela L. Wallin, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
                  ccoslett@bm.net
                  mwallin@bm.net

               - and -

          Peter Kohn, Esq.
          Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          1617 John F Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1550
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
                  jlukens@faruqilaw.com


AUTOMOTIVE PARTS: Certification of Distributors Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Automotive Parts Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 2:12-cv-00501-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs DALC Gear & Bearing Supply Corporation,
McGuire Bearing Company, and Sherman Bearings Inc. renewed their
motion for an order certifying the case as a class action pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a
class defined as:

   "all distributors in the United States that purchased
   bearings directly from one or more of the Defendants, SKF USA
   Inc., or their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint
   ventures, from and including April 1, 2004 through December
   31, 2014. Excluded from the class are Defendants, SKF USA
   Inc., and their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and joint
   ventures."

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court that they be designated as the
class representatives, and that their Counsel be appointed as Class
Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g).[CC]

Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs are:

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          William E. Hoese, Esq.
          Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
          Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Specto, Esq.r
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300

               - and -

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
          FINK BRESSACK
          38500 Woodward Ave, Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971-2500

               - and -

          Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
          William H. London, Esq.
          Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500pa

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIEVAU
            & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112
          Telephone: (207) 791-3000

               - and -

          M. John Dominguez, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS
            & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 204
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Thomas B. Bright, Esq.
          Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 1350
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: (415) 777-223

               - and -

          Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980

AVANGRID INC: Appeal from Dismissal of Breiding Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the appeal from a
district court order dismissing the claims in the class action suit
entitled, Breiding et al. v. Eversource and Avangrid, is ongoing.

On November 16, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
customers in New England against the Company and Eversource
alleging that certain of their respective subsidiaries that take
gas transportation service over the Algonquin Gas Transmission
(AGT), which for AVANGRID would be its indirect subsidiaries The
Southern Connecticut Gas Company (SCG) and Connecticut Natural Gas
Corporation (CNG), engaged in pipeline capacity scheduling
practices on AGT that resulted in artificially increased
electricity prices in New England.

These allegations were based on the conclusions of a whitepaper
issued by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an environmental
advocacy organization, on October 10, 2017, purporting to analyze
the relationship between the New England electricity market and the
New England local gas distribution companies.

The plaintiffs assert claims under federal antitrust law, state
antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection laws, and
under the common law of unjust enrichment. They seek damages,
disgorgement, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorney fees and
costs.

On February 27, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) released the results of a FERC staff inquiry into the
pipeline capacity scheduling practices on the AGT. The inquiry
arose out of the allegations made by the EDF in its whitepaper.

The FERC announced that, based on an extensive review of public and
non-public data, it had determined that the EDF study was flawed
and led to incorrect conclusions. FERC also stated that the staff
inquiry revealed no evidence of anticompetitive withholding of
natural gas pipeline capacity on the AGT and that it would take no
further action on the matter.

On April 27, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the
claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of
antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the
FERC staff inquiry conclusion. The plaintiffs filed opposition to
the motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018.

On September 11, 2018, the District Court granted the Company's
Motion and dismissed all claims.

On January 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a brief in support of
appeal and on April 26, 2019, the Company and Eversource filed a
joint brief in opposition.

On May 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a reply to the opposition.
Oral arguments were held on July 24, 2019.

Avangrid said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this appeal."

Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc.
is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.


AVANGRID INC: Dismissal of PNE Energy Supply Suit under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs in PNE
Energy Supply LLC v. Eversource Energy and Avangrid, Inc., filed
notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit.

On August 10, 2018, PNE Energy Supply LLC, a competitive energy
supplier located in New England that purchases electricity in the
day-ahead and real time wholesale electric market, filed a civil
antitrust action, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated,
against the Company and Eversource alleging that their respective
gas subsidiaries illegally manipulated the supply of pipeline
capacity in the "secondary capacity market" in order to
artificially inflate New England natural gas and electricity
prices.

These allegations were also based on the conclusions of the
whitepaper issued by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).

The plaintiff claims to represent entities who purchased
electricity directly in the wholesale electricity market that it
claims was targeted by the alleged anticompetitive conduct of
Eversource and the Company.

On September 28, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of
the claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of
antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff inquiry and the
dismissal of the related case, "Breiding et al. v. Eversource and
Avangrid," by the same court in September.

The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on October
26, 2018 and the Company filed a reply on November 15, 2018. The
district court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on
January 18, 2019.

On April 26, 2019, the Company filed a brief in support of its
motion to dismiss, and on June 7, 2019, the district court granted
the Company's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed all claims. On July
3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.

Avangrid said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this class action
lawsuit."

Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in
the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and
distribution of electricity, as well as distribution,
transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded
in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc.
is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A.


BANK OF AMERICA: Jenkin Sues Wrongful Property Foreclosure
----------------------------------------------------------
KELLI JENKIN, an individual and BRUCE JENKIN, an individual,
Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; a North Carolina corporation;
CLEAR RECON CORPORATION, a California corporation AND DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 37-2019-00037639-CU-BC-NC (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Diego Cty., July 22, 2019) is a complaint seeking monetary and
punitive damages, and equitable relief, all arising from a wrongful
initiation of a non-judicial foreclosure action against Plaintiffs'
owner-occupied family home, located at 3991 Wendi Court, Fallbrook,
CA 92028 ("Subject Property" or "Property").

Plaintiffs are the owners of the Subject Property.  Plaintiffs
bring this action as a private attorneys general acting on their
own behalf, and on behalf of all California consumer similarly
situated, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200, et seq.

In June of 1999, Plaintiffs took a home loan from Countrywide. The
Loan required Plaintiffs to sign a Promissory Note, and the Note
was secured by a first trust deed given by Plaintiffs on the
Subject Property ("DOT"). The Loan was for the purchase of the
Property. From 1999 to 2012, Plaintiffs made payments, as agreed.
In 2005, BOFA bought the Loan from Countrywide. In late 2012,
Plaintiffs experienced a large drop in business as a result of the
recession. Plaintiffs fell behind on the agreed upon payments.
Plaintiffs approached BOFA for further assistance. The Loan is
currently serviced and owned by BOFA. Plaintiffs contacted BOFA
several times requesting financial assistance. Plaintiffs applied
for and were granted a loan modification in 2014.

From 2014 until 2015, Plaintiffs made payments, as agreed. However,
Plaintiffs defaulted in 2015 due to loss of income when Kelli
Jenkin lost her job. Plaintiffs contacted BOFA several times
requesting financial assistance. Plaintiffs applied for and were
granted a second loan modification in 2015. From 2015 until 2018,
Plaintiffs made payments, as agreed. However, due to a significant
drop in income, Plaintiffs defaulted. In 2018, Plaintiffs contacted
BOFA for assistance. Plaintiffs attempted to communicate with BOFA
telephonically, in an effort to receive and understand BOFA's
current requirements with regard to their Loan, Note, and DOT.
However, Plaintiffs were unable to get a straight answer to their
request for financial assistance from any representative of BOFA,
despite Plaintiffs' diligent efforts.

The complaint notes that the Plaintiffs' submitted a complete
financial assistance application to BOFA. But BOFA did not ever
assign Plaintiffs a single point of contact, as required by
applicable law. Plaintiffs were also never provided with a
compliant decision letter, as required by applicable law. As a
result of the lack of compliant decision letter, and the lack of a
single point of contact, Plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to
appeal, had no options to communicate with anyone specific at BOFA,
and were denied the ability to protect their home from foreclosure,
says the complaint.

Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. ("BOFA" and/or "Lender") is a North
Carolina corporation doing business in California as California
entity number C2551762.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     BRIAN C. ANDREWS, ESQ.
     JENNIELYN ALCARION, ESQ.
     ANDREWS LAW GROUP
     6104 Innovation Way
     Carlsbad, CA 92009
     Phone: (858) 452-5600
     Fax: (858) 452-5601
     Email: brian briancandrews.com
            jennielyn@briancandrews.com


BAR GIACOSA: Court Narrows Counterclaims in N. Turban Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Dismiss Counterclaims in the
case captioned NICHIAS TURBAN, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAR GIACOSA CORP. d/b/a
BAR PITTI, et al., Defendants. No. 19-CV-1138 (JMF). (S.D.N.Y.).

Turban moves, pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, to dismiss the counterclaims.

Plaintiff Nichias Turban brings claims against Bar Giocosa Corp.,
which does business as Bar Pitti, and Giovanni Tognozzi, his former
employers, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New
York Labor Law, N.Y. Lab. Law Section 650 et seq. In turn,
Defendants bring state-law counterclaims against Turban for
tortious interference with business relations, prima facie tort,
and breach of fiduciary duty.

Turban moves, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, to dismiss all of Defendants' counterclaims for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and moves, pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6), to dismiss the tortious interference claim for failure to
state a claim.

A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the
statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.

The Defendants contend that the Court has diversity jurisdiction
over their counterclaims. In the alternative, they assert that the
Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over each of the
claims.

Diversity Jurisdiction

When jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a), the claimant must plead an amount in controversy
that exceeds $75,000.  A party's pleadings carry a rebuttable
presumption that the face of the complaint is a good faith
representation of the actual amount in controversy.

Applying those standards here, Defendants do not meet their burden
of proving to a "reasonable probability" that their counterclaims
satisfy the jurisdictional amount. The only reference in their
pleadings to the amount in controversy is a formulaic and
conclusory recital to the effect that the damages caused by
Turban's misconduct as alleged herein are believed to be in excess
of $75,000.

Similarly, the Defendants note that Turban reported his own hours
and allege, without any further factual support, that his reported
hours in many cases exceeded his actual time spent working for the
restaurant. There are no additional facts that address how much of
the compensation paid to Turban Defendants believe was
illegitimate. They also allege only one instance of Turban
misappropriating tips. But even if that practice continued
unabated, it is not plausible from the facts alleged that Turban
would have misappropriated more than $75,000 in tips. Thus, the
Court lacks an independent basis to exercise jurisdiction over the
counterclaims.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

In the alternative, the Defendants assert that the Court can and
should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over their counterclaims.
Section 1367(a) provides for supplemental jurisdiction over all
other claims that are so related to claims in the action that they
form part of the same case or controversy. The scope of
supplemental jurisdiction both before and after the enactment of
Section 1367 has traditionally been defined as claims that share a
"common nucleus of operative fact with the underlying claim.  

Whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive bears on the
supplemental jurisdiction analysis. Compulsory counterclaims are
those that arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that is
the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. The Second
Circuit has held that this standard is met when there is a logical
relationship between the counterclaim and the main claim. The
logical relationship test does not require an absolute identity of
factual backgrounds, but the essential facts of the claims must be
so logically connected that considerations of judicial economy and
fairness dictate that all the issues be resolved in one lawsuit.
This standard is more stringent than the common nucleus of
operative fact" standard governing supplemental jurisdiction;
accordingly, compulsory counterclaims automatically meet the
requirements of Section 1367(a).  

In this case, the Defendants' tortious interference counterclaim is
clearly permissive. Turban's claims all relate to Defendants'
payment policies writ large. By contrast, Defendants' tortious
interference counterclaim focuses on Turban's personal
relationships with customers and other employees and relates to
events that occurred after Turban's employment with Defendants
ended. There is insufficient overlap of essential facts and issues
to furnish a logical relationship between the two sets of claims.
In addition, while Turban brings claims for class-wide wage and
hour violations, Defendants' counterclaim pertains only to Turban's
misconduct. That is enough to undermine any claim of a logical
relationship between the two.  

Nor is there a basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Defendants' tortious interference claim pursuant to Section
1367(a). The only fact common to Turban's FLSA and NYLL claims and
Defendants' allegations regarding his conduct after termination is
that Turban once worked for Defendants. This is insufficient to
make it part of the same case or controversy as required by Section
1367(a).Accordingly, the Court concludes that it lacks supplemental
jurisdiction over Defendants' counterclaim for tortious
interference.

By contrast, even assuming arguendo that Defendants' fiduciary duty
counterclaim is not a compulsory counterclaim, the Court would and
does exercise supplemental jurisdiction over it. As Turban states
in his brief, employers have a duty under the FLSA to maintain
adequate records of hours worked.. Accordingly, the Court may
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this counterclaim pursuant
to Section 1367(a). Moreover, the Court will not decline to
exercise jurisdiction over the fiduciary duty counterclaim because
it does not raise a novel or complex issue of state law, it does
not substantially predominate over Turban's FLSA claims, the FLSA
claims have not been dismissed, and there are no other compelling
reasons to decline jurisdiction.  

Turban's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction
is GRANTED with respect to Defendants' tortious interference
counterclaim and DENIED with respect to the fiduciary duty
counterclaim.2 Turban's motion to dismiss the prima facie tort
counterclaim is DENIED as moot in light of Defendants' withdrawal
of the claim.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 1, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y32dnrf6 from
Leagle.com.

Nichias Turban, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Alan Delaini, Federico Brognoli & Claudia Mann, Plaintiffs,
represented by Lucas Colin Buzzard, Joseph & Kirshenbaum LLP &
Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, &
Kirschenbaum, 32 Broadway, Suite 601, New York, New York 10004

Bar Giacosa Corp., doing business as Bar Pitti & Giovanni Tognozzi,
Defendants, represented by Norris David Wolff -- nwolff@kkwc.com --
Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P.C., William Matthew Groh,
Naness, Chaiet & Naness, LLC, 375 N Broadway Ste 202, Jericho, NY
11753-2008 & Robert Michael Tuchman -- tuchman@kkwc.com --
Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P.C.

Bar Giacosa Corp. & Giovanni Tognozzi, Counter Claimants,
represented by Norris David Wolff, Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff &
Cohen, P.C., William Matthew Groh, Naness, Chaiet & Naness, LLC
&Robert Michael Tuchman, Kleinberg, Kaplan, Wolff & Cohen, P.C.


BARCLAYS PLC: Rabobank et al Appeal Claims Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit filed against Barclays PLC, et al.,
Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A. Credit Agricole S.A., Credit Agricole
CIB, ICAP plc, ICAP Europe Limited, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc,
Societe Generale, and UBS AG, filed an appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the February 21, 2017,
order denying in part and granting in part Defendants’ motion to
dismiss. The Second Circuit Court Clerk assigned Case No. 19-1769
to the proceeding.

The district court case is captioned as STEPHEN SULLIVAN, WHITE OAK
FUND LP, CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, SONTERRA
CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT PARTNERS TRADING FUND, L.P.,
AND FRONTPOINT AUSTRALIAN OPPORTUNITIES TRUST on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs.
BARCLAYS PLC, BARCLAYS BANK PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., CITIGROUP,
INC., CITIBANK, N.A., COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE
RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A., CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A., CREDIT
AGRICOLE CIB, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, DB GROUP SERVICES UK LIMITED, HSBC
HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK PLC, ICAP PLC, ICAP EUROPE LIMITED, J.P.
MORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF
SCOTLAND PLC, SOCIETE GENERALE SA, UBS AG AND JOHN DOE NOS. 1-50,
the Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-02811 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.).[BN]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Christopher Lovell, Esq.
          Gary S. Jacobson, Esq.
          Craig M. Essenmacher, Esq.
          Ian Trevor Stoll, Esq.
          Michael Gallagher, Jr., Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          500 5th Avenue, Suite 2440
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 608−1900
          Facsimile: (212) 719−4677
          E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com
                  gsjacobson@lshllp.com
                  cessenmacher@lshllp.com
                  istoll@lshllp.com
                  mgallagher@lshllp.com

               - and -

          Peter Dexter St. Phillip, Jr., Esq.
          Raymond Peter Girnys, Jr., Esq.
          Thomas Michael Skelton, Esq.
          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Geoffrey Milbank Horn, Esq.
          Christian Levis, Esq.
          Sitso W. Bediako, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: 914−997−0500
          Facsomile: 914−997−0035
          E-mail: pstphillip@lowey.com
                  rgirnys@lowey.com
                  tskelton@lowey.com
                  vbriganti@lowey.com
                  ghorn@lowey.com
                  clevis@lowey.com
                  sbediako@lowey.com

               - and -

          Arthur R. Miller
          40 Washington Sq. South 430F
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212)−992−8147
          Facsimile: (212)−995−4590
          Email: arthur.r.miller@nyu.edu

               - and -

          Brian Philip Murray, Esq.
          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          230 Park Avenue, Suite 530
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: 212 682−5340
          Facsimile: 212−884−0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
                  lalbert@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          David E. Kovel, Esq.
          Karen M. Lerner, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
          New York, NY 10177
          Telephone: 212−371−6600
          Facsimile: 212−699−1194
          E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com
                  klerner@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Lee Jason Lefkowitz, Esq.
          SHAMBERG MARWELL HOLLIS
          ANDREYCAK & LAIDLAW, P.C.
          55 Smith Ave.
          Mt. Kisco, NY 10549
          Telephone: 914 666 5600
          E-mail: llefkowitz@lowey.com

               - and -

          Patrick Thomas Egan, Esq.
          Todd Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO (MA)
          One Liberty Square, 8th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617)−542−8300
          Facsimile: (617)−542−1194
          E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com
                  tseaver@bermantabacco.com

               - and -

          Douglas Mason Chalmers, Esq.
          DOUGLAS M. CHALMERS P.C.
          77 W. Wacker, Suite 4800
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312)606−8700

Attorneys for Cooperatieve
Rabobank U.A. (f/k/a Cooperatieve Centrale
Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A.) are:

          David R. Gelfand, Esq.
          
          Robert C. Hora, Esq.
          Mark D. Villaverde, Esq.
          MILBANK LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 530-5000
          E-mail: dgelfand@milbank.com
          rhora@milbank.com
          mvillaverde@milbank.com

Attorneys for Credit Agricole S.A.
and Credit Agricole CIB are:

          Andrew W. Hammond, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Haviv, Esq.
          Darryl S. Lew, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 819-8297
          E-mail: ahammond@whitecase.com
                  khaviv@whitecase.com
                  dlew@whitecase.com

Attorneys for ICAP plc and ICAP Europe Ltd. are:

          Shari A. Brandt, Esq.
          H. Rowan Gaither, Esq.
          RICHARDS KIBBE & ORBE LLP
          200 Liberty Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 530-1800
          E-mail: sbrandt@rkoll.com
                  rgaither@rkoll.com

Attorneys for The Royal Bank of Scotland plc are:

          Raser L. Hunter, Jr., Esq.
          David S. Lesser, Esq.
          Jamie Dycus, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE
          AND DORR LLP
          250 Greenwich Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8800
          E-mail: fraser.hunter@wilmerhale.com
                  david.lesser@wilmerhale.com
                  jamie.dycus@wilmerhale.com

Attorneys for Societe Generale are:

          Steven Wolowitz, Esq.
          Henninger S. Bullock, Esq.
          Andrew J. Calica, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 506-2500
          E-mail: swolowitz@mayerbrown.com
                  hbullock@mayerbrown.com
                  acalica@mayerbrown.com

Attorneys for UBS AG are:

          Eric J. Stock, Esq.
          Jefferson E. Bell, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166-0193
          Telephone: (212) 351-4000
          E-mail: estock@gibsondunn.com
                  jbell@gibsondunn.com

BIN INSURANCE: Morales Bid to Certify Terminated
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Joy Morales, et al., the
Plaintiff, v. BIN Insurance Holdings, LLC, et al., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:18-cv-02119 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Matthew F.
Kennelly entered an order on Aug. 1, 2019, terminating the motion
to certify and the motion for order to comply.

Bin Insurance provides insurance for auto, home, motorcycle, and
watercraft.[CC]

BLAZIN' WINGS: Woods Files Labor Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blazin' Wings, Inc.
The case is styled as Nicole Woods as an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blazin' Wings, Inc.
a Minnesota Corporation, doing business as BUFFALO WILD WINGS GRILL
& BAR, DOES 1-50 inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-04603 (N.D.
Cal., Aug. 8, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor.

Blazin' Wings, Inc. d/b/a Buffalo Wild Wings is an American casual
dining restaurant and sports bar franchise in the United States,
Canada, India, Mexico, Oman, Panama, Philippines, Saudi Arabia,
United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam which specializes in Buffalo
wings and sauces.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BRASSERIE FELIX: Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ANGEL SUAREZ, MIGUEL CIELO RAMOS, GERARDO IXEHUA TL
HERNANDEZ, GUSTA VO JACOBO PERALTA, JUAN MANUEL CUERVO REYES,
CARLOS RANGEL CAMACHO, MARCELINO BARRALES RAMOS, NESTOR HERNANDEZ
SANCHEZ, LEO DAN ANDRADE HUERTA, JOSE GAGUANCELA AUCACAMA, FIDENCIO
JUAREZ TECUAPACHO, and EFREN ROMERO, on behalf of themselves, and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. BRASSERIE FELIX
INC., dba RESTAURANT FELIX, and ALEXANDRE CATTEAU, and ALAIN
DENNEULIN, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07210
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 1, 2019), seeks unpaid wages and minimum wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New
York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The work performed by Plaintiffs, was directly essential to the
restaurant business operated by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs were
and are paid "off the books", or partially off the books, in cash,
and were/are long term employees of the restaurant owned and
operated by Alexandre Catteau, and Alain Denneulin.

The Defendants engaged in widespread, systematic and significant
violations of Federal and New York State wage and hour statutes and
implementing regulations, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs are:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44 111 Street - 6 111 Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile. (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com

CADENCE BANCORP: Schall Law Investigating Investors' Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces that it is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
Cadence Bancorporation (NYSE:CADE) for violations of §§10(b) and
20(a) of the cSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. Cadence announced on July 22, 2019, that
the Company's financial results for the second quarter of 2019 were
"negatively impacted by higher credit costs including net
charge-offs of $18.6 million and loan provisions of $28.9 million."
Based on these issues, Cadence missed its second-quarter earnings
expectations. Based on this news, shares of Cadence fell by more
than 22% on the same day.

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

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

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

CONTACT:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         Tel.No.:310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         Website: www.schallfirm.com
         Email: info@schallfirm.com
                brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Fails to Protect Sensitive Information, Lipskar Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIYAHU LIPSKAR, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE, N.A.
and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-02328 (D.D.C.,
Aug. 2, 2019), arises from the Defendants' failure to protect the
confidential information of millions of consumers and small
businesses, including financial information (e.g., bank account
numbers, fragments of transaction history, self-reported income,
and credit scores), and/or personal information (e.g., Social
Security Numbers, names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses,
and dates of birth).

Capital One Financial Corporation is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in McLean, Virginia.  Capital One,
N.A., is a national bank with its principal place of business in
McLean.  Capital One, N.A. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Capital
One Financial Corporation.  Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., is a
national bank with its principal place of business in Glen Allen,
Virginia.  Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Capital One Financial Corporation.

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, and one of the top 10 largest banks based on deposits,
serving approximately 45 million customer accounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is 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
          Telephone: (917) 438-9189
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
                  bcohen@nussbaumpc.com

               - and -

          Anthony M. Barbuto, Esq.
          Carly Johansson, Esq.
          Neil Rothstein, Esq.
          BARBUTO AND JOHANSSON, P.A.
          12773 W. Forest Hill Blvd., Suite 101
          Wellington, FL 33414
          Telephone: (561) 444-7980
          E-mail: anthony@barjolaw.com
                  carly@barjolaw.com
                  neil@barjolaw.com


CAVIN-MORRIS INC: Picon Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavin-Morris, Inc.
The case is styled as Yelitza Picon and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cavin-Morris, Inc., ADR
Provider, Case No. 1:19-cv-07436 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019).

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

Cavin-Morris Gallery specializes in Outsider or Non-Mainstream
art.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CBOE GLOBAL: Amended Complaint Filed in VIX Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that an amended complaint has
been filed in the putative class action lawsuit related to the Cboe
Volatility Index methodology (VIX).

On March 20, 2018, a putative class action complaint captioned
Tomasulo v. Cboe Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-02025 was filed
in federal district court for the Northern District of Illinois
alleging that the Company intentionally designed its products,
operated its platforms, and formulated the method for calculating
VIX and the Special Opening Quotation, (i.e., the special VIX value
designed by the Company and calculated on the settlement date of
VIX derivatives prior to the opening of trading), in a manner that
could be collusively manipulated by a group of entities named as
John Doe defendants.

A number of similar putative class actions, some of which do not
name the Company as a party, were filed in federal court in
Illinois and New York on behalf of investors in certain
volatility-related products.

On June 14, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized the putative class actions in the federal district
court for the Northern District of Illinois. On September 28, 2018,
plaintiffs filed a master, consolidated complaint that is a
putative class action alleging various claims against the Company
and John Doe defendants in the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The claims asserted against the Company consist of a Securities
Exchange Act fraud claim, three Commodity Exchange Act claims and a
state law negligence claim. Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding
class damages in an unspecified amount, as well as punitive or
exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, prejudgment interest,
costs including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses and such
other relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On November 19, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
master consolidated complaint and the plaintiffs filed their
response on January 7, 2019. The Company filed its reply on January
28, 2019. On May 29, 2019, the federal district court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted the Company's motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' entire complaint against the Company. The state
law negligence claim was dismissed with prejudice and the other
claims were dismissed without prejudice with leave to file an
amended complaint, which was filed on July 19, 2019.

Cboe Global said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings,
the Company is still evaluating the facts underlying the
complaints, however, the Company currently believes that the claims
are without merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously.
The Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may
result from this litigation."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CBOE GLOBAL: Providence's Securities Suit v. Bats Global Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's wholly
owned subsidiary Bats Global Markets, Inc., now known as Cboe Bats,
LLC, continues to defend itself against a securities class action
lawsuit initiated by the City of Providence, Rhode Island.

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New
York against Bats and Direct Edge Holdings LLC, as well as 14 other
securities exchanges. The action purports to be brought on behalf
of all public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock
in the United States since April 18, 2009 on a registered public
stock exchange ("Exchange Defendants") or a U.S.-based alternate
trading venue and were injured as a result of the alleged
misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes allegations
that the Exchange Defendants committed fraud through a variety of
business practices associated with, among other things, what is
commonly referred to as high frequency trading.

On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance
Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially
similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants which
were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence, Rhode
Island securities class action lawsuit.

On June 18, 2015, the Southern District of New York (the "Lower
Court") held oral argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and
thereafter, on August 26, 2015, the Lower Court issued an Opinion
and Order granting Exchange Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss,
dismissing the complaint in full.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on September
24, 2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's
brief was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on
August 24, 2016. Following oral argument, the Court of Appeals
issued an order requesting that the SEC submit an amicus brief on
whether the Lower Court had jurisdiction and whether the Exchange
Defendants have immunity in the claims alleged.

The SEC filed its amicus brief with the Court of Appeals on
November 28, 2016 and Plaintiff and the Exchange Defendants filed
their respective supplemental response briefs on December 12, 2016.


On December 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals reversed the Lower
Court's dismissal and remanded the case back to the Lower Court. On
March 13, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the Exchange
Defendants' motion for re-hearing.

The Exchange Defendants filed their opening brief for their motion
to dismiss May 18, 2018, Plaintiffs' response was filed June 15,
2018 and the Exchange Defendants' reply was filed June 29, 2018.

On May 28, 2019, the Lower Court issued an opinion and order
denying the Exchange Defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 17,
2019, the Exchange Defendants filed a motion seeking interlocutory
appeal of the May 28, 2019 dismissal order, which was denied July
16, 2019. Exchange Defendants filed their answers on July 25, 2019.


Cboe Global said, "Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings,
the Company is unable to estimate what, if any, liability may
result from this litigation. However, the Company believes that the
claims are without merit and intends to litigate the matter
vigorously."

Cboe Global Markets, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as an
options exchange in the United States. It operates in five
segments: Options, U.S. Equities, Futures, European Equities, and
Global FX. Cboe Global Markets, Inc. was founded in 1973 and is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


CENTRAL CREDIT: Blonder Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit
Services LLC. The case is styled as Ellen Blonder individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Central
Credit Services LLC, Radius Global Solutions, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-04577 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019).

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

Central Credit Services is now a subsidiary of Radius Global
Solutions. Radius Global Solutions is a leading provider of
accounts receivable, customer relations and revenue cycle
management solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Barshay, Esq.
     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Barshay Sanders, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Phone: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com
            dbarshay@barshaysanders.com


CERBERUS SECURITY: Thomas Seeks OT Wages for Security Personnel
---------------------------------------------------------------
DESTYNEE THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. CERBERUS SECURITY GROUP, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00773 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 1, 2019),
alleges that Defendant misclassified its security guards and event
staff as "independent contractors" and failed to pay overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked as a security guard for Defendant and has done
so in Austin, Texas and the surrounding area since Defendant hired
her in approximately March 2017 until April 2018, and then again
from February 2019 until July 2019.

According to the company's website, Defendant is "a full-service
security and staffing agency," which provides "fully-trained and
licensed" security guards and event staff to secure property or
work events for its clients.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
          scott@bohrerbrady.com

               - and -

          Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq.
          ELLWANGER LAW, LLLP
          8310-1 N. Capital of Texas Hwy., Suite 190
          Austin, TX 78731
          Telephone: (737) 808-2260
          Facsimile: (737) 808-2262
          E-mail: jellwanger@equalrights.com

CHESAPEAKE LODGING: Faces 2 Trust and Park Merger Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as a defendant in two purported shareholder class actions
entitled, Kent v. Chesapeake Lodging Trust, et al., No.
1:19-cv-01201 (D.Del.) and Terlinden v. Chesapeake Lodging Trust,
et al., No. 1:19-cv-01263 (D.Del.), following the announcement that
the Trust and Park Hotel & Resorts Inc. had entered into the Merger
Agreement.

On May 5, 2019, Chesapeake's Board of Trustees caused the
Chesapeake to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Park
Hotel & Resorts Inc., PK Domestic Property LLC, and PK Domestic Sub
LLC.

Following the May 6, 2019 announcement that the Trust and Park had
entered into the Merger Agreement, two purported shareholder class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware captioned:

Kent v. Chesapeake Lodging Trust, et al., No. 1:19-cv-01201
(D.Del.) (filed June 25, 2019) and Terlinden v. Chesapeake Lodging
Trust, et al., No. 1:19-cv-01263 (D.Del.) (filed July 8, 2019).

The complaint in each case alleges purported violations of the
federal securities laws and names as defendants the Trust, the
individual members of the Trust's board of trustees and the Park,
Domestic and Merger Sub.

The plaintiffs allege that the Trust and the individual defendants
violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, by providing inadequate disclosure
regarding the proposed merger in the registration statement on Form
S-4 filed by Park with the SEC on June 14, 2019.

The plaintiffs also allege that the individual defendants, Park,
Domestic and Merger Sub violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.


Plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin or rescind the
merger, an award of damages in the event the merger is consummated,
and an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

The Trust believes that these claims are without merit, and intends
to vigorously defend against them.

Chesapeake Lodging Trust, incorporated on June 12, 2009, is a real
estate investment trust. The Company is focused on investments
primarily in upper-upscale hotels in various business and
convention markets and, on a selective basis, select-service hotels
in urban settings or other locations in the United States. The
Company operates through the hotel ownership segment. The company
is based in Arlington Virginia.


CIGNA CORP: Amara Plaintiffs Challenge Calculation of Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that plaintiffs are
challenging certain aspects of the methodology used to calculate
and pay benefits related to the "Amara" cash balance pension plan
litigation.

In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna
Corporation (now Old Cigna) and the Cigna Pension Plan on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by
the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula.

The plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's
cash balance formula discriminates against older employees; that
the conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the
pre-conversion accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion
benefit); and that the Plan communications contained inaccurate or
inadequate disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to
convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998; (2)
found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3) required
the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-conversion
traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits under the
post-conversion cash balance formula.

From 2008 through 2015, this case has undergone a series of court
proceedings that resulted in the original District Court Order
being largely upheld.

In 2015, the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed
method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to class
members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015.

Since then, there has been continued litigation regarding the
calculation of benefits, attorneys' fees, and the administration of
the remedy payments.

On November 29, 2018, the Court ordered the Pension Plan to pay
attorneys' and incentive fees of $32 million, and to pay any past
due lump sums and back benefits within 90 days of the Order. The
attorneys' fees were paid as ordered in December 2018.

In the first quarter of 2019, the Company amended the Plan,
notified class participants of their increased benefits and
commenced remedy benefit payments out of the Plan, including the
past due lump sums and back benefits.

In April 2019, plaintiffs challenged certain aspects of the
methodology used to calculate and pay benefits. The Company and the
Plan are vigorously opposing plaintiffs' motion.

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

Cigna Corporation, a health services organization, provides
insurance and related products and services in the United States
and internationally. It operates through Global Health Care, Global
Supplemental Benefits, Group Disability and Life, and Other
Operations segments. Cigna Corporation was founded in 1792 and is
headquartered in Bloomfield, Connecticut.


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Settlement in Brown Suit Preliminarily Approved
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the settlement in the
case entitled, Silken Brown v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No.
3:13cv05669, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, has been
preliminarily approved.

The case presents putative class action claims for penalties and
attorney's fees arising from alleged violations of the California
wage statement law.  The claim is also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for
penalties.

The Court granted class certification.

The company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate, denies that the plaintiff has standing to assert the
claims alleged and is vigorously defending against the claims.  

The Company denies any violation of law; however, to avoid the cost
and uncertainty associated with litigation the Company and the
plaintiff entered into a Joint Stipulation of Class Action
Settlement and Release of Claims (the "Settlement Agreement") to
fully and finally dismiss all claims that would be brought in the
case.  

The Settlement Agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court
and is subject to final approval later this year.

During 2018, the Company recorded a litigation reserve based on the
proposed Settlement Agreement.

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

Cinemark Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
the motion picture exhibition business. As of December 31, 2018, it
operated 341 theatres and 4,586 screens in 41 states of the United
States; and 205 theatres and 1,462 screens in Brazil, Argentina,
Chile, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia, Curacao, and Paraguay. The
company was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas.


CITIGROUP INC: Bid to Dismiss GSE Bonds Antitrust Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Citigroup Global Markets
Inc. (CGMI) has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class
action suit entitled, IN RE GSE BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

On May 23, 2019, in IN RE GSE BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint against (CGMI)
and numerous other defendants, on behalf of a purported class of
persons or entities that transacted in bonds issued by United
States government-sponsored entities with one or more of the
defendants.

Plaintiffs no longer assert any claims against Citigroup.
Plaintiffs assert a claim under the Sherman Act based on
defendants' alleged conspiracy to manipulate the market for such
bonds, and seek treble damages and injunctive relief.

On June 13, 2019, CGMI and other defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Suit by J Wisbey Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. is defending itself against a putative class action
captioned J Wisbey & Associates Pty Ltd v. UBS AG & ORS was filed
in the Federal Court of Australia against Citibank and other
defendants, the company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019.

Plaintiffs allege manipulation of foreign exchange markets in
violation of Australian antitrust laws and seek compensatory
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.   The lawsuit was
filed May 27, 2019.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.

CITIGROUP INC: Settlement in Sullivan Suit Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court overseeing the
case, SULLIVAN, ET AL. v. BARCLAYS PLC, ET AL., has granted final
approval of the class settlement between plaintiffs and Citigroup,
Citibank, and other settling defendants.

The approval order was entered May 17, 2019.

Citigroup Inc., a diversified financial services holding company,
provides various financial products and services for consumers,
corporations, governments, and institutions in North America, Latin
America, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. The company
operates through two segments, Global Consumer Banking (GCB) and
Institutional Clients Group (ICG). Citigroup Inc. was founded in
1812 and is headquartered in New York, New York.


COCA-COLA BOTTLING: Lafreniere Seeks Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY LAFRENIERE, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs 1600d COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY
UNITED, INC., a Georgia Corporation, the Defendant, Case
5:19-cv-05148-TLB (N.D. Ga., Aug. 6, 2019), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees
under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff brings the FLSA action on behalf of similarly
situated "day-rate" paid merchandisers who worked for Defendant at
their locations throughout the Southeastern United States. For
years Defendant has classified these employees as non-exempt from
overtime under the FLSA and paid them "half-time" overtime
compensation for the overtime hours worked by them.

Coca-Cola Bottling Company United, Inc. is a private Coca-Cola
bottling company headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Coca-Cola UNITED is the largest privately held Coca-Cola bottler in
the United States and the second largest in which The Coca-Cola
Company does not own an interest.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tim Hutchinson, Esq.
          Larry McCredy, Esq.
          Seth Haines, Esq.
          Bo Renner, Esq.
          RMP LLP
          P.O. Box 1788
          Fayette, AR  72702
          Telephone: (479) 443 2705
          Facsimile: (479) 443 2718
          E-mail: thutchinson@rmpl.law
                 lmccred@mpl.law
                 shaines@mpl.law
                 brenner@mpl.law

               - and -

          Matthew Bishop, Esq.
          BISHOP LAW FIRM
          3739 N. Steele Blvd., Ste 380
          Fayette, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 363 6171
          Facsimile: (479) 363 6461
          E-mail: matt@bishoplawfirm.org

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS: Removes Thompson Case to Idaho Fed. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Connections Incorporated removed the case captioned as
DORINDA J. THOMPSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS INCORPORATED, an
Idaho Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. (Filed May 10, 2019),
from the First Judicial District Court of Kootenai County, Idaho to
the United States District Court for the District of Idaho on Aug.
1, 2019. The District of Idaho Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:19-cv-00300-CWD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Dennis M. Charney, Esq.
          P.O. Box 171
          Ten Sleep, WY
          Telephone: (208) 938-9500
          E-mail: dennischarney@gmail.com

CORCEPT THERAPEUTICS: Appointment of Lead Plaintiff Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
motions for lead plaintiffs in the class action suit entitled,
Nicholas Melucci (Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated, et
al., is pending.

Nova Scotia Health Employees Pension Plan, and James L. Ferraro and
Ferraro Family Foundation, Inc. have sought appointment as lead
plaintiff.

On March 14, 2019, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California by Nicholas Melucci (Melucci v. Corcept Therapeutics
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 5:19-cv-01372-LHK).  

The complaint named the Company and certain of its executive
officers as defendants asserting violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
alleges that the defendants made false and materially misleading
statements and failed to disclose adverse facts about the company's
business, operations, and prospects.

The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from August
2, 2017 to February 5, 2019 and seeks unspecified monetary relief,
interest and attorneys' fees.  

On May 13, 2019, proposed lead plaintiffs filed motions to be
selected as the lead plaintiff. Those motions are still pending.

Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated discovers, develops, and
commercializes drugs for the treatment of severe metabolic,
oncologic, and psychiatric disorders in the United States. Corcept
Therapeutics Incorporated was founded in 1998 and is headquartered
in Menlo Park, California.


COWEN INC: Wins Dismissal of Fletcher Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Cowen Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that District Court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Landol Fletcher and all
others similarly situated v. Convergex Group LLC, Cowen Execution,
Convergex Global Markets Ltd., Convergex Holdings LLC, G-Trade
Services LLC, & Does 1-10, No. 1:13-CV-09150-LLS

On December 27, 2013, Landol Fletcher filed a putative class action
lawsuit against Convergex Holdings, LLC, Convergex Group, LLC,
Cowen Execution, Convergex Global Markets Limited and G-Trade
Services LLC (collectively, "Convergex") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Landol
Fletcher and all others similarly situated v. Convergex Group LLC,
Cowen Execution, Convergex Global Markets Ltd., Convergex Holdings
LLC, G-Trade Services LLC, & Does 1-10, No. 1:13-CV-09150-LLS).

The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited
transactions under ERISA and seeks to maintain a class action on
behalf of all ERISA plan participants, beneficiaries and named
fiduciaries whose plans were impacted by net trading by Convergex
Global Markets Limited from October 2006 to December 2011.

On April 11, 2014, Landol Fletcher and Frederick P. Potter Jr.,
filed an amended complaint raising materially similar allegations.


This matter was assumed by the Company as a result of the Company's
previously announced acquisition of Convergex Group, which was
completed on June 1, 2017.

On February 17, 2016, the District Court granted Convergex's motion
to dismiss the amended complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Second Circuit, and the AARP and
Department of Labor filed amicus briefs on plaintiffs' behalf. The
appeal was argued on December 12, 2016.

On February 10, 2017, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (1)
reversed the District Court, finding that plaintiff has
constitutional standing in a "representative" capacity to sue for
damages to the ERISA defined benefit plan in which he is a
participant, and (2) remanded to the District Court to reconsider,
in light of the Circuit Court's decision, the issue whether
plaintiff has standing to pursue claims on behalf of ERISA plans in
which plaintiff is not a participant.

Convergex filed a petition for rehearing, and the Court of Appeals
denied the petition. On June 30, 2017, the Company filed a notice
of motion and memorandum of law in support of a motion to stay the
proceedings in the District Court pending resolution of its
petition for writ of certiorari, which the Company intended to file
with the U.S. Supreme Court.

On August 16, 2017, the District Court granted the Company's motion
to stay the proceedings in the District Court pending resolution of
the Company’s petition for writ of certiorari. On September 1,
2017, the Company filed a petition with the United States Supreme
Court for a writ of certiorari requesting review of the decision of
the Court of Appeals.

On January 8, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Company's
petition for a writ of certiorari.

The previously granted stay of the proceedings in the District
Court was lifted, and the case proceeded in the District Court.
Status conferences were held on April 6, 2018, October 12, 2018,
and December 4, 2018. On March 15, 2019, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint.

The District Court granted the Company's motion on July 2, 2019.

The status of the case going forward will depend on whether the
plaintiffs appeal the District Court's decision.

Cowen said, "We are indemnified against losses arising from this
matter pursuant to, and subject to, the provisions of the purchase
agreement relating to the acquisition of Convergex Group. While it
is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome or duration of
such litigation, based on current knowledge, the Company does not
currently expect this case to have a material effect on its
financial position or its results of operations."

Cowen Inc. is a publicly owned asset management holding company.
Through its subsidiaries, the firm provides alternative investment
management, investment banking, research, and sales and trading
services for its clients.  Cowen Group, Inc. was founded in 1994
and is headquartered in New York, New York with additional offices
in Boston, Massachusetts, Chicago, Illinois, Cleveland, Ohio,
Dallas, Texas, and San Francisco, California.


CRST VAN: Questions on Meal, Rest Breaks Sent to Calif. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, issued an
Opinion certifying two questions to the Supreme of California in
the case captioned JAMES COLE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRST VAN EXPEDITED,
INC., FKA CRST, Inc., an Iowa Corporation; DOES, 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees. No. 17-55606. (9th Cir.).

Certified Questions

1. Does the absence of a formal policy regarding meal and rest
breaks violate California law?

2. Does an employer's failure to keep records for meal and rest
breaks taken by its employees create a rebuttable presumption that
the meal and rest breaks were not provided?

The answers to these questions are dispositive of this case, and
are not answered by clear California precedent. The Court requests
that the California Supreme Court exercise its discretion to
resolve the certified questions. All further proceedings in this
case are stayed pending final action by the California Supreme
Court, and this case is withdrawn from submission until further
order of this court.

In his second amended putative class action complaint, James Cole
(Cole) alleged that he was employed by CRST Van Expedited, Inc.
(CRST) as a truck driver in California. Cole sought to represent
himself and other CRST drivers who did not receive the meal or rest
breaks required under California law. Cole alleged that CRST
Non-Exempt truck drivers were not provided rest periods for work
periods of four hours or major fractions thereof or meal periods
for work days in excess of five (5) and ten (10) hours, Cole also
asserted that CRST drivers were required to work through their
daily rest periods and meal period(s), or work an on-duty meal
period, were severely restricted in their ability to take a meal
period and were required to work through their second meal periods,
or work a second on-duty meal period.

Cole sought to represent the following class:

     All of CRST's California based drivers who are employed or
have been employed by CRST in the State of California during the
relevant time period who have performed work within California.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CRST.
Relying on Brinker Rest. Corp. v. Superior Court, 273 P.3d 513
(Cal. 2012), the district court concluded that CRST satisfied its
obligations to provide rest and meal breaks by providing a
reasonable opportunity for its employees to take the mandated break
periods. The district court determined that Cole failed to raise a
material factual dispute regarding whether CRST posted the rules
for its drivers to view at the Fontana Terminal.

The district court observed that Cole attempted to create a triable
issue of fact based on a declaration that was somewhat inconsistent
with his deposition testimony. The district court noted that Cole
did not present any evidence apart from his declaration that CRST
compelled its employees to skip break periods based on its load or
average speed requirements. The district court emphasized that Cole
failed to identify a single trip he took where he skipped a break
due to CRST's delivery deadlines and transition time rules.
According to the district court, there was ample evidence in the
record that CRST did, in fact, encourage Cole to take breaks.

The district court also granted CRST's motion to decertify the meal
and rest break classes. The district court reasoned that
decertification of the classes was proper because Cole was unable
to demonstrate that CRST imposed a policy that prevented its
drivers from taking the mandated rest and meal breaks. The district
court observed that there was evidence in the record of drivers
taking meal and rest breaks without interference from CRST, and
that individualized inquiries predominate. The district court
reasoned that in order to determine why some drivers took meal and
rest breaks while others did not requires individualized inquiries
as to each driver. The district court concluded that Cole was
unable to satisfy the predominance requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b).

Cole filed a timely notice of appeal.

Cole maintains that the district court erroneously concluded that
CRST complied with California law simply because it did not prevent
its employees from taking breaks. Cole asserts that California law
mandates that the employer affirmatively provide breaks by adopting
a policy authorizing them. Cole emphasizes that CRST did not have
such a policy, did not record meal breaks on its payroll
statements, and did not pay its drivers for rest breaks.

In Brinker, the California Supreme Court clarified an employer's
duties in providing mandated breaks to its employees. The Court
articulated that an employer must relieve the employee of all duty
for the designated [meal] period, but need not ensure that the
employee does no work and that an off-duty meal period is one in
which the employee is relieved of all duty during the 30-minute
period meal period.

Under Brinker, an employer satisfies its obligation to provide meal
periods if it relieves its employees of all duty, relinquishes
control over their activities and permits them a reasonable
opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute break, and does not
impede or discourage them from doing so.

Cole's appeal is dependent on whether CRST's lack of a policy
providing for legally required rest and meal breaks violates
California law. If the California Supreme Court accepts
certification of the certified questions, the court's decision will
determine the outcome of this appeal.  No controlling California
Supreme Court precedent directly answers the certified questions.
As a result, the Ninth Circuit is persuaded that the California
Supreme Court is best suited to determine whether CRST violated
California labor laws by not having a policy for rest and meal
breaks, and whether a presumption arises that CRST is liable for
California Labor Code violations based on its failure to keep
records of its employees' rest and meal breaks.

Due to the importance of these legal issues in resolving the
present appeal and in uniformly applying California law, the Court
concludes that certification of these issues to the California
Supreme Court is the proper course of action.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's August 1, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2o37qyq from Leagle.com.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: B&R Supermarket Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a
Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al.

On March 8, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, other credit card networks, other issuing banks, and EMVCo
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(B&R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, et al. v. Visa, Inc.
et al.) alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
California's Cartwright Act, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by defendants to shift fraud
liability to merchants with the migration to the EMV security
standard and chip technology. Plaintiffs assert joint and several
liability among the defendants and seek unspecified damages,
including treble damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive
relief.

On July 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
includes additional named plaintiffs, reasserts the original
claims, and includes additional state law causes of action.

On September 30, 2016, the court granted the motions to dismiss for
certain issuing banks and EMVCo but denied the motions to dismiss
filed by the networks, including the Company.

In May 2017, the Court entered an order transferring the entire
action to a federal court in New York that is presiding over
certain related claims that are pending in the actions consolidated
as MDL 1720.

On March 11, 2018, the Court entered an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice to
filing a renewed motion.

Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on July
16, 2018 and opening merits expert reports on October 5, 2018.

Defendants filed their Opposition to Class Certification on March
15, 2019. Briefing and expert discovery related to class
certification will close in July 2019 with a hearing date on class
certification to be scheduled.

Discover Financial said, "The Company is not in a position at this
time to assess the likely outcome or its exposure, if any, with
respect to this matter, but will seek to vigorously defend against
all claims asserted by the plaintiffs."

Discover Financial Services, through its subsidiaries, operates as
a direct banking and payment services company in the United States.
The company was incorporated in 1960 and is based in Riverwoods,
Illinois.


DOMINION ENERGY: Federal Court 10b-5 Case v. SCANA Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the so-called Federal
Court 10b-5 securities suit against SCANA Corporation is still
pending.

Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA Corporation (SCANA) was
completed on January 1, 2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA
Merger Agreement, which was entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA
Merger Approval Order (Final order) was issued by the South
Carolina Commission on December 21, 2018.

In September 2017, a purported class action was filed against SCANA
and certain former executive officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.

Subsequent additional purported class actions were separately filed
against all or nearly all of these defendants.

In January 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina consolidated these suits, and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in March 2018.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the
individually named defendants are liable under Section 20(a) of the
same act.  

In June 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. In March
2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to
dismiss.

This case is pending.

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

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


DOMINION ENERGY: RICO Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the purported class
action against SCANA Corporation, Dominion Energy South Carolina,
Inc. (DESC) and certain former executive officers, are still
pending.

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and
subsequently amended, against SCANA Corporation (SCANA), Dominion
Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and certain former executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina.

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCANA, DESC and the
individual defendants participated in an unlawful racketeering
enterprise and conspired to violate The Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by fraudulently inflating utility
bills to generate unlawful proceeds.

The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement described previously
contemplates dismissal of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case
against DESC, SCANA and their officers. This case is pending.

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

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


DOMINION ENERGY: Santee Cooper Ratepayers Class Suit Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a class action suit
initiated by Santee Cooper ratepayers against Dominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc. (DESC), SCANA Corporation (SCANA), Dominion Energy
and former directors and officers of SCANA remains pending.

In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee
Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, Dominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc. (DESC), Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and
Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in the State Court of
Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the Santee Cooper
Ratepayer Case).

The allegations are substantially similar to those in the DESC
Ratepayer Case. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the
defendants may not charge the purported class for reimbursement for
past or future costs of the NND Project.

In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including
as additional named defendants, including certain then current and
former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA.

In June 2018, Santee Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original
Jurisdiction with the Supreme Court of South Carolina which was
denied.

In December 2018, Santee Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs'
fourth amended complaint and filed cross claims against DESC. This
case is pending.

In July 2019, a similar purported class action was filed by certain
Santee Cooper ratepayers against DESC, SCANA Corporation (SCANA),
Dominion Energy and former directors and officers of SCANA in the
State Court of Common Pleas in Orangeburg, South Carolina.  

The claims are similar to the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case. This
case is pending.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


DOMINION ENERGY: Settlement in Ratepayer Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the court in the DESC
Ratepayer suit has entered an order granting final approval of the
parties' settlement.

In May 2018, a consolidated complaint against Dominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc. (DESC), SCANA Corporation (SCANA) and the State of
South Carolina was filed in the State Court of Common Pleas in
Hampton County, South Carolina (the DESC Ratepayer Case).

In September 2018, the court certified this case as a class action.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that DESC was negligent
and unjustly enriched, breached alleged fiduciary and contractual
duties and committed fraud and misrepresentation in failing to
properly manage the NND Project, and that DESC committed unfair
trade practices and violated state anti-trust laws.

The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that DESC may not
charge its customers for any past or continuing costs of the NND
Project, sought to have SCANA and DESC's assets frozen and all
monies recovered from Toshiba Corporation and other sources be
placed in a constructive trust for the benefit of ratepayers and
sought specific performance of the alleged implied contract to
construct the NND Project.

In December 2018, the State Court of Common Pleas in Hampton County
entered an order granting preliminary approval of a class action
settlement and a stay of pre-trial proceedings in the DESC
Ratepayer Case.

The settlement agreement, contingent upon the closing of the SCANA
Combination, provided that SCANA and DESC would establish an escrow
account and proceeds from the escrow account would be distributed
to the class members, after payment of certain taxes, attorneys'
fees and other expenses and administrative costs.

The escrow account would include (1) up to $2.0 billion, net of a
credit of up to $2.0 billion in future electric bill relief, which
would inure to the benefit of the escrow account in favor of class
members over a period of time established by the South Carolina
Commission in its order related to matters before the South
Carolina Commission related to the NND Project, (2) a cash payment
of $115 million and (3) the transfer of certain DESC-owned real
estate or sales proceeds from the sale of such properties, which
counsel for the DESC Ratepayer Class estimate to have an aggregate
value between $60 million and $85 million.

At the closing of the SCANA Combination, SCANA and DESC funded the
cash payment portion of the escrow account. The court held a
fairness hearing on the settlement in May 2019.

In June 2019, the court entered an order granting final approval of
the settlement, which order became effective July 2019.

In July 2019, DESC transferred $117 million representing the cash
payment, plus accrued interest, to the plaintiffs.

In addition, property, plant and equipment with a net recorded
value of $54 million will be transferred to the plaintiffs as soon
as practicable to satisfy the settlement agreement.

Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.


EAGLE BANCORP: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Eagle Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ:  EGBN) and certain of its
officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the Southern District of New York, and indexed under
19-cv-06873, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
Eagle Bancorp securities between March 2, 2015 and July 17, 2019,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Eagle Bancorp securities
during the class period, you have until September 23, 2019, to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com  To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW),
toll-free, Ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of
shares purchased.

Eagle Bancorp was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland.  Eagle Bancorp operates as the bank holding company for
EagleBank, Inc. ("EagleBank"), which provides commercial and
consumer banking services primarily in the United States.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Eagle Bancorp's internal
controls and procedures and compliance policies were inadequate;
(ii) the foregoing shortcoming created a foreseeable risk of
heightened regulatory scrutiny and the need for the Company
undertake its own internal investigations; and (iii) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 17, 2019, Eagle Bancorp disclosed rising legal costs
stemming from ongoing internal and government investigations of
"the Company's identification, classification and disclosure of
related party transactions; the retirement of certain former
officers and directors; and the relationship of the Company and
certain of its former officers and directors with a local public
official."

On this news, Eagle Bancorp's stock price fell $14.30 per share, or
26.75%, to close at $39.15 per share on July 18, 2019.

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

CONTACT:

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


EVERCORE INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit over Adeptus' 2014 IPO Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evercore Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint in the consolidated class action
lawsuit against Evercore Group L.L.C. (EGL) remains pending.

Beginning on or about November 16, 2016, several putative
securities class action complaints were filed against Adeptus
Health Inc. ("Adeptus") and certain others, including EGL as
underwriter, in connection with Adeptus' June 2014 initial public
offering and May 2015, July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public
offerings.

The cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas where a consolidated complaint was filed
asserting, in part, that the offering materials issued in
connection with the four public offerings violated the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933 by containing alleged misstatements and
omissions.

On April 19, 2017, Adeptus filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was
subsequently removed as a defendant. On November 21, 2017, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, and the defendants filed
motions to dismiss on February 5, 2018.

On September 12, 2018, the defendants' motions to dismiss were
granted as to the claims relating to the initial public offering
and the May 2015 secondary public offering, but denied as to the
claims relating to the July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public
offerings.

EGL underwrote approximately 293 shares of common stock in the July
2015 secondary public offering, representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $30.8 million, but did not underwrite any
shares in the June 2016 secondary public offering.

On September 25, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
relating only to the July 2015 and June 2016 secondary public
offerings.

On December 7, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the defendants filed briefs in opposition.

On February 16, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint after having been granted leave to amend by the court.

On March 4, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss as to
the second amended complaint.

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

Evercore Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
independent investment banking advisory firm in the United States,
Europe, Latin America, and internationally. It operates through two
segments, Investment Banking and Investment Management. The company
was formerly known as Evercore Partners Inc. and changed its name
to Evercore Inc. in August 2017. Evercore Inc. was founded in 1995
and is headquartered in New York, New York.


FABER AND BRAND: Rochelle Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Faber and Brand LLC.
The case is styled as Jerry Rochelle on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Faber and Brand LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00255-KGB (E.D. Ark., Aug. 8, 2019).

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

Faber and Brand LLC is a law firm in Columbia, Missouri focusing on
various areas of law and has been providing legal solutions to the
collection industry since 1998.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Corey Darnell McGaha, Esq.
     William Thomas Crowder, Esq.
     Crowder McGaha, LLP
     5507 Ranch Drive, Suite 202
     Little Rock, AR 72223
     Phone: (501) 205-4026
     Fax: (501) 367-8208
     Email: cmcgaha@crowdermcgaha.com
            wcrowder@crowdermcgaha.com


FANNIE MAE: Dismissal of D.C. Class Suit under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a notice
of appeal of the court's dismissal and related orders has been
filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.

Fannie Mae is a defendant in three cases pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, a consolidated
putative class action and two additional cases.

On September 28, 2018, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs'
claims in these cases, except for their claims for breach of an
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

In a fourth case that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia on May 21, 2018, the court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss on March 6, 2019, and on March 18, 2019,
plaintiff moved to alter or amend the judgment and to file an
amended complaint. On May 24, 2019, the court denied this motion.

On June 19, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the court's
dismissal and related orders with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit.

Federal National Mortgage Association provides liquidity and
stability support services for the mortgage market in the United
States. The Company was founded in 1938 and is based in Washington,
the District of Columbia.


FITBIT INC: Consolidated Class Action in California Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 29, 2019, that the company continues to defend a
consolidated securities class action suit in California.

On November 1, 2018, a putative securities class action was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
naming the Company and certain of its officers as defendants.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
arising out of alleged materially false and misleading statements
about the Company's guidance for the fourth quarter of 2016 and
full fiscal year 2016 that was provided during the third and fourth
quarters of 2016.

On November 15, 2018, a second putative securities class action was
filed in the same court alleging similar claims against the same
defendants.

On April 25, 2019, the two actions were consolidated, and a
consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on June 24,
2019. The consolidated complaint also alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act against the Company and
certain officers relating to the Company's 2016 guidance, on behalf
of a putative class of stockholders who purchased Fitbit stock from
August 2, 2016 through January 30, 2017.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, unspecified compensatory
damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys'
fees.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' allegations are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Because
the Company is in the early stages of this litigation matter, the
Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range
of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


FITBIT INC: Settlement in Sleep Tracking Suit Awaits Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 29, 2019, that the parties to the settlement of the
Sleep Tracking Device-related suit are awaiting the court's final
approval.

On May 8, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that the sleep tracking function available in
certain trackers does not perform as advertised. Plaintiffs sought
class certification, restitution, unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including
attorneys' fees.

On January 31, 2017, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
granted on November 20, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Company filed
a motion for summary judgment, which the court denied on December
8, 2017.

The parties subsequently agreed to a settlement, and on August 1,
2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement. At the hearing on September 13, 2018, the
court denied preliminary settlement approval without prejudice and
ordered revised settlement papers be filed.

On November 29, 2018, the court granted preliminary settlement
approval and the final approval hearing is scheduled for August 1,
2019.

Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.

FITBIT INC: Settlement Inked in Heart Rate Tracking Device Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fitbit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 29, 2019, that the parties in the PurePulse(R) heart
rate tracking device related suit have entered into a settlement.

On January 6, 2016 and February 16, 2016, two purported class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging that the
PurePulse(R) heart rate tracking technology does not consistently
and accurately record users' heart rates.

Plaintiffs allege common law claims, as well as violations of
various states' false advertising, unfair competition, and consumer
protection statutes, and seek class certification, injunctive and
declaratory relief, restitution, unspecified compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties and
damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys'
fees.

On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated master class
action complaint, and on May 19, 2016, they filed an amended
consolidated master class action complaint. On January 9, 2017, the
Company filed a motion to compel arbitration. On October 11, 2017,
the court granted the motion to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs
filed a motion for reconsideration, and that motion was denied on
January 24, 2018.

On February 20, 2018, a second amended consolidated master class
action complaint was filed on behalf of plaintiff Rob Dunn, the
only plaintiff not ordered to arbitration, as a purported class
action.

The complaint alleges the same common law claims as the prior class
actions, as well as violations of false advertising, unfair
competition, and consumer protection statutes of California and
Arizona. The complaint seeks class certification, injunctive and
declaratory relief, restitution, unspecified compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, statutory penalties and
damages, and reasonable costs and expenses including attorneys'
fees.

On March 13, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and separately moved to strike the class
allegations. The court dismissed the claims for revocation of
acceptance, violation of California's Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, and unjust enrichment, but allowed the remaining
claims pending amendment to the complaint with further details.
Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on June 19, 2018.

The court granted the Company's motion to strike and ordered the
plaintiff to amend to make clear that he is seeking to represent a
class of opt-outs only, but added that plaintiff may amend in the
event the Company’s arbitration agreement is found to be
unenforceable.

On April 3, 2018, the Company received an arbitration demand from
Kate McLellan, one of the original plaintiffs who was compelled to
arbitration.

On July 19, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement of the
lawsuit and the arbitration on confidential terms, which are not
material to the Company

Fitbit, Inc., incorporated on March 26, 2007, is a provider of
health and fitness devices. The Company's platform combines
connected health and fitness devices with software and services,
including an online dashboard and mobile applications, data
analytics, motivational and social tools, personalized insights and
virtual coaching through customized fitness plans and interactive
workouts. Its platform includes family of wearable connected health
and fitness trackers. The company is based in San Francisco,
California.


FLOOR & DECOR: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 27, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Taylor
v. Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc., et al.

On May 20, 2019, an alleged stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit, Taylor v. Floor & Decor Holdings,
Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-02270-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
the Company and certain of our officers, directors and
stockholders.

The complaint alleges certain violations of federal securities laws
based on, among other things, purported materially false and
misleading statements and omissions allegedly made by the Company
between May 23, 2018 and August 1, 2018 and seeks class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys'
fees and equitable relief.

The Company denies the material allegations in this lawsuit, which
is in the early stages and has not yet been certified as a class,
and intends to defend itself vigorously.

In addition, the Company maintains insurance that may cover any
liability arising out of this litigation up to the policy limits
and subject to meeting certain deductibles and to other terms and
conditions thereof.

Floor & Decor said, "Estimating an amount or range of possible
losses resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently
difficult, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate
claims for monetary damages and are in the stages of the
proceedings where key factual and legal issues have not been
resolved. For these reasons, we are currently unable to predict the
ultimate timing or outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible
losses or a range of possible losses resulting from this
litigation."

Floor & Decor Holdings, Inc., formerly FDO Holdings, Inc.,
incorporated on October 15, 2010, is a retailer of hard surface
flooring and related accessories. The Company retails its products
such as tile, stone, wood, marble, glass and decoratives. The
company is based in Smyrna, Georgia.


FORD MOTOR: Hubert Suit Moved to Eastern District of Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as Ryan Hubert, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Ford
Motor Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-02125, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan (Detroit) on Aug. 6, 2019. The Eastern District of
Michigan Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-12310-SFC. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sean F. Cox.

Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker that has
its main headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit.
It was founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16,
1903.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, 11th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          Facsimile: (440) 953-9138
          E-maiL alevitt@dlcfirm.com

               - and -

          Adam M. Prom, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: ap@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street
          Eleventh Flr
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          Facsimile: (440) 953-9138
          E-mail: jtangren@dlcfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone (610) 200-0580
          E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
          555 Lancaster Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0581
          Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
          E-mail: MDS@sstriallawyers.com

               - and -

          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          William Kalas, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone (248) 841-2200
          Fax: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  wk@millerlawpc.com

Attorneys for Ford Motor Company are:

          Mark Boyle, Esq.
          Brown Donohue, Esq.
          140 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 422-0900

FRED'S BLUELIGHT: Fails to Pay Exotic Dancers, Jones Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PRECIOUS JONES on Behalf of Herself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. FRED'S BLUELIGHT INVESTMENTS, INC. d/b/a
CORSETS CABARET; JAMES VICK; AND LARRY WANGLER, Case No.
4:19-cv-00597-A (N.D. Tex., Aug. 2, 2019), alleges that the
Defendants required and/or permitted the Plaintiff to work as an
exotic dancer at their adult entertainment club but refused to
compensate her at the applicable minimum wage pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Fred's Bluelight Investments, Inc. is a domestic for-profit
corporation incorporated in Texas and doing business as Corsets
Cabaret in Fort Worth, Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment club in Fort Worth,
Texas, under the name of "Corsets Cabaret."[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


GADSDEN REGIONAL: Court Dismisses M. Brown Suit
-----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of the Northern District of
Alabama, Middle Division, issued an Memorandum Opinion granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
MARILYN BROWN and AARON R. GRINDSTAFF, Plaintiffs, v. GADSDEN
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No.
4:16-CV-01739-KOB. (N.D. Ala.).

Plaintiffs Marilyn Brown and Aaron R. Grindstaff sued Gadsden
Regional Medical Center (GRMC), Triad Holdings V, LLC, Triad of
Alabama, LLC and Professional Account Services, Inc. for breach of
contract, conversion, breach of implied contract, and breach of
fiduciary duty. Ms. Brown's and Mr. Grindstaff's claims that GRMC
improperly placed liens on their automobile insurance
medical-payments (med-pay) benefits instead of seeking payment
directly from then personal healthcare insurance provider.

Summary judgment allows a trial court to decide cases when no
genuine issues of material fact are present and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When a district court
reviews a motion for summary judgment, it must determine two
things: (1) whether any genuine issues of material fact exist; and
if not (2) whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.

GRMC contends that Plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty
fails as a matter of law. Ms. Brown and Mr. Grindstaff allege that
GRMC owed a fiduciary duty to them because GRMC stood in a position
of trust or confidence to Plaintiffs as a result of their medical
treatment and GRMC is not allowed by law to make a profit at the
expense of said insured patients. Because GRMC is the only entity
in possession of the information necessary to submit Plaintiffs'
medical bills to Blue Cross, GRMC allegedly violated its fiduciary
duty by intentionally refusing to submit Ms. Brown's and Mr.
Grindstaff's medical bills directly to Blue Cross. GRMC allegedly
further violated this duty by knowingly and wrongfully filing
hospital liens against Ms. Brown and Mr. Grindstaff.

GRMC contends that Plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty
fails for four reasons: (1) hospitals are not fiduciaries of
patients (2) under Alabama's hospital lien statute, GRMC is a
creditor, not a fiduciary, of Plaintiffs (3) GRMC has not breached
a fiduciary duty, if one exists and (4) Plaintiffs have no
damages.

Under Alabama law, a fiduciary relationship exists when one person
has gained the trust of or inspired confidence in another person
that he will act in good faith with the other's interest in mind.


Alabama courts have not considered whether a fiduciary duty extends
from hospitals to patients, but the courts have been clear that a
fiduciary duty does not exist between a physician and a patient.  

But rather than focus on the labels of parties, Alabama law focuses
on the nature of the relationship between the parties to determine
if a fiduciary duty exists. Generally, Alabama law does not
restrict  the fiduciary relation to such confined relations as
trustee and beneficiary, partners, principal and agent, guardian
and ward, managing directors and corporation, etc.'

The Plaintiffs allege that a fiduciary duty was established by the
nature of the interdependent relationship between Plaintiffs and
GRMC. The Alabama Supreme Court has previously found that the
relationship between a dentist, his patients, and their insurance
company is interdependent.  

Even assuming that a fiduciary duty based on an interdependent
relationship exists between GRMC and Plaintiffs, Ms. Brown failed
to establish that this fiduciary duty existed at the time of the
alleged breaches. Ms. Brown initially came in for treatment on
March 23, 2012, and GRMC filed its lien against her on April 16,
2012. GRMC alleges2 that it did not learn of Ms. Brown's Blue Cross
insurance until September 11, 2012. And Ms. Brown neither admits
nor denies this allegation, instead only responding that in
September 2012, within six months of Ms. Brown's March 23, 2012,
emergency-room visit to GRMC, GRMC knew that Ms. Brown was insured
by Alabama Blue Cross, although she never explains how GRMC
purportedly knew of her Blue Cross insurance.  

So, even if an interdependent relationship can create a fiduciary
duty, Ms. Brown failed to establish that GRMC was aware of that
interdependent relationship at the time she was initially treated
and should have submitted the claim to Blue Cross or at the time
GRMC filed the lien. She neither pleads nor presents evidence that
she disclosed her Blue Cross coverage in March 2012. GRMC could not
have a duty to submit a claim to insurance that it did not know
existed. So, under this theory of an interdependent relationship,
without evidence that Ms. Brown disclosed her coverage with Blue
Cross, no duty existed between GRMC and Ms. Brown.

In this case, the Plaintiffs argue that their dependence on GRMC to
file their medical claims with their insurer presents the same kind
of influence or dominion as the school in Jumbo. But here, GRMC
merely acts as a middleman between Blue Cross and its patients
insured by Blue Cross, with no discretion regarding the submission
of medical bills, as Plaintiffs repeatedly point out. Here, Blue
Cross, not GRMC, holds the purse strings. And GRMC has no influence
or dominion to determine whether it will submit a medical bill to
Blue Cross. Instead, GRMC is contractually obligated to submit all
medical claims for Blue Cross insured patients to Blue Cross.

The court acknowledges Plaintiffs' frustration. Plaintiffs relied
on GRMC to submit their medical expenses to Blue Cross. But breach
of fiduciary duty is not the appropriate avenue to seek review.
GRMC did not assert influence; it simply failed to fulfil a
contractual obligation with Blue Cross.

The Plaintiffs also contend that a party can voluntarily undertake
a fiduciary duty, and that GRMC did so in this case. The court does
not dispute that a party can voluntarily assume a duty. But
Plaintiffs provide no evidence of GRMC voluntarily assuming a
fiduciary duty. Instead, Plaintiffs merely rely on GRMC's contracts
with Blue Cross, the same contracts about which this court
determined Plaintiffs are not third-party beneficiaries. And, as
this court explained in its previous Memorandum Opinion, because
Plaintiffs are not third-party beneficiaries, they cannot sue to
enforce the contract between GRMC and Blue Cross. This argument
does not differ at all from Plaintiffs' arguments that a fiduciary
duty exists under the interdependent relationship.

Because GRMC had no influence over Plaintiffs regarding the
submission of then medical claims to Blue Cross, GRMC did not have
a fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs. And because GRMC did not owe a
fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs cannot establish a cause
of action for breach of fiduciary duty against GRMC. So, the court
must GRANT GRMC's motion for summary judgment.  
The court GRANTS Defendant GRMC's motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 1, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2evov5e from
Leagle.com.

Marilyn Brown & Aaron R Grindstaff, Plaintiffs, represented by B.T.
Gardner, Jr., B T GARDNER, JR., P.C., 505 N Main St, Tuscumbia, AL
35674, Daniel B. King, KING & KING ATTORNEYS PC, 757 Chestnut St.,
Gadsden, AL 35901, Jeffrey C. Kirby, KIRBY JOHNSON, PC,Lisa F.
Gardner & William T. Johnson, III, KIRBY JOHNSON, PC, 1
Independence Plaza, Suite 520, Birmingham, AL 35209

Gadsden Regional Medical Center LLC, a foreign limited liability
company, Professional Account Services Inc, a foreign corporation,
Triad Holdings V LLC, a foreign limited liability company & Triad
of Alabama LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Defendants,
represented by J. Paul Zimmerman -- jpz@csattorneys.com --
CHRISTIAN & SMALL LLP, Jonathan W. Macklem --
jwmacklem@csattorneys.com -- CHRISTIAN & SMALL LLP & Richard E.
Smith -- resmith@csattorneys.comm -- CHRISTIAN & SMALL LLP.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Mahar Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Electric 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's motion to
dismiss the Mahar suit is pending.

In July 2018, a putative class action (the Mahar case) was filed in
New York state court naming as defendants GE, former GE executive
officers, a former member of GE's Board of Directors and KPMG.

It alleged violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements related to insurance
reserves and performance of GE’s business segments in GE Stock
Direct Plan registration statements and documents incorporated
therein by reference and seeks damages on behalf of shareowners who
acquired GE stock between July 20, 2015 and July 19, 2018 through
the GE Stock Direct Plan.

In February 2019, the case was dismissed. In March 2019, plaintiffs
filed an amended derivative complaint naming the same defendants.
In April 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

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

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid to Dismiss Varga Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric 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's motion to
dismiss the Varga class action suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of New York is still pending.

In December 2018, a putative class action (the Varga case) was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York naming GE and a former GE executive officer as defendants in
connection with the oversight of the GE RSP.

It alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by failing
to advise GE RSP participants that GE Capital insurance
subsidiaries were allegedly under-reserved and continued to retain
a GE stock fund as an investment option in the GE RSP.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a class of GE
RSP participants and beneficiaries from January 1, 2010 through
January 19, 2018 or later.

In April 2019, GE filed a motion to dismiss.

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

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Defends Consolidated Class Action Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric 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 the consolidated "Birnbaum" and "Sheet Metal Workers Local
17 Trust Funds" suit.

In February 2019, two putative class actions (the Birnbaum case and
the Sheet Metal Workers Local 17 Trust Funds case) were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
naming as defendants GE and current and former GE executive
officers.

In April 2019, the court issued an order consolidating these two
actions.

In June 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated
complaint. It alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged misstatements
regarding GE's H-class turbines and goodwill related to GE's Power
business.

The lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of shareowners who acquired GE
stock between December 4, 2017 and December 6, 2018.

General Electric Company operates as a high-tech industrial company
worldwide. It operates in Power, Renewable Energy, Aviation, Oil &
Gas, Healthcare, Transportation, Lighting, and Capital segments.
The company was founded in 1892 and is headquartered in Boston,
Massachusetts.


GENERAL MOTORS: 5 Suits Filed over Defective Airbag Inflators
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has been
named as defendant in several class action suits related to
defective airbag inflators manufactured by Takata.

Through July 15, 2019 the company is aware of five putative class
actions filed against GM in federal court in the U.S., one putative
class action in Mexico, one putative class action in Israel and
three putative class actions pending in various Provincial Courts
in Canada arising out of allegations that airbag inflators
manufactured by Takata are defective.

General Motors said, "At this early stage of these proceedings, we
are unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss
will be incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of possible
loss."

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. The company operates
through GM North America, GM International, GM Cruise, and GM
Financial. General Motors Company was founded in 1908 and is
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.


GENERAL MOTORS: Economic Loss-Related Suits Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend itself from several economic-loss-related class action
suits.

The company is aware of over 100 putative class actions pending
against GM in U.S. and Canadian courts alleging that consumers who
purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or Motors
Liquidation Company (MLC), formerly known as General Motors
Corporation, had been economically harmed by one or more of the
2014 recalls and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated
with those recalls (economic-loss cases).

In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported
compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain
damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the
vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other
relief.

Many of the pending U.S. economic-loss claims have been transferred
to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Southern District).

These plaintiffs have asserted economic-loss claims under federal
and state laws, including claims relating to recalled vehicles
manufactured by GM and claims asserting successor liability
relating to certain recalled vehicles manufactured by MLC.

In August 2017 the Southern District granted the company's motion
to dismiss the successor liability claims of plaintiffs in seven of
the sixteen states at issue on the motion and called for additional
briefing to decide whether plaintiffs' claims can proceed in the
other nine states.

In December 2017, the Southern District granted GM's motion and
dismissed the plaintiffs' successor liability claims in an
additional state, but found that there are genuine issues of
material fact that prevent summary judgment for GM in eight other
states.

In January 2018, GM moved for reconsideration of certain portions
of the Southern District's December 2017 summary judgment ruling.
That motion was granted in April 2018, dismissing plaintiffs'
successor liability claims in any state where New York law
applies.

In September 2018, the Southern District granted the company's
motion to dismiss claims for lost personal time (in 41 out of 47
jurisdictions) and certain unjust enrichment claims, but denied the
company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' economic loss claims in 27
jurisdictions under the "manifest defect" rule. Significant summary
judgment, class certification, and expert evidentiary motions
remain at issue.

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

General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks,
crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. The company operates
through GM North America, GM International, GM Cruise, and GM
Financial. General Motors Company was founded in 1908 and is
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan.


GLOBAL PAYMENT: Maloney Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA MALONEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. GLOBAL PAYMENT CHECK SERVICES INC.,
the Defendant, Case No.: 19-cv-1135 (E.D. Wisc., Aug. 6, 2019),
seeks redress for Defendant's collection practices that allegedly
violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Wisconsin
Consumer Act.

The Plaintiff is a "consumer" as defined in the FDCPA, in that
Defendant sought to collect from her debts allegedly incurred for
personal, family, or household purposes, namely alleged medical
debts.

Global, a debt collector, is engaged in the business of collecting
debts owed to others and incurred for personal, family, or
household purposes.[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
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  jfruchter@ademilaw.com
                  bslatky@ademilaw.com

GOLDCO DIRECT: Judson Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
JODI JUDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOLDCO DIRECT LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-06798 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 6, 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.

Goldco sends these text messages using an autodialer without the
necessary express written consent. Goldco sends constant spam text
messages including to consumers whose phone numbers are registered
on the DNC, the lawsuit says.

Goldco sells precious metals and precious metals IRA related
services to investors with self-directed IRA accounts.[BN]

Attorney for the Plaintiff and the putative Classes are:

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

GOPRO INC: Final Judgment in 2018 Class Suit Favors Defendants
--------------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the Court overseeing the 2018 Shareholder
Class Action have entered a final judgement in favor of
defendants.

Beginning on January 9, 2018, the first of four purported
shareholder class action lawsuits (the 2018 Shareholder Class
Action) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, Nicholas D.
Woodman, its Chairman and CEO, and Brian McGee, its CFO, and
Anthony Bates, its former President (Defendants).

On April 20, 2018, the court consolidated the four cases and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On June 18, 2018, the
plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
Complaint).

The Complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between November
2, 2017 and January 5, 2018. The Complaint adds Mr. Prober, GoPro's
former COO, as a defendant (together with GoPro, Mr. Woodman and
Mr. McGee (Defendants)), and purports to allege that the Defendants
made false and misleading statements about the Company's business,
operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act), asserts
claims under Section 20A of the 1934 Act against Mr. Woodman and
Mr. McGee, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and
costs.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on August
17, 2018 and the hearing on the motion to dismiss took place on
November 5, 2018.

On March 15, 2019, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to
dismiss with leave to amend. The plaintiffs' amended complaint was
due on or before April 29, 2019. On April 26, 2019, the plaintiffs'
counsel filed a notice of intention not to file an amended
complaint.

On June 24, 2019, the Court entered final judgement in favor of
defendants.

GoPro, Inc. develops and sells cameras, drones, and mountable and
wearable accessories in the United States and internationally. The
company was formerly known as Woodman Labs, Inc. and changed its
name to GoPro, Inc. in February 2014. GoPro, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in San Mateo, California.


GOPRO INC: Settlement in N.D. Cal. Class Suit Wins Preliminary OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GoPro, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the Court has issued an order granting
the lead plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement in the shareholder class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
(the 2016 Shareholder Class Action) was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company and Nicholas D. Woodman, its Chairman and CEO, Brian McGee,
its CFO, and Anthony Bates, its former President (Defendants).

The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between
September 19, 2016 and November 4, 2016. The complaint purports to
allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements about
the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs.

On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Company and certain of its officers (GoPro
Defendants) on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November
8, 2016. On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On July 26, 2017, the court denied that motion and directed the
plaintiff to amend its complaint to add all defendants the
plaintiff intended to sue. On August 4, 2017, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint, which Defendants answered on September 8,
2017.

On September 11, 2018, the parties participated in a mediation
session and following the mediation, reached an agreement in
principle to settle the action.

On April 26, 2019, the Court issued an order granting the lead
plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.

The settlement, which is subject to final approval of the Court,
among other conditions, will be funded entirely by the Company's
insurance carriers.

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

GoPro, Inc. develops and sells cameras, drones, and mountable and
wearable accessories in the United States and internationally. The
company was formerly known as Woodman Labs, Inc. and changed its
name to GoPro, Inc. in February 2014. GoPro, Inc. was founded in
2004 and is headquartered in San Mateo, California.


GREAT DESTINATIONS: Accused by Kaufman Suit of Privacy Invasion
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK KAUFMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, KYLE MIHOLICH, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. GREAT DESTINATIONS, INC., DOES,
Case No. 3:19-cv-01459-DMS-KSC (S.D. Cal., Aug. 4, 2019), arises
from the Company's illegal actions in negligently and/or
intentionally contacting the Plaintiffs on their cellular
telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby, invading their privacy.

Great Destinations is a Nevada corporation with its principal place
of business in California.  Great Destinations is a vacation
ownership company and operates business under its own name, with a
Web site of http://www.gdvacations.com.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alex S. Madar, Esq.
          MADAR LAW CORPORATION
          14410 Via Venezia # 1404,
          San Diego, CA 92129-1666
          Telephone: (858) 299-5879
          Facsimile: (619) 354-7281
          E-mail: alex@madarlaw.net


GUARDIAN PROTECTION: Danganan Appeals Case Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case captioned Jobe Danganan, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Guardian
Protection Services, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-01495, took an
appeal from the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered by the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that
dismissed his case with prejudice.

Guardian installs security systems in residential and commercial
properties and provides burglary, fire and medical emergency
monitoring services for subscribers around the United States.
Danganan cancelled his service with Guardian on November 17, 2014,
by providing Guardian with both written and verbal notice of
cancellation, effective November 18, 2014. Despite the
cancellation, Guardian continued to bill him for home protection
and monitoring services.

Danganan sought relief under Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law and Pennsylvania's Fair Credit
Extension Uniformity Act. On June 13, 2019, Judge Cynthia Reed
Eddy, Chief United States Magistrate, granted Guardian Protection
Services' Motion to Dismiss the case.

The appellate case brought before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit is assigned Case No. 19-2545.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
      DONOVAN LITIGATION GROUP, LLC
      1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 155
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (610) 647-6067
      Facsimile: (610) 647-7215
      Email: mdonovan@donovanlitigationgroup.com

             - and -

      Christian Schreiber, Esq.
      OLIVIER SCHREIBER & CHAO LLP
      201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
      Mill Valley, CA 94941
      Telephone: (415) 484-0980
      Facsimile: (415) 658-7758
      Email: christian@osclegal.com

             - and -

      James M. Pietz, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN, DOYLE, PAYNE AND KRAVEC
      429 Fourth Avenue
      Law and Finance Building, Suite 1300
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-8400
      Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
      Email: JPietz@fdpklaw.com

A copy of the notice of appeal was served to:

      Laura E. Vendzules
      Michael A. Iannucci
      BLANK ROME LLP
      One Logan Square
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: 215-569-5500
      Fax: 215-569-5555
      E-mail: lvendzules@blankrome.com
              Iannucci@blankrome.com


HCP INC: Continues to Defend Boynton Beach Pension Fund Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
HCP, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the company  continues to face the
putative class action styled, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension
Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al.

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters’
Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against
the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc.
("HCRMC"), and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the
federal securities laws.

The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading
statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its
investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had
engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DoJ") in a suit against HCRMC arising from the False
Claims Act that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

The plaintiff in the class action suit demands compensatory damages
(in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or
other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

On November 28, 2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale
Securities GmbH (SGSS Germany) and the City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief Systems (Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in
the class action.

The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on May 21, 2018 and oral
arguments were held on October 23, 2018. Subsequently, on December
6, 2018, HCRMC and its officers were voluntarily dismissed from the
class action lawsuit without prejudice to such claims being
refiled.

The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against it.

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

HCP, Inc. is a fully integrated real estate investment trust (REIT)
that invests in real estate serving the healthcare industry in
theUnited States. The company is based in Irvine, California.


HERBALIFE NUTRITION: Rodgers Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife
Ltd., et al.

On September 18, 2017, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
and Members were named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit, titled Rodgers, et al. v Herbalife Ltd., et al. and filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
which alleges violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices statute and federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statutes, unjust enrichment, and negligent
misrepresentation.

On August 23, 2018, the Court issued an order transferring the
action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California as to four of the putative class plaintiffs and ordering
the remaining four plaintiffs to arbitration, thereby terminating
the Company defendants from the Florida action.

The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and will
vigorously defend itself against the claims in the lawsuit.

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

Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. develops and sells nutrition solutions in
North America, Mexico, South and Central America, Europe, the
Middle East, Africa, and the Asia Pacific. he company was formerly
known as Herbalife Ltd. and changed its name to Herbalife Nutrition
Ltd. in April 2018. Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. was founded in 1980
and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.


HERC HOLDINGS: Request to File 5th Amended Complaint Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Herc Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that plaintiff's motion for
relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended complaint in
the class action suit entitled, In re Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation, is pending

In November 2013, a putative shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleged that Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omission of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through
November 4, 2013, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
purported class and an award of costs and expenses, including
counsel fees and expert fees.

In June 2014, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. In October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings'
motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to
amend the complaint a second time.

In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which
shortened the putative class period and made allegations that were
not substantively very different than the allegations in the prior
complaint.

In early 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. In July 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion
to dismiss without prejudice, allowing plaintiff to file a third
amended complaint.

In August 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint which
included additional allegations, named additional then current and
former officers as defendants and expanded the putative class
period to extend from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015.

In November 2015, Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the third amended
complaint. The plaintiff then sought leave to add a new plaintiff
because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The
court granted plaintiff leave to file a fourth amended complaint to
add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March 1,
2016.

Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the
fourth amended complaint with prejudice on March 24, 2016.

In April 2017, the court granted Hertz Holdings' and the individual
defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the action with
prejudice.

In May 2017, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and, in June 2018,
oral argument was conducted before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit. In September 2018, the court affirmed the
dismissal of the action with prejudice.

On February 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the
judgment against it, and for leave to file a fifth amended
complaint.  

The proposed amended complaint would add allegations related to New
Hertz's December 31, 2018 settlement with the SEC that, among other
things, ordered New Hertz to cease and desist from violating
certain of the federal securities laws and imposed a civil penalty
of $16.0 million.  

On February 26, 2019, New Hertz filed an opposition to plaintiff's
motion for relief from judgment and leave to file a fifth amended
complaint. On March 8, 2019, plaintiff filed a reply in support of
that motion.

Herc Holdings Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an
equipment rental supplier. It rents aerial, earthmoving, material
handling, trucks and trailers, air compressors, compaction, and
lighting equipment, as well as generators, and safety supplies and
expendables; and provides ProSolutions, an industry specific
solution based services, such as pumping solutions, power
generation, climate control, remediation and restoration, and
studio and production equipment. Herc Holdings Inc. is based in
Bonita Springs, Florida.


HYATT HOTELS: Still Defends Suits Over Alleged Antitrust Matters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hyatt Hotels Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend class action suits alleging violation of antitrust laws.

In March 2018, a putative class action was filed against the
Company and several other hotel companies in federal district court
in Illinois, Case No. 1:18-cv-01959, seeking an unspecified amount
of damages and equitable relief for an alleged violation of the
federal antitrust laws.

In December 2018, a second lawsuit was filed against the Company by
TravelPass Group, LLC, Partner Fusion, Inc., and Reservation
Counter, LLC in federal district court in Texas, Case No.
5:18-cv-00153, for an alleged violation of federal antitrust laws
arising from similar conduct alleged in the Illinois case and
seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages.

The Company disputes the allegations in these lawsuits and will
defend its interests vigorously.

Hyatt Hotels said, "We currently do not believe the ultimate
outcome of this litigation will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial position, results of operation, or
liquidity."

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

Hyatt Hotels Corporation, a hospitality company, develops, owns,
operates, manages, franchises, licenses, or provides services to
hotels, resorts, residential, and other properties. It operates
through four segments: Owned and Leased Hotels, Americas Management
and Franchising, ASPAC Management and Franchising, and EAME/SW Asia
Management and Franchising. The company was formerly known as
Global Hyatt Corporation and changed its name to Hyatt Hotels
Corporation in June 2009. Hyatt Hotels Corporation was founded in
1957 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.


HYPER STRUCTURE: Sanchez et al Seek Unpaid Wages for Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN SANCHEZ, OSCAR MARTINEZ, MIGUEL ANGEL VASQUEZ BACA, CARLOS
BERNAL, ARTILES DEYVI, and BANNY RAMOS and ELGAR CASTILLO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, vs. HYPER STRUCTURE CORP., and MOHAMMAD RAHMAN and
WILLIE TRESCLY, as individuals, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-04524-KAM-PK (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are seven former employees of Defendants who were
hired to perform construction and carpentry duties at a job site
located at 511 East 86 Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiffs regularly worked six day per week for Defendants and
approximately eight hours per day during their employment. The
Plaintiffs were required to work through their breaks on the job
site. All workers on Defendants' job sites would generally start
and finish work at the same time each day.

The Defendants willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs' overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week at a wage rate of
one and a 1.5 times the regular wage, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

INTERCONTINENTAL EXCHANGE: Bids to Dismiss LIBOR Case Due Aug. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that motions to dismiss
claims in the LIBOR-related class actions are due August 30, 2019.


On January 15, 2019 and January 31, 2019, two virtually identical
purported class action complaints were filed by, respectively,
Putnam Bank, a savings bank based in Putnam, Connecticut, and two
municipal pension funds affiliated with the City of Livonia,
Michigan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against ICE and several of its subsidiaries, including ICE
Benchmark Administration Limited ("IBA") (the "ICE Defendants"), as
well as 18 multinational banks and various of their respective
subsidiaries and affiliates (the "Panel Bank Defendants").

On March 4, 2019, a virtually identical complaint was filed on
behalf of four retirement and benefit funds affiliated with the
Hawaii Sheet Metal Workers Union.

IBA is the administrator for various regulated benchmarks,
including the ICE LIBOR benchmark that is calculated daily based
upon the submissions from a reference panel (which includes the
Panel Bank Defendants). On July 1, 2019, the various plaintiffs
referenced above filed a consolidated amended complaint against the
ICE and Panel Bank Defendants.

The plaintiffs seek to litigate on behalf of a purported class of
all U.S.-based persons or entities who transacted with a Panel Bank
Defendant by receiving a payment on an interest rate indexed to a
one-month or three-month USD LIBOR-benchmarked rate during the
period February 1, 2014 to the present.

The plaintiffs allege that the ICE and Panel Bank Defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to set the LIBOR benchmark at artificially
low levels, with an alleged purpose and effect of depressing
payments by the Panel Bank Defendants to members of the purported
class.

As with the individual complaints, the consolidated amended
complaint asserts a claim for violations of the Sherman and Clayton
Antitrust Acts and seeks unspecified treble damages and other
relief.

The ICE and Panel Bank Defendants intend to file motions to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint, and under the current schedule
such motions are due on August 30, 2019. ICE intends to vigorously
defend the matter.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. operates regulated exchanges,
clearing houses, and listings venues for commodity, financial,
fixed income, and equity markets in the United States, the United
Kingdom, European Union, Asia, Israel, and Canada. Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.


INTEREXCHANGE INC: Court OKs $65MM Settlement in Beltran
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class and Collective Action Settlement in the case captioned JOHANA
PAOLA BELTRAN, LUSAPHO HLATSHANENI, BEAUDETTE DEETLEFS, ALEXANDRA
IVETTE GONZALEZ, JULIANE HARNING, NICOLE MAPLEDORAM, LAURA MEJIA
JIMENEZ, SARAH CAROLINE AZUELA RASCON, CAMILA GABRIELA PEREZ REYES,
CATHY CARAMELO, LINDA ELIZABETH, And those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. INTEREXCHANGE, INC., USAUPAIR, INC., GREATAUPAIR,
LLC, EXPERT GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC., d/b/a Expert AuPair,
EURAUPAIR INTERCULTURAL CHILD CARE PROGRAMS, CULTURAL HOMESTAY
INTERNATIONAL, CULTURAL CARE, INC., d/b/a Cultural Care Au Pair,
AUPAIRCARE INC., AU PAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., APF GLOBAL EXCHANGE,
NFP, d/b/a/Aupair Foundation, AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR FOREIGN STUDY,
d/b/a Au Pair in America, AMERICAN CULTURAL EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a
GoAuPair, AGENT AU PAIR, A.P.E.X. AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE,
LLC, d/b/a ProAuPair, 20/20 CARE EXCHANGE, INC., d/b/a The
International Au Pair Exchange, ASSOCIATES IN CULTURAL EXCHANGE,
d/b/a GoAuPair, and GOAUPAIR OPERATIONS, LLC, d/b/a GoAuPair,
Defendants. Civil Action No. 14-cv-03074-CMA-KMT. (D. Colo.).

The Court finally approves the class and collective action
settlement. This Court also finally certifies the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) classes that were conditionally certified in
this action.  

The Defendants will pay their respective shares of the settlement
amount, which totals $65,500,000, into the QSF.

Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date, and going
forward, Defendants (and their agents, where applicable) will
provide a statement to host families and au pairs to the effect
that the weekly au pair stipend is a minimum payment requirement
and host families and au pairs are free to agree to compensation
higher than the legally applicable minimum.

From the QSF, Class Counsel will receive attorneys' fees of
$22,925,000, representing 35% of the QSF;1 each of the eleven class
representatives will receive a service award of $5,000; each of the
FLSA deponents will receive a service award of $1,000 (unless they
are a class representative; and each FLSA opt-in plaintiff will
receive $100 (unless they were deposed. The awards to class
representatives, FLSA deponents, and FLSA opt-ins shall be in
addition to any funds they receive as members of the Rule 23 Class
Action.

The Settlement Notice was adequate and gave all Settlement Class
Members sufficient information to enable them to make informed
decisions as to the parties' proposed settlement, and the right to
object to, or opt-out of it where applicable.

This Court additionally finds that the parties' settlement, on the
terms and conditions set forth in their Settlement Agreement, is in
all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the
best interests of the Settlement Class Members.  

This Court further finds that the Settlement Class Members were
given a fair and reasonable opportunity to object to the
settlement. Six Settlement Class Members objected to the
settlement. And the class members who made valid and timely
requests for exclusion are excluded from the class and settlement
and are not bound by this order. There are 1,284 such persons.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 1, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3ghpfb2 from Leagle.com.

Johana Paola Beltran, Lusapho Hlatshaneni, Beaudette Deetlefs &
Alexandra Ivette Gonzalez, and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, represented by Byron Pacheco, Boies Schiller Flexner
LLP, Dawn L. Smalls, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Joshua J. Libling,
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Matthew L. Schwartz, Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP, Peter M. Skinner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Sabria
A. McElroy, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Sean Phillips Rodriguez,
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Sigrid S. McCawley, Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP, 55 Hudson Yards 20th Floor New York, NY 10001, &
Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice, 1410 High St. Suite 300.
Denver, CO 80218

Juliane Harning, Nicole Mapledoram, and those similarly situated,
Laura Mejia Jimenez & Sarah Carolina Azuela Rascon, Plaintiffs,
represented by Byron Pacheco, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Dawn L.
Smalls, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Joshua J. Libling, Boies
Schiller Flexner LLP, Matthew L. Schwartz, Boies Schiller Flexner
LLP, Peter M. Skinner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Sean Phillips
Rodriguez, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP & Alexander Neville Hood ,
Towards Justice.

Camila Gabriela Perez Reyes, Cathy Caramelo & Linda Elizabeth,
Plaintiffs, represented by Byron Pacheco, Boies Schiller Flexner
LLP, Joshua J. Libling, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Peter M.
Skinner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Boies
Schiller Flexner LLP, Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice &
Dawn L. Smalls, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP.

InterExchange, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brooke A. Colaizzi
-- bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C., Raymond
Myles Deeny -- rdeeny@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard,
L.L.C., Alyssa Lauren Levy -- alevy@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman &
Howard, L.L.C., Heather Fox Vickles -- hvickles@shermanhoward.com
-- Sherman & Howard LLC & Joseph H. Hunt -- jhunt@shermanhoward.com
-- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.

USAuPair, INC, Defendant, represented by Chanda Marie Feldkamp --
cfeldkamp@kelleywalkerlaw.com -- Kelly & Walker LLC &William James
Kelly, III -- wkelly@kellywalkerlaw.com -- Kelly & Walker LLC.


IVERIC BIO: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NY Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
IVERIC bio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the motion to dismiss
the consolidated "Micholle Suit" and "Wasson Suit" remains
pending.

On January 11, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Frank Micholle v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00210.

On March 9, 2017, a related putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and the same group of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Wasson v. Ophthotech
Corporation, et al., No. 1:17-cv-01758.

These cases were consolidated on March 13, 2018. On June 4, 2018,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint (the
"CAC").

The CAC purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between March 2, 2015 and
December 12, 2016.

The CAC generally alleges that the Company and certain of its
officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the
results of the Company's Phase 2b trial and the prospects of the
Company's Phase 3 trials for Fovista in combination with anti-VEGF
agents for the treatment of wet AMD.

The CAC seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and other
costs.

The Company and individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
CAC on July 27, 2018. That motion is fully briefed.

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

IVERIC bio, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, develops novel
therapies to treat ophthalmic diseases with a focus on age-related
and orphan retinal diseases. The company was formerly known as
Ophthotech Corporation and changed its name to IVERIC bio, Inc. in
April 2019. IVERIC bio, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in New York, New York.


JET.COM INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jet.com, Inc. The
case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Jet.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07427 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019).

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

Jet.com is an American e-commerce company headquartered in Hoboken,
New Jersey.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: NJ Class Suit over Talc-Based Products Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 29, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a securities class action suit in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey related to  the presence of talc
substance in JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder.

In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against Johnson & Johnson and certain named officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that
Johnson & Johnson violated the federal securities laws by failing
to adequately disclose the alleged asbestos contamination in body
powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and
that purchasers of Johnson & Johnson's shares suffered losses as a
result.  

Plaintiffs are seeking damages.  

In October 2018, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against
Johnson & Johnson as the nominal defendant and its current
directors as defendants in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, alleging a breach of fiduciary duties
related to the alleged asbestos contamination in body powders
containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder, and that
Johnson & Johnson has suffered damages as a result of those alleged
breaches. Plaintiff is seeking damages and an order for the Company
to reform its internal policies and procedures.  

In January 2019, two ERISA class action lawsuits were filed by
participants in the Johnson & Johnson Savings Plan against Johnson
& Johnson, its Pension and Benefits Committee, and certain named
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, alleging that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by offering Johnson & Johnson stock as a Johnson & Johnson
Savings Plan investment option when it was imprudent to do so
because of failures to disclose alleged asbestos contamination in
body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSON'S(R) Baby Powder.
Plaintiffs are seeking damages and injunctive relief.

A lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California alleging violations of Proposition
65, California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law.


In June 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of
this Proposition 65 action and the Company opposed such motion to
the extent it would allow plaintiffs' counsel to refile such claims
with new plaintiffs.

Johnson & Johnson, together with its subsidiaries, researches and
develops, manufactures, and sells various products in the health
care field worldwide. It operates in three segments: Consumer,
Pharmaceutical, and Medical Devices. The company was incorporated
in 1887 and is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey.


LAKEMOOR VILLAGE: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal in Knutson
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned BRIAN KNUTSON,
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF LAKEMOOR,
Defendant-Appellee. No. 18-3729. (7th Cir.).

This class action suit challenges the red light camera program of
the Village of Lakemoor, Illinois. The plaintiffs received
violation notices from Lakemoor that they claim are invalid because
the notices lack a proper municipal code citation. They also claim
Lakemoor denied them due process by limiting the defenses that can
be asserted before a hearing officer to contest a violation.

The district court held the notices were valid because Section 14
incorporates by reference IVC Section 11-306(c) and 12-O-03 is a
parallel session law citation to Section 14 that satisfies the
specific reference requirement. Moreover, the district court held
the plaintiffs were not deprived of due process by the limitation
of defenses because the defense they sought to assert was not
viable.

The plaintiffs assert a due process claim under the Fourteenth
Amendment and a state law unjust enrichment claim and seek
declaratory judgment.

The Court reviews the district court's dismissal de novo.  The
Court may affirm a district court's dismissal order on any basis
supported by the record.

Due Process Claim

The plaintiffs do not invoke the substantive due process doctrine.
Instead, their claim asserts only that they were not afforded the
minimum procedural protections guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment's Due Process Clause.

The requirements of due process are not rigid; rather, due process
is flexible and requires only such procedural protections as the
particular situation demands. Less process is due where less is at
stake. Accordingly, the Court considers three factors when
determining what process is due before the government effects a
deprivation: (1) the nature of the private interest at stake (2)
the risk of erroneous deprivation through the procedures used and
(3) the governmental interest.  

First, the private interest at stake in this case a $100 fine is
relatively small. The Court do not pretend a $100 fine is of no
consequence. However, in the grand scheme of deprivations the
government can effect, including imprisonment or the seizure of
highly valuable property, a $100 fine is among the less serious
sort. Accordingly, this factor suggests less process was required
here.

Second, Lakemoor's limitation of defenses does not present a risk
of erroneous deprivation. Lakemoor allows alleged violators to
contest the violation on various grounds that, if true, would
refute or alleviate culpability. For example, Section 14 allows a
recipient of a violation notice to assert, inter alia, the
following arguments as defenses: the vehicle was owned by or leased
to another individual at the time of the violation; the driver
passed through the red light in order to yield to an emergency
vehicle; the vehicle cannot be adequately identified in the photo;
or the driver was already issued a citation for the same violation.


By contrast, the plaintiffs' desired defense (namely, the violation
notice did not contain a proper citation to the Code section
allegedly violated) has no bearing on culpability. Preventing
alleged violators from asserting this technicality as a defense
does not present a risk of erroneous deprivation. Thus, this factor
weighs in favor of finding the process provided was
constitutionally sufficient.

The Court have previously held a plaintiff is not deprived of a
meaningful opportunity to be heard simply because the defense he
wishes to assert is not available to him at the provided hearing.

However, because the toll violation was a strict liability offense,
the plaintiff was prevented from presenting a knowledge defense at
the hearing. He argued that this limitation of his defenses
rendered the opportunity for hearing meaningless, but the Court
disagreed. Although the knowledge defense was not available, other
defenses were. Thus, plaintiff was not precluded from presenting
any defense, and the hearing was not meaningless..

Similarly, the fact that the plaintiffs in this case could not
assert a defense based on the violation notice's lack of a Code
citation does not mean that the hearing at which they could have
raised several other defences would have been meaningless. The
process which the plaintiffs received was constitutionally
sufficient, and they have, therefore, failed to state a federal due
process claim.

Unjust Enrichment Claim

The plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is based on the same
underlying allegations as the due process claim. They assert
Lakemoor has been unjustly enriched by receiving payment of fines
to which it was not entitled.

The plaintiffs argue the violation notices were void ab initio
because they did not include a proper citation to that section of
the Code allegedly violated as required by Section 14. This
argument fails because there is no indication that the specific
reference requirement was intended to be read as a mandatory
provision rather than a directory one.

Although Section 14 states a violation notice shall include a
specific reference to the Code section allegedly violated, we see
no basis for overturning the presumption that this requirement is
directory rather than mandatory. First, Section 14 contains no
negative language prohibiting Lakemoor from taking further action
in the event of noncompliance.

Second, although the plaintiffs argue their right to be fully
informed of an alleged violation would be injured by a directory
reading, this is simply not the case. The plaintiffs suffered no
failure of notice caused by the 12-O-03 notation. The notice of
violation each plaintiff received includes multiple photographs of
each plaintiffs' registered vehicle in the act of entering an
intersection on a red light, with the license plate visible, and
describes the photographs as evidencing a violation of a red light
signal and/or law pertaining to Right Turn on Red. Each notice also
includes the time, date, and location of the violation. Further,
each notice provides detailed information about the procedures for
contesting the violation, the date by which the fine must be paid
or the violation contested, and a full list of possible defenses
derived from Section 14.

Everything the plaintiffs needed to know to contest the violation
was fully and clearly explained in the notice of violation itself.
The plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the lack of a proper Code
citation. Therefore, the presumption in favor of a directory
reading has not been overcome.

Because the Court holds the specific reference provision is
directory rather than mandatory, the plaintiffs' argument the
violation notices were void ab initio fails as a matter of law, and
their unjust enrichment claim falls with it.

The plaintiffs have failed to state a claim either for violation of
due process or unjust enrichment. The district court properly
dismissed the case. The Court affirms the decision of the district
court.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's August 1, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6nvsqta from Leagle.com.

Mark D. Roth, 311 S Wacker Dr, Chicago, IL, 60606, for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Dominick L. Lanzito -- dlanzito@pjmchicago.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.

Jennifer L. Turiello -- jturiello@pjmchicago.com -- for
Defendant-Appellee.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Bid for Leave to Amend Glover Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a motion for leave
to amend the class action suit entitled, Glover v. Connecticut
General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company, remains pending.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a
putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016.  

Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance
than permitted by the policy.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable
universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.  

Lincoln National said, "On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed
Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. In response, Plaintiff filed
a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which we have opposed."

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Still Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re: Lincoln
National COI Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter
related to multiple putative class action filings that were
consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017.  

In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the
order also covers any future cases filed in the same district
related to the same subject matter.  

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  

Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2016.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek
damages on their behalf.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against Unit, Voya Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the class action
suit entitled, Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New
York ("LLANY") and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company
("Voya"), remains ongoing.

Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York ("LLANY")
and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("Voya"), filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
No. 1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on
LLANY on August 12, 2016.  

Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna
(now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the
policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on
Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator
of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the
cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.


Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance
policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate
increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

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

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Still Faces 2017 COI Rate Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that In re: Lincoln
National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, is ongoing.

In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No.
2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to
multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an
order of the court in March 2018.  

Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued
by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL).  Plaintiffs allege that LNL
and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by
increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in
2017.  

Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek
damages on their behalf.  

Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter."

Lincoln National Corporation, through its subsidiaries, operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses in the United States.
It operates through four segments: Annuities, Retirement Plan
Services, Life Insurance, and Group Protection. Lincoln National
Corporation was founded in 1905 and is headquartered in Radnor,
Pennsylvania.


MDL 2875: Collins vs Prinston over Tainted Valsartan Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CARRIE COLLINS, an individual; on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PRINSTON
PHARMACEUTICAL INC., dba SOLCO HEALTHCARE LLC; and SOLCO HEALTHCARE
U.S., LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-16386-RBK-JS (S.D.
Cal., Filed April 29, 2019), Case No. 3:19-cv-00415, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey (Camden) on Aug. 6, 2019. The District of New Jersey Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:19-cv-16386 to the proceeding.

The Collins case is being consolidated with MDL No. 2875, Re:
VALSARTAN N-NITROSODIMETHYLAMINE (NDMA) CONTAMINATION PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. The MDL was created by Order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on Feb. 14, 2019.
This litigation arises out of an investigation by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration into impurities found in generic drug products
containing valsartan, a medication indicated for the treatment of
high blood pressure and other conditions. During the course of the
FDA investigation, a number of voluntary recalls of generic
valsartan medications were issued. Purchasers of recalled lots of
generic valsartan subsequently filed actions alleging economic
losses. The initial wave of consumer class actions was followed by
actions alleging personal injuries from the ingestion of affected
valsartan medications, as well as other related litigation.

In its Dec. 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation. All actions involve
common factual questions arising out of allegations that plaintiffs
purchased or used generic formulations of valsartan medications
containing the nitrosamine impurities NDMA and/or NDEA; that these
impurities present a risk of cancer and liver damage; and that
defendants knew, or should have known, of the impurities as early
as 2012. All actions stem from the same FDA investigation and
voluntary recall announced in July 2018, and the voluntary recalls
are ongoing. Although the investigation, and the earliest-filed
actions, focused on Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. as the
source of the alleged impurities, the FDA investigation and the
actions before the Panel now encompass alleged industry-wide issues
concerning the production of the valsartan active pharmaceutical
ingredient (API) which will be common to all actions. The common
questions of fact include: (1) whether the generic valsartan sold
by defendants contained NDMA or NDEA; (2) the cause of the alleged
impurities, including alleged defects in the manufacturing and
sampling process; (3) when defendants knew or should have known of
the impurities; (4) how long the NDMA- and NDEA- containing
valsartan medications were in circulation; and (5) whether the
amounts of NDMA and NDEA in the medications presented a risk of
cancer or other injuries. All of the valsartan actions will raise
these issues, regardless of whether the alleged supplier of the
valsartan API was Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Mylan,
Hetero Labs Limited, or some other entity. Centralization will
eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial
rulings, including with respect to class certification and Daubert
motions; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel,
and the judiciary. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Judge Robert
B. Kugler. The lead case is Case No.1:19-md-02875-RBK-JS.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Graham Lambert, Esq.
          Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
          HAFFNER LAW PC
          445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2625
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 514-5681
          Facsimile: (213) 514-5682

Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          Courtney Lenore Baird, Esq.
          Jason H. Dang, Esq.
          Duane Morris, Esq.
          750 B Street, Suite 2900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 744-2285
          Facsimile: (619) 923-3315

MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Voluntary Dismissal Filed in Kent Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs of the
class action suit entitled Michael Kent v. Mellanox Technologies,
Ltd., et al. filed a voluntary dismissal.

On March 10, 2019, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with NVIDIA Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("NVIDIA"), NVIDIA International Holdings
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of NVIDIA
("Parent") and Teal Barvaz Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Parent organized under the laws of the State of Israel and wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). NVIDIA has agreed to
guarantee the payment and performance obligations of Parent under
the Merger Agreement.

On May 1, 2019, a purported class action suit, entitled Marc Henzel
v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company and the members of its board of directors.

On May 2, 2019, a purported class action suit, entitled Michael
Kent v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.


Also on May 2, 2019, a purported class action suit, entitled David
Thornton v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

On May 3, 2019, a purported class action suit, entitled Lewis Stein
v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company, the members of its board of directors, NVIDIA
International Holdings Inc., Teal Barvaz Ltd., and NVIDIA
Corporation.  

Also on May 3, 2019, a lawsuit entitled Elaine Wang v. Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd., et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and the members of its board of directors.

All five suits alleged that the preliminary proxy statement filed
by the Company on April 22, 2019 with the SEC in connection with
the proposed Merger omits material information with respect to the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rendering it
false and misleading in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

Each plaintiff sought, among other things, injunctive relief,
rescission, declaratory relief and unspecified monetary damages.

None of the plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief before the
shareholder vote, which occurred on June 20, 2019. On June 25,
2019, the plaintiffs of the class action suit entitled Michael Kent
v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., et al. filed a voluntary dismissal
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in these lawsuits are
without merit and intends to defend vigorously against all claims
asserted.

The Company is currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss related to these lawsuits.

Mellanox said, "Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to
the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby may
be filed in the future."

Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., incorporated on March 30, 1999, is a
fabless semiconductor company. The Company is an integrated
supplier of interconnect products and solutions based on the
InfiniBand and Ethernet standards. The Company operates in the
development, manufacturing, marketing and sales of interconnect
products segment. The Company's products facilitate data
transmission between servers, storage systems, communications
infrastructure equipment and other embedded systems. It operates
its business globally and offers products to customers at various
levels of integration. The company is based in Beit Mellanox,
Yokneam, Israel.


MENLO THERAPEUTICS: McKay Suit Consolidated with Savelstrov
-----------------------------------------------------------
Menlo Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the class action suit
entitled, Hugh McKay v. Menlo Therapeutics, Inc., et al. has been
consolidated in the securities class action suit entitled, Pavel
Savelstrov v. Menlo Therapeutics, Inc., et al.

On November 8, 2018, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Pavel Savelstrov v. Menlo Therapeutics, Inc., et al.,
Case No.18-CIV-06049, was filed in state court in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the
Company, certain of its current executive officers and its
directors, and certain underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering.

On January 28, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Hugh McKay v. Menlo Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case
No.19-CIV-00574, was filed in state court in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company,
certain of its current executive officers and its directors, and
certain underwriters in the Company's initial public offering.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with the Company's initial public
offering. The McKay action has been consolidated with the
Savelstrov action and the claim for violations of Section 12(a)(2)
has been dismissed.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself.

Menlo Therapeutics said, "Accordingly, the Company cannot
reasonably estimate any range of potential future charges, and the
Company has not recorded any accrual for a contingent liability
associated with these legal proceedings."

Menlo Therapeutics Inc., a late-stage biopharmaceutical company,
focuses on the development and commercialization of serlopitant for
the treatment of pruritus associated with dermatologic conditions
in the United States. Menlo Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2011
and is headquartered in Redwood City, California.


MICROSOFT CORP: Oral Argument in Moussouris Appeal Set for Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2019, that oral argument in the
Moussouris v. Microsoft appellate proceedings is scheduled for
October 2019.

Current and former female Microsoft employees in certain
engineering and information technology roles brought this class
action in federal court in Seattle in 2015, alleging systemic
gender discrimination in pay and promotions.

The plaintiffs moved to certify the class in October 2017.
Microsoft filed an opposition in January 2018, attaching an expert
report showing no statistically significant disparity in pay and
promotions between similarly situated men and women.

In June 2018, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Plaintiffs sought an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was granted in September 2018.


Oral argument is scheduled for October 2019.          

Microsoft Corporation develops, licenses, and supports software,
services, devices, and solutions worldwide. The company was founded
in 1975 and is headquartered in Redmond, Washington.


MOUNTAIRE CORP: Special Master's Report in Cuppels Trimmed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware issued an Opinion granting in part
and denying in part Special Master's Report in the case captioned
GARY and ANNA-MARIE CUPPELS individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MOUNTAIRE CORPORATION,
MOUNTAIRE FARMS INC., and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC.,
Defendants. C.A. No. S18C-06-009 RFS.

This matter between Plaintiffs Gary and Anna-Marie Cuppels and
Defendants Mountaire Corp., Mountaire Farms, Inc., and Mountaire
Farms of Delaware, Inc., arises due to the alleged illegal disposal
of wastewater and sludge generated from the Defendants' chicken
production and processing facilities in Delaware.

The Defendants take exception to the Special Master's decisions
regarding a number of the discovery requests. The Plaintiffs oppose
said exceptions and support the Special Master's findings. The
Plaintiffs do not oppose the Special Master's decisions with regard
to the Motion to Extend or the Motion for Protective Order.

The Clarifying Order included the Court's analysis with regard to
the proper scope of the jurisdictional discovery in this case. The
Plaintiffs, having failed to plead sufficient facts to suggest an
exceptional case existed so as to subject MC to this Court's
general jurisdiction under 10 Del. C. Section 3104(c)(4), were
prohibited from pursuing discovery towards that end. Instead, the
Plaintiffs were allowed to seek information from the Defendants as
a means to potentially establish specific jurisdiction over MC
either directly or via MFI and/or MFODI under an agency theory.

The primary concern raised in each of the Defendants' stated
exceptions is that the discovery requests at issue should be
limited in scope to information or documents concerning the
Millsboro chicken processing plant as opposed to their Delaware
operations at large. The Court infers that the Defendants believe
such a limitation is warranted in light of the Clarifying Order's
prohibition on discovery seeking information to help establish
general jurisdiction over MC.

However, the operation of the other Delaware facilities is relevant
to specific jurisdiction due to the Amended Complaint's assertion
that wastewater and sludge from said facilities is transported to
the Millsboro plant for treatment and disposal. The operation of
the other Delaware facilities has been implicated through factual
allegations in the Amended Complaint and could establish the
Courts' jurisdiction over MC under the theory of agency. Limiting
the scope of jurisdictional discovery solely to the Millsboro
chicken processing plant is unwarranted.

The Defendants also take exception to a number of the discovery
requests at issue as being overly broad and/or unduly burdensome.
With the exception of Interrogatory No. 2 to MC, the Court is
satisfied that the Special Master has adequately addressed these
concerns with the limitations to the requests at issue outlined in
the Report.

As to Interrogatory No. 2 to MC, it does appear to the Court that
requiring the disclosure of any physical presence in Delaware by
any of the listed categories of persons, while potentially relevant
to the specific jurisdiction issue, constitutes a daunting and
likely impossible task.

Limiting the categories to MC's past or present owners, officers,
directors, board members, agents, employees, contractors,
consultants, accountants, and attorneys represents a more
reasonable inquiry. Including representatives, and any other
persons in the list is too expansive.

MC should be able to provide the requested information in relation
to the remaining categories.

The Court adopts in part and rejects in part the Special Master's
Report. And, therefore, the Court grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' Notice of Exceptions to the Special Master's
Report.

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's August 1, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy53w9dq from Leagle.com.

Chase T. Brockstedt, Esq., and Stephen A. Spence, Esq., Baird
Mandalas Brockstedt, LLC, 1413 Savannah Road, Suite 1, Lewes,
Delaware 19958, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Philip C. Federico, Esq., Schochor, Federico & Staton, P.A., 1211
St. Paul Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Admitted Pro Hac Vice,
Attorney for Plaintiffs.

John C. Phillips, Jr., Esq., Robert S. Goldman, Esq., and Lisa C.
McLaughlin, Esq., Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, 1200 N.
Broom Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19806, Attorneys for
Defendants.

F. Michael Parkowski, Esq., Michael W. Teichman, Esq., and Elio
Battista, Jr., Esq., Parkowski, Guerke & Swayze, P.A., 1105 N.
Market Street, 19th Floor, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attorneys
for Defendants.


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Dismissal of Texas Class Suit under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that plaintiffs have taken an
appeal from the dismissal of a class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division.  

On September 29, 2017, the company was sued, along with Tesco
Corporation and its Board of Directors, in a putative shareholder
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.  

The plaintiff alleges that the September 18, 2017 Preliminary Proxy
Statement filed by Tesco with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission omitted material information with respect to
the proposed transaction between Tesco and Nabors announced on
August 14, 2017.  

The plaintiff claims that the omissions rendered the Proxy
Statement false and misleading, constituting a violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The court consolidated several matters and entered a lead plaintiff
appointment order.

The plaintiff filed their amended complaint, adding Nabors
Industries Ltd. as a party to the consolidated action. Nabors filed
its motion to dismiss, which was granted by the court on March 29,
2019.  

Plaintiffs filed their notice to appeal the dismissal on April 30,
2019.  

Nabors will continue to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations.

Nabors Industries Ltd. provides drilling and drilling related
services and technologies for land-based and offshore oil and
natural gas wells. It operates through five segments: U.S.
Drilling, Canada Drilling, International Drilling, Drilling
Solutions, and Rig Technologies. Nabors Industries Ltd. was founded
in 1952 and is headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda.


NEW 168: Martinez Seeks Overtime Pay for Laborers
-------------------------------------------------
JOAQUIN MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. NEW 168 SUPERMARKET LLC, DAVID ZHENG,
and CHANG LING, Case No. 19-CV-4526 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants had, and continue to
have a policy and practice of refusing to pay overtime compensation
at the statutory rate of time and one-half to Plaintiff and the
Collective Action Members for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per work week.

Defendants hired Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt laborer at the
Market, where his responsibilities included filleting and cleaning
seafood, stocking the merchandise, and cleaning the Market.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile. (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com

NISSAN NORTH: Briefing Schedule in California Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, issued an Opinion and Order modifying
the Briefing Schedule for Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case
captioned In re Nissan North America, Inc. Litigation. Case No.
4:18-cv-07292-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

NML filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' CCAC Pursuant to Rules
12(b)(6), 9(b) and and noticed the hearing.

NML filed a Notice of Joinder which joined in and incorporated by
reference the arguments made in Defendant Nissan North America,
Inc.'s (NNA) pending Motion to (1) Dismiss or Transfer for Improper
Venue or, in the Alternative, Transfer for Convenience or,
Alternatively, (2) Dismiss Portions of Plaintiffs' CCAC.

The Court held a hearing on NNA's motion, which NML had joined, and
took the matter under submission.

Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to NML's Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiffs' opposition responds to the arguments NML asserted in
its Motion to Dismiss and also addresses an argument that NNA had
made in its motion to dismiss, which NML had joined but not
otherwise briefed.

In light of the foregoing, and due to the press of urgent business
in other matters handled by NML's counsel, the counsel for NML
contacted Plaintiffs' counsel to request a ten (10) day extension
to prepare its reply.

Plaintiffs and NML have met and conferred through counsel regarding
an extension of the deadline for NML to file its reply in support
of its motion to dismiss, and have reached the agreement set forth
below, pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-1(a).

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 1, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yydyyrug from
Leagle.com.

Cathy Bashaw, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Dashiell Smith --
jsmith@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Frederick J. Klorczyk,
III -- fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Bursor and Fisher, P.A. & Lawrence
Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Robert Garneau, Nancy Housell & Jeffrey Olkowski, Plaintiffs,
represented by Joel Dashiell Smith , Bursor & Fisher, P.A. &
Lawrence Timothy Fisher , Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Courtney Johnson, Scott Reeves, Lisa Hendrickson, Rhonda Perry &
Jane Reeves, Plaintiffs, represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher,
Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by E Paul
Cauley, Jr. -- paul.cauley@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP,
pro hac vice, Matthew Jacob Adler -- matthew.adler@dbr.com --
Drinker Biddle Reath LLP & Paul Jeffrey Riehle --
paul.riehle@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Paul Jeffrey
Riehle , Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Court OKs Dismissal of Morgan FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned ROBERT MORGAN, Plaintiff, v.
NORTHSTAR LOCATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant. No. 2:18-cv-02485
(ADS)(AKT). (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Robert Morgan initiated this putative class action
against defendant Northstar Location Services, LLC   for damages
stemming from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA). The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant
sent a debt collection letter which falsely stated that the amount
owed by the Plaintiff may increase due to interest, late charges,
and other charges.

The Plaintiff does not break down his theories of liability under
each section of the FDCPA, instead summarily arguing the Letter
violated 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692f, USC 1692f(1),
and 1692g(a).

Section 1692e provides that a debt collector may not use any false,
deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with
the collection of any debt. There are sixteen subsections that
enumerate a non-exhaustive list of banned practices, including:
"The false representation of (A) the character, amount, or legal
status of any debt or (B) any services rendered or compensation
which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the
collection of a debt. The threat to take any action that cannot
legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken. The use of
any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt
to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a
consumer."

The Plaintiff alleges that the language in the Letter indicating
that the Defendant may impose interest, late charges, and other
charges violates the aforementioned provisions of the FDCPA,
because interest had not in fact been charged. As a result, the
Plaintiff believes that the Letter would mislead the least
sophisticated consumer as to whether interest is accruing, and
otherwise represents an attempt to collect interest unauthorized by
law or contract.

On the other hand, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's claims
fail as a matter of law because the Second Circuit expressly
approved using the language at issue in Avila v. Riexinger &
Associates, LLC, 817 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2016) (Avila I). In Avila I,
the Second Circuit held that collection letters were misleading if
they revealed the current balance but did not disclose that the
balance might increase due to interest and fees.

The portion of the Letter the Plaintiff takes issue with comes
directly from the Avila I safe harbor. The Court agrees with the
Defendant that it cannot be liable for including such language.

The Court addressed a claim identical to the one here in Avila v.
Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC,No. 18-cv-2718, 2018 WL 5982488
(E.D.N.Y. Nov. 14, 2018) (Spatt, J.)  (Avila II). The same
plaintiff who brought the claim in Avila I brought another lawsuit
against a different defendant, who included the safe harbor
language regarding interest, late charges, and other charges even
though there were no accruing late charges or other fees.

In the Court's view, Avila II conclusively precludes finding the
Defendant liable based on the facts alleged in the Complaint. The
Plaintiff puts forward several supposedly distinct bases for
finding the Letter actionable. However, the crux of each theory is
that the Letter created a false impression that additional charges
existed when in fact none existed.  

Avila II makes clear that debt collectors may include the safe
harbor language, even when they do not intend to collect interest,
late fees, and/or other charges, as long as they possess the
contractual right to collect those charges. Here, the explicit
terms of the Loan Agreement provided the Defendant the authority to
do so. Therefore, the Letter is similarly entitled to safe harbor
treatment. Despite the voluminous nature of his opposition brief,
the Plaintiff neither addresses the rulings in Avila II nor
attempts to distinguish the facts. The Court sees no reason to
revisit its earlier decision, especially in light of the Second
Circuit's affirmance.

Therefore, the Court finds that the Amended Complaint fails to
state a claim for violations of Sections 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(5),
1692e(10), 1692f, USC 1692f(1), and 1692g(a).

The Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in its entirety.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 1, 2019 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6r5e9fd from
Leagle.com.

Robert Morgan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Mauro, The Law Office of
Joseph Mauro, LLC, 306 McCall Ave., West Islip, New York 11795

Northstar Location Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul A.
Sanders -- psanders@barclaydamon.com -- Hiscock & Barclay, LLP.


OLD VIENNA: Morales Seeks Overtime Pay for Restaurant Staff
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marco Morales, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. Old Vienna Cafe LLC d/b/a Banter
Restaurant, Paul Mansfield, and Michael Mansfield, the Defendants,
Case 1:19-cv-04538 No. (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2019), seeks to recover
unpaid wages from defendants for overtime work for which they did
not receive overtime premium pay as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Mr. Morales was employed at Banter Restaurant from approximately
December 2016 through July 2019. Mr. Morales was employed as a
cook. Mr. Morales's work was performed in the normal course of
Defendants' business and was integrated into the business of
defendants, and did not involve executive or administrative
responsibilities.

Before April 2018, Defendants failed to pay Mr. Morales any
overtime "bonus" for hours worked beyond 40 hours in a workweek, in
violation of the FLSA, the New York Labor Law, and the supporting
New York State Department of Labor regulations.

The Defendants owned and operated a restaurant in Queens that
operated under the name Banter Restaurant.[BN]

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

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

OLIN CORP: Suits Against Unit over Sale of Caustic Soda Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Olin Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Olin, K.A. Steel
Chemicals continues to defend several class action suits related to
the sale of caustic soda.

Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals (a wholly owned subsidiary of Olin) and
other caustic soda producers were named as defendants in six
purported class action civil lawsuits filed March 22, 25 and 26,
2019 and April 12, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York on behalf of the respective named plaintiffs
and a putative class comprised of all persons and entities who
purchased caustic soda in the U.S. directly from one or more of the
defendants, their parents, predecessors, subsidiaries or affiliates
at any time between October 1, 2015 and the present.  

Olin, K.A. Steel Chemicals and other caustic soda producers were
also named as defendants in two purported class action civil
lawsuits filed July 25 and 29, 2019 in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of New York on behalf of the respective named
plaintiffs and a putative class comprised of all persons and
entities who purchased caustic soda in the U.S. indirectly from
distributors at any time between October 1, 2015 and the present.


The other defendants named in the lawsuits are Occidental Petroleum
Corporation, Occidental Chemical Corporation d/b/a OxyChem,
Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd.,
Shintech Incorporated, Formosa Plastics Corporation, and Formosa
Plastics Corporation, U.S.A.

The lawsuits allege the defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the price of caustic soda, restrict domestic
(U.S.) supply of caustic soda and allocate caustic soda customers.


Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive
relief.

Olin said, "We believe we have meritorious legal positions and will
continue to represent our interests vigorously in this matter. Any
losses related to this matter are not currently estimable because
of unresolved questions of fact and law which, if resolved
unfavorably to Olin, could have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, cash flows or results of operations."

Olin Corporation, incorporated on August 13, 1892, is a
manufacturer and distributor of chemical products, and ammunition.
The Company operates through three segments: Chlor Alkali Products
and Vinyls, Epoxy and Winchester. The company is based in Clayton
Missouri.


ORION GROUP: Securities Class Action in Houston Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Orion Group Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

The Company and one former and two current officers are named
defendants in a class action lawsuit filed on April 11, 2019 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, seeking unstated compensatory damages under the
federal securities laws allegedly arising from materially false and
misleading statements during the period of March 13, 2018 to March
18, 2019.

The complaint asserts, among other things, that the current and
former officers caused the Company to overstate goodwill in certain
periods; overstate accounts receivable; that the company lacked
effective internal controls over financial reporting related to
goodwill impairment testing and accounts receivable; and that as a
result the required adjustments to goodwill and accounts receivable
materially impacted the company's financial statements causing the
company's stock price to be artificially inflated during the class
period.  

The Company will respond to the complaint, considers all of these
allegations without merit and will vigorously contest the
allegations.

Orion Group Holdings, Inc. operates as a specialty construction
company in the building, industrial, and infrastructure sectors in
the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, and the Caribbean
Basin. It operates in two segments, Marine and Concrete. The
company was formerly known as Orion Marine Group, Inc. and changed
its name to Orion Group Holdings, Inc. in May 2016. Orion Group
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Houston,
Texas.


PBF ENERGY: Hearing on Renewed Class Cert. Bid Set for Sept. 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the hearing on
plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification in the case,
Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., is
scheduled for September 23, 2019.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, and
the company's subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC and
Torrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company's
Torrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named as
defendants in a class action and representative action complaint
filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette La
Bella and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.


The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is also
referenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claims
relate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility for
any liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the
agreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

On July 2, 2018, the Court granted leave to plaintiffs' to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination.

With the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' added
an additional plaintiff. On March 18, 2019, the class certification
hearing was held and the judge took the matter under submission.

On April 1, 2019, the judge issued an order denying class
certification. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Petition with
the Ninth Circuit for Permission to Appeal the Order Denying Motion
for Class Certification. The appeal is currently pending with the
Ninth Circuit.

On May 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District
Court for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
On May 22, 2019, the judge granted Plaintiffs' motion.

PBF Energy said, "Our opposition to the motion was filed on July
29, 2019. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion is currently scheduled
for September 23, 2019. We presently believe the outcome will not
have a material impact on our financial position, results of
operations or cash flows."

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PBF ENERGY: Mediation Hearing in Kendig Suit Set for August 23
--------------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that mediation hearing
between the parties in in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v.
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., is currently scheduled for
August 23, 2019.

On September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v.
ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and Torrance
Refining Company LLC along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation and
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as defendants in a class
action and representative action complaint filed on behalf of
Michelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorize
and permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, violation of the Private Attorneys
General Act and violation of the California Unfair Business and
Competition Law.

Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economic damages, statutory
damages, civil penalties provided by statute, disgorgement of
profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, interest,
attorney's fees and costs.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1,
2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilities
that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement
relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logistics
assets.

On October 26, 2018, the matter was removed to the Federal Court,
California Central District.

A mediation hearing between the parties is currently scheduled for
August 23, 2019.

PBF Energy said, "As this matter is in the class certification
phase, we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of its
resolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flow"

PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.


PHILIPS ORAL: Sued by M Papadopoulos for Sending Unsolicited Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
M. PAPADOPOULOS DENTAL CORP. dba VILLAGE FAMILY DENTAL OFFICE,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PHILIPS
ORAL HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-06739 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 2,
2019), accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by for transmitting one or more facsimiles
advertising without having obtained prior express invitation or
permission to transmit said facsimiles.

Philips Oral Healthcare is a Washington corporation with its
headquarters in Bothell, Washington, which transacts business in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POST HOLDINGS: Trial Against Opt-Out Plaintiff Set for October
--------------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Michael Foods, Inc.
(MFI) currently is scheduled to begin trial against one opt-out
plaintiff in October 2019.

In late 2008 and early 2009, approximately 22 class action lawsuits
were filed in various federal courts against Michael Foods, Inc.
("MFI"), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, and
approximately 20 other defendants (producers of shell eggs and egg
products, and egg industry organizations), alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production
and sale of shell eggs and egg products, and seeking unspecified
damages. All cases were transferred to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.

The case involved three plaintiff groups: (i) a nationwide class of
direct purchasers of shell eggs (the "direct purchaser class");
(ii) individual companies (primarily large grocery chains and food
companies that purchase considerable quantities of eggs) that opted
out of various settlements and filed their own complaints related
to their purchases of shell eggs and egg products ("opt-out
plaintiffs"); and (iii) indirect purchasers of shell eggs
("indirect purchaser plaintiffs").

Resolution of claims: To date, MFI has resolved the following
claims, including all class claims:

     (i) in December 2016, MFI settled all claims asserted against
it by the direct purchaser class for a payment of $75.0 million,
which was approved by the district court in December 2017;

    (ii) in January 2017, MFI settled all claims asserted against
it by opt-out plaintiffs related to shell egg purchases on
confidential terms;

   (iii) in June 2018, MFI settled all claims asserted against it
by indirect purchaser plaintiffs on confidential terms;

    (iv) in June 2019, MFI settled all egg products claims asserted
against it by one opt-out plaintiff on confidential terms; and

     (v) in July 2019, MFI settled all egg products claims asserted
against it by a second opt-out plaintiff on confidential terms. MFI
has at all times denied liability in this matter, and no settlement
contains any admission of liability by MFI.

Remaining portion of the case: MFI remains a defendant only with
respect to claims that seek damages based on purchases of egg
products by four opt-out plaintiffs. The district court had granted
summary judgment precluding any claims for egg products purchases
by such opt-out plaintiffs, but the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed and remanded these claims for further pre-trial
proceedings.

Defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of the claims, which was denied in June 2019.

MFI currently is scheduled to begin trial against one opt-out
plaintiff in October 2019. The remaining opt-out plaintiffs have
not yet been assigned trial dates.

Post Holdings said, "Although the likelihood of a material adverse
outcome in the egg antitrust litigation has been significantly
reduced as a result of the MFI settlements described above, the
remaining portion of the case could still result in a material
adverse outcome."

Post Holdings, Inc. operates as a consumer packaged goods holding
company in the United States and internationally. It operates
through Post Consumer Brands, Weetabix, Refrigerated Food, and
Active Nutrition segments. The company was founded in 1895 and is
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.


QFLORIST INC: Ramirez Seeks OT Wages for Floral Designers
---------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO VIVAR RAMIREZ on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. QFLORIST INC., NIKOLAOS BAZAS, STACEY
FRANGIADAKIS, and CONSTANTINE BAZAS, the Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-07318 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' foes and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff to work as a non-exempt Floral
Designer. The work performed by Plaintiff was directly essential to
the business operated by Defendants. The Defendants knowingly and
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his lawfully earned overtime
compensation in direct contravention of the FLSA and NYLL, the
lawsuit says.

QFlorist owns and operates a florist shop located at 447 Columbus
Avenue, New York, New York.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER. PLLC
          Peter H. Cooper
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7 102
          E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com

RE/MAX HOLDINGS: 3 Antitrust Class Action Complaints Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc.  said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend three putative class action suits over alleged violations of
federal antitrust law.

In March and April of 2019, three putative class action complaints
were filed against National Association of Realtors ("NAR"),
Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc, RE/MAX
Holdings, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.

The first was filed on March 6, 2019, by plaintiff Christopher
Moehrl in the Northern District of Illinois.

The second was filed on April 15, 2019, by plaintiff Sawbill
Strategies, Inc., also in the Northern District of Illinois.

These two actions have now been consolidated.

A third action was filed by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and Amy Winger
in the Western District of Missouri. The complaints make
substantially similar allegations and seek substantially similar
relief.

The plaintiffs allege that a NAR rule requires brokers to make a
blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation when
listing a property, resulting in inflated costs to sellers in
violation of federal antitrust law.

They further allege that certain defendants use their agreements
with franchisees to require adherence to the NAR rule in violation
of federal antitrust law. Amended complaints add allegations
regarding buyer steering and non-disclosure of buyer-broker
compensation to the buyer.

Additionally, plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and Amy Winger allege
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

By agreement, RE/MAX, LLC was substituted for RE/MAX Holdings as
defendant in the actions. Among other requested relief, plaintiffs
seek damages against the defendants and an injunction enjoining
defendants from requiring sellers to pay the buyer broker.

RE/MAX Holdings said, "We intend to vigorously defend against all
claims."

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

RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. is one of the world's leading franchisors in
the real estate industry, franchising real estate brokerages
globally under the RE/MAX(R) brand, and mortgage brokerages within
the U.S. under the Motto Mortgage(R) brand. RE/MAX is a global
franchisor of real estate brokerage services with more than 125,000
agents operating in over 110 countries and territories. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.


REAL REAL: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Real Real, Inc.
The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The Real Real, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07423 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019).

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

The RealReal, Inc. is an online and brick-and-mortar marketplace
for authenticated luxury consignment. Based on the circular
economy, The RealReal sells consigned clothing, fine jewelry,
watches, fine art and home decor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


RENTGROW INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss McIntyre FCRA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued a Memorandum and Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
or to Strike the Class Allegations in the case  captioned PATRICIA
McINTYRE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. RENTGROW, INC., d/b/a/ YARDI RESIDENT SCREENING,
Defendant. Civil Action No. 18-cv-12141-ADB. (D. Mass.).

Patricia McIntyre initiated this consumer class action brought
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),  in which she alleged
that RentGrow, Inc. d/b/a Yardi Resident Screening published
misleading and inaccurate tenant screening reports to landlords and
property managers in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681e(b). 15
U.S.C. Section 1681e(b) requires consumer reporting agencies to
follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of
the information they report.

The Plaintiff brings this FCRA claim on behalf of herself and a
putative nationwide class of tenants who were similarly harmed by
Defendant's inaccurate consumer reports.

The Defendant seeks dismissal of the class allegations on the
grounds that the Complaint fails to state a claim under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and does not meet the notice
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. In the
alternative, Defendant asks the Court to strike the class
allegations from the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f).   

After assessing the Complaint in light of the elements of a Section
1681e(b) claim, the Court concludes that striking class allegations
at this stage is premature.

Under the FCRA, credit reporting agencies are required to follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
information concerning the individual about whom the report
relates. A claim under § 1681e(b) has four elements: (1)
inaccurate information was included in a consumer's credit report
(2) the inaccuracy was due to defendant's failure to follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy (3) the
consumer suffered injury and (4) the consumer's injury was caused
by the inclusion of the inaccurate entry. In addition, in order to
recover statutory damages, a plaintiff must show that the FCRA
violation was willful.  

At the motion to dismiss stage, when class allegations are
challenged, the question before the Court is not whether the class
should be certified, but whether the class allegations in the
complaint should be stricken. Under the traditional Rule 12(b)(6)
standard, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts,
analyzes those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff's
theory, and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in
favor of the plaintiff.   

Here, the Complaint alleges that the Defendant had a regular
practice of purchasing eviction information from private vendors in
the form of summaries and that Defendant was aware that these
summaries were routinely not updated. The Complaint further claims
that Defendant's practice of purchasing these summaries was
long-standing, despite Defendant's knowledge of the errors, and
resulted in the provision of inaccurate or incomplete information
in tenant screening reports which harmed thousands of consumers.  

The Complaint here suggests that similarly-situated individuals
involved in landlord-tenant actions that were "withdrawn,
dismissed, non-suited, or resulted in a judgment for the tenant
defendant" had similarly inaccurate or incomplete reports, as a
result of Defendant's practice of purchasing summaries that were
routinely not updated or verified by reference to the underlying
documents. Only discovery can show whether the inaccuracies alleged
were widespread and similar enough to support class certification.


At the present juncture, drawing all inferences in Plaintiff's
favor, the factual contentions pled in the Complaint sufficiently
allege that members of the alleged class suffered harm based on
Defendant's practice of purchasing reports containing incomplete or
inaccurate summaries of eviction information and therefore creates
a plausible entitlement to relief by putative class members to
survive a motion to dismiss.

It follows that the Complaint also meets the notice pleading
requirements of Rule 8. Rule 8 requires that a complaint contains a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief"and that each allegation therein is simple,
concise and direct. The purpose of Rule 8 "is to give defendants
fair notice of the claims and their basis as well as to provide an
opportunity for a cogent answer and defense. The instant Complaint
meets the requirements of Rule 8 because it sets out simple and
concise factual allegations concerning the named plaintiff's
experience with Defendant as well as factual allegations regarding
Defendant's long-standing practice of purchasing inaccurate or
incomplete reports.  

Having found that the class allegations in the Complaint survive
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the next step is to consider whether
the same allegations should be excised pursuant to Rule 12(f).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allows a party to move to
strike from a pleading any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter.

Here, Defendant presents arguments on ascertainability and
predominance that echo those found in the case law referenced
supra, but without the benefit of a factual record beyond the
well-pled allegations of the Complaint. See generally. While these
arguments concerning the elements of class certification may be
well-taken, the question presented on a Rule 12(f) motion is not
whether a class will ultimately be certified, which remains an
uphill battle for Plaintiff, but instead whether Plaintiff could
ever proceed with her claims on a classwide basis. On the instant
Complaint, which pleads a plausible claim for class relief, the
Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff is foreclosed from proceeding
on a classwide basis. Therefore, Defendant's request to strike the
class allegations under Rule 12(f) is denied.

Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to dismiss or to strike the
class allegations in the Complaint is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 1, 2019 Memorandum
and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3du8zzv from
Leagle.com.

Patricia Mcintyre, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Lefebvre, 2
Dexter St, Pawtucket, Rhode Island 02860, James A. Francis --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C., pro hac
vice & John Soumilas -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS &
MAILMAN, P.C., pro hac vice.

RentGrow Inc., doing business as Yardi Resident Screening,
Defendant, represented by Elizabeth M. Nagle, Nixon Peabody LLP &
Matthew J. Frankel, Nixon Peabody LLP, 100 Summer Street; Boston,
MA.


RIBBON COMMUNICATIONS: Response in Miller Complaint Due Aug. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ribbon Communications Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that defendants' response to
the Miller complaint is due on or before August 30, 2019.

On November 8, 2018, Ron Miller, a purported stockholder of the
company, filed a Class Action Complaint (the "Miller Complaint") in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(the "Massachusetts District Court") against the company and three
of its former officers, Raymond P. Dolan, Mark T. Greenquist and
Michael Swade (collectively, the "Defendants"), claiming to
represent a class of purchasers of Sonus common stock during the
period from January 8, 2015 through March 24, 2015 and alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.

Similar to a previous complaint entitled Sousa et al. vs. Sonus
Networks, Inc. et al., which was dismissed with prejudice by an
order dated June 6, 2017, the Miller Complaint claims that the
Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning
Sonus' expected fiscal first quarter of 2015 financial performance,
which statements were also the subject of an August 7, 2018
Securities and Exchange Commission Cease and Desist Order, whose
findings the company neither admitted nor denied. The Miller
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages.

After the Miller Complaint was filed, several parties filed and
briefed motions seeking to be selected by the Massachusetts
District Court to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the action.

On June 21, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court appointed a
group as Lead Plaintiffs and the Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on July 19, 2019. The defendants are expected to respond
on or before August 30, 2019.

Ribbon Communications Inc. provides networked solutions in the
United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Japan, other Asia
Pacific, and internationally. The company was formerly known as
Sonus Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Ribbon Communications
Inc. in November 2017. Ribbon Communications Inc. was founded in
1997 and is headquartered in Westford, Massachusetts.


ROSEBOX, LLC: Mal Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------
YOGEV MAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ROSEBOX, LLC, a New York Limited
Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-23279-CMA (S.D.
Fla., Aug. 8, 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 an online floral retailer.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class are:

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

               - and -

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

SABRE CORP: Air Fare Prices Suit Proceeds on Individual Basis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the litigation over
airline ticket prices is now proceeding on an individual basis
only.

In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the
company and two other Sabre global distribution system (GDSs), in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a putative
class of consumers in various states, are generally alleging that
the GDSs conspired to negotiate for full content from the airlines,
resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of
various federal and state laws.

The plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages in
connection with their state law claims, and they requested
injunctive relief in connection with their federal claim.

In July 2016, the court granted, in part, the company's  motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, finding that plaintiffs' state law claims are
preempted by federal law, thereby precluding their claims for
damages.

The court declined to dismiss plaintiffs' claim seeking an
injunction under federal antitrust law. The plaintiffs may appeal
the court's dismissal of their state law claims upon a final
judgment.

In August 2018, the plaintiffs sought leave from the court to
withdraw their motion for class certification. In October 2018, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification with
prejudice.

The case is now proceeding on an individual basis only.

Sabre said, "We believe that the losses associated with this case
are neither probable nor estimable and therefore have not accrued
any losses as of June 30, 2019. We may incur significant fees,
costs and expenses for as long as this litigation is ongoing. We
intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims."

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

Sabre Corporation, through its subsidiary, Sabre Holdings
Corporation, provides technology solutions to the travel and
tourism industry worldwide. It operates in three segments: Travel
Network, Airline Solutions, and Hospitality Solutions. The company
was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Southlake, Texas.


SANTA MARIA NOVELLA: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Santa Maria Novella
NY Retail Corp. The case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Santa Maria
Novella NY Retail Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07422-VEC
(S.D. N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019).

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

Santa Maria Novella is a luxe Italian beauty, skincare and
fragrance brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


SCIPLAY CORPORATION: Fife Class Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
SciPlay Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Scientific Games Corp.
continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Fife v.
Scientific Games Corp.

On April 17, 2018, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint, Fife v. Scientific Games Corp., against the company's
Parent, in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all persons in
the State of Washington who purchased and allegedly lost virtual
coins playing the company's Parent's online social casino games,
including but not limited to Jackpot Party Casino and Gold Fish
Casino.

The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of Washington's
Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act, Washington's consumer
protection statute, and for unjust enrichment, and seeks
unspecified money damages (including treble damages as
appropriate), the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
pre‑ and post‑judgment interest, and injunctive and/or
declaratory relief.

On July 2, 2018, the company's Parent filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, which the trial court denied
on December 18, 2018. The company's Parent filed its answer to the
putative class action complaint on January 18, 2019.

SciPlay said, "We are currently unable to determine the likelihood
of an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss.
Although the case was brought against Scientific Games, pursuant to
the Intercompany Services Agreement, we would expect to cover or
contribute to any damage awards due to the matter arising as a
result of our business."

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

SciPlay Corporation develops and publishes digital games on mobile
and Web platforms. The company offers seven games, which include
social casino games, such as Jackpot Party Casino, Gold Fish
Casino, Hot Shot Casino, and Quick Hit Slots, as well as casual
games comprising MONOPOLY Slots, Bingo Showdown, and 88 Fortunes
Slots. The company was formerly known as SG Social Games
Corporation and changed its name to SciPlay Corporation in March
2019. SciPlay Corporation was founded in 1997 and is based in Las
Vegas, Nevada. SciPlay Corporation is a subsidiary of Scientific
Games Corporation.


SILVER STAR: Court Denies Approval of Rivera Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order denying Parties' Motion for
Approval of Settlement Agreement in the case captioned ROMERO
RIVERA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SILVER STAR CLEANERS, INC., et al.,
Defendants. No. 18. Civ. 4427 (PAC). (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiff was employed as a general dry-cleaning worker at
Silverstar Cleaners and alleges the Defendants required her and
other employees to work in excess of forty hours per week without
providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by
federal and state law and regulations. The Plaintiff also alleges
the Defendants violated the wage statement and notice and
record-keeping provisions of New York Labor Law (NYLL). Rivera
brings this action on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and for violations of the NYLL,
including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

Proposed Settlement Sum

The proposed settlement agreement holds the Defendants responsible
for monetary payments to Rivera in the gross sum of $24,000.  The
Defendants further agree to enter a Judgment on consent in the
amount of $91,000 pursuant to the Plaintiff's retainer agreement
with counsel, one-third of the total $24,000 payment (or $8,160.00)
will go to Plaintiff's attorney. The remaining two-thirds (or
$15,840.00) will go to Plaintiff Rivera herself as a full and
complete settlement and final satisfaction of Plaintiff's claims
and potential claims against Defendants.

Plaintiff estimates that if she had recovered in full for her
claims, exclusive of attorney's fees, she would be entitled to
approximately $91,148.00. The proposed settlement sum is 26.3% of
Plaintiff's original estimated recovery (($24,000.00/$91,148.00) ×
100 = 26.3%). This amount is reflective of the risks associated
with continued litigation and the possibility of proceeding to
trial, a very real likelihood on the facts of this case. This is
supported by the procedural history.  

In light of facts and circumstances described above, the Court
finds the proposed settlement sum to be both fair and reasonable.

Plaintiff's Attorney's Fees

Plaintiff's counsel asks this Court to approve attorney's fees in
the amount of $8,160.00, or one-third of the total $24,000.00
settlement amount. The Second Circuit has routinely held that a
one-third compensation structure is reasonable.  

Plaintiff, however, failed to submit billing records, therefore
stripping the Court of any meaningful method to evaluate the
reasonableness of the hours, rates, and performance of Plaintiff's
counsel.  

In order for the Court to approve attorney's fees, counsel must
provide accurate documentation reflecting the billing hours spent
representing Plaintiff in this action. Until proper documentation
is provided, the Court declines to approve the settlement.

The Release and Covenant Not to Sue Language Is Too Broad to be
Fair and Reasonable

The Agreement's language pertaining to the release and covenant not
to sue is too broad to constitute a fair and reasonable settlement
of the claims. The current release bars Plaintiff from bringing any
type of claim against Defendants so long as it arises from conduct
that occurred prior to the Agreement's Effective Date,
notwithstanding its relevance to the claims in this litigation.  

When presented with a FLSA case, the Court has an obligation to
police unequal bargaining power between employees and employers,
and such broad releases are doubly problematic.

The release in the Agreement is too broad to approve. The parties
are instructed to narrow the proposed language of the release
provision to solely include claims for conduct that arises out of
the identical factual predicate as the settled conduct.

Confidentiality Clause

Paragraph 13 of the Agreement refers to the agreement as a
Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release. A
non-disclosure agreement in an FLSA settlement, even when the
settlement papers are publicly available on the Court's docket, is
'contrary to well-established public policy' because it inhibits
one of the FLSA's primary goals to ensure 'that all workers are
aware of their rights.' To the extent this reference to
confidentiality was purposely included, it must be stricken.

Judgment on Consent

The Court also declines to approve the judgment on consent to the
proposed settlement agreement. By entering into the Agreement,
Plaintiff Rivera is provided with a legal remedy to ensure payment
of the proposed settlement sum. The Agreement is an enforceable
contract, and as such, the judgment on consent is an unnecessary,
duplicative measure taken by the parties to ensure payment of the
proposed settlement sum.

Furthermore, the judgment would erroneously entitle Plaintiff
Rivera to $91,000.00 when, in fact, she is only entitled to the
proposed settlement sum of $24,000.00. Accordingly, the judgment on
consent must be stricken from the Agreement.

The attorney's fees, release and covenant not to sue clause,
confidentiality provision of the Agreement, and the judgment on
consent are objectionable. The request to approve the proposed
Agreement is denied without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 1, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4gu6n28 from
Leagle.com.

Maria Nieves Romero Rivera, individually & Maria Nieves Romero
Rivera, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
represented by Jesse S. Barton -- jbarton@faillacelaw.com --
Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.,Yolanda Rivero --
yolandarivero@faillacelaw.com -- Michael Faillace & Associates,
P.C. & Michael Antonio Faillace, Michael Faillace & Associates,
P.C.,  60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510, New York, New York 10165

Silver Star Cleaners Inc., doing business as Silverstar Cleaners,
Hyung Nam Jo, also known as Mr. Willy, Mee S Lim, also known as Mee
S Jo, Han S Kim & Ok Im Kim, Defendants, represented by Diane
Hwakyung Lee, The Law Offices of Diane H. Lee,158 Linwood Drive,
308, Fort Lee, NJ 07024 & Sungchan Cho, Ryu & Ryu, Plc., 162nd
Street Flushing, NY 11358.


SONDER USA: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonder USA Inc. The
case is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Sonder USA Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:19-cv-07425 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019).

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

Sonder Corp. provides lodging services. The Company offers home
rental services for travelers. Sonder serves customers in North
America and Europe.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal


SOTHEBY'S: Stevens Challenges BidFair Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP STEVENS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. SOTHEBY'S, DOMENICO DE SOLE, PEREGRINE
CAVENDISH, THOMAS S. SMITH, JR., WING LAM CHEUNG, DENNIS M.
WEIBLING, JESSICA M. BIBLIOWICZ, MICHAEL J. WOLF, DANIEL S. LOEB,
KEVIN C. CONROY, MARSHA E. SIMMS, DIANA LANCASTER TAYLOR, and HARRY
J. WILSON, JR., the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07198 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 1, 2019), alleges that Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with
the proposed merger between Sotheby's and BidFair USA LLC. The
action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and the other public holders of the common stock of
Sotheby's against the Company and the members of the Company's
board of directors.

On June 16, 2019, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive $57.00 in cash for each share of
Sotheby's stock they own.

On July 12, 2019, in order to convince Sotheby's shareholders to
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the
filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A
Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The materially incomplete and misleading Proxy
violates both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which
constitutes a violation of Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the
Company's shareholders in the Proxy, Defendants have failed to
disclose certain material information that is necessary for
shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and
rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and
misleading.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections
for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by
Defendants in recommending that Sotheby's shareholders vote in
favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain
valuation analyses conducted by Sotheby's financial advisor,
LionTree Advisors LLC in support of its opinion that the Merger
Consideration is fair to shareholders on which the Board relied.

It is imperative that the material information that has been
omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote
to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision
regarding the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding the
shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any steps
to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the
material information discussed below is disclosed to Sotheby's
shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed
Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from Defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff are:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26 th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                 jwilson@faruqilaw.com

SOUTH DAKOTA: Court Dismisses Inmates' Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota,
Southern Division issued an Order dismissing the Pro Se Class
Complaint in the case captioned JOSEPH R. FLYING HORSE, Plaintiff,
v. JAMES HANSEN, DOC PAROLE AGENT, SUED IN HIS OFFICIAL AND
INDIVDUAL CAPACITIES; DOUG CLARK, DOC SUPERVISING PAROLE AGENT,
SUED IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVDUAL CAPACITIES; KRISTA BAST, SDSP
CASE MANAGER, SUED IN HER OFFICIAL AND INDIVDUAL CAPACITIES; SETH
HUGHES, SDSP UNIT COORDINATOR, SUED IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVDUAL
CAPACITIES; DARIN YOUNG, SDSP WARDEN, OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA STATE
PENITENTIARY, SUED IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVDUAL CAPACITIES; DENNY
KAEMINGK, DOC SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS, SUED IN HIS OFFICIAL AND
INDIVDUAL CAPACITIES; MIRANDA WARD, SDSP CASE MANAGER SUED IN HER
OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; RILEY DEGROOT, SDSP CASE
MANAGER SUED IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; TROY PONTO,
SDSP ASSOCIATE WARDEN, SUED IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITIES; DARIK BEIBER, SDSP UNIT MANAGER, SUED IN HIS OFFICIAL
AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; VAL MCGOVERN, BOARD STAFF, SUED IN HER
OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; STACY COLE, BOARD STAFF SUED,
IN HER OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; KAYLA STUCKY, BOARD
STAFF, SUED IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; ASHLEY
MCDONALD, DOC ATTORNEY, SUED IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITIES; SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SOUTH DAKOTA
BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES, MARK SMITH, JENNIFER ARGUETA, MARY
BURGGRAAF, CATHY SOLMA, KAY NIKOLAS, KENNETH ALBERS, PAIGE WILBUR
BOCK, REVEREND PATRICIA WHITE HORSE-CARDS, TIM GROSS, JC SMITH,
AMBER STEVENS, DA FITZHUGH, MELISSA MATURAN, HUNTER SUMMERS,
Defendants. No. 4:16-CV-04119-KES (D.S.D.)

Defendants now move for summary judgment based on qualified
immunity.

Plaintiff, Joseph R. Flying Horse, was an inmate at the South
Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls. Flying Horse was arrested
and charged in Pennington County for unauthorized possession of a
controlled drug or substance. Because Flying Horse was on parole at
the time of the arrest, Parole Officer James Hansen placed a parole
hold on Flying Horse. Flying Horse's case manager asked Flying
Horse to sign documents agreeing to a transfer to the Community
Transition Progra. The case manager also asked Flying Horse to sign
a 30-day extended detainer. Flying Horse refused to sign both. Id.
As a result, Clark approved an additional 30-day extended detainer
without Flying Horse's signature.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment on all or part of a claim is appropriate when the
movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The
moving party can meet its burden by presenting evidence that there
is no dispute of material fact or that the nonmoving party has not
presented evidence to support an element of its case on which it
bears the ultimate burden of proof.  

Motion to Add Plaintiffs and Certify Class Action

Flying Horse moves to join additional plaintiffs and to certify a
class action. Flying Horse seeks to add Kenneth Hauge and Justin
Brown as plaintiffs. Rule 19(a) provides that parties should be
joined to an action (1) if complete relief cannot be accorded among
all the parties (2) if failure to join the party may impair or
impede that party's ability to protect an interest that is the
subject of the lawsuit or (3) if an existing party in the lawsuit
may be subjected to a substantial risk of double, multiple, or
inconsistent obligations should the party not be joined.  

Flying Horse fails to show how a judgment issued without Hauge or
Brown might prejudice them. Nothing prevents Hauge or Brown from
pursuing their own claims. Thus, the court denies Flying Horse's
motion to add plaintiffs.

To bring a class action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
a plaintiff must meet both the general prerequisites for class
actions in Rule 23(a) as well as the requirements for at least one
of the subdivisions of Rule 23(b).  

To receive class certification under Rule 23, a movant must
demonstrate the following: (1) the class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of
law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class.

Flying Horse's motion for class certification does not demonstrate
that there are other members of the class who have the same or
similar grievances as the plaintiff. Flying Horse has failed to
satisfy two of the four prerequisites to class certification. Thus,
the court denies Flying Horse's motion for certification of a
class.

Qualified Immunity

The Defendants, in their individual capacity, move for summary
judgment based on qualified immunity.  To show a prima facie case
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, Flying Horse must show that (1)
defendants acted under color of state law and (2) the alleged
wrongful conduct deprived him of a constitutionally protected
federal right.

To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified
immunity the court asks (1) whether the facts alleged, viewed in
the light most favorable to plaintiff, demonstrate the official's
conduct violated a constitutional right and (2) whether the
constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the
alleged misconduct.
  
Unlawful Detainment

A parolee has a liberty interest in his conditional freedom that is
within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found
that Flying Horse stated a claim for money damages under the
Fourteenth Amendment when he alleged that defendants detained him
for a period of time without a parole detainer, without pending
criminal charges, and without revoking his parole.
  
The undisputed facts show that Flying Horse was never detained
without pending criminal charges, a parole detainer, or report of
parole violation. Flying Horse was taken into custody under
criminal charges on May 17, 2016. Then, from June 1 until September
15, Flying Horse was held on successive parole detainers. This
includes the time from August 11, 2016 to September 13, 2016 when
Flying Horse was held on parole detainers because he refused
transfer to the CTP.  

Flying Horse failed to show how defendants violate his Fourteenth
Amendment rights when they detained him from June 1, 2016 until
September 15, 2016. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity
on Flying Horse's Fourteenth Amendment claim.

Retaliation

To establish a retaliation claim, Flying Horse must show (1) he
engaged in a protected activity, (2) the government official took
adverse action against him that would chill a person of ordinary
firmness from continuing in the activity and (3) the adverse action
was motivated at least in part by the exercise of the protected
activity.

In order to succeed on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show
that the adverse action taken against him was motivated at least in
part by his protected activity.  

Flying Horse alleges that defendants retaliated against him for
defending himself from the May 17, 2016 criminal charges by
manipulating the parole detainers against him. It is undisputed
that defendants initially detained Flying Horse because defendants
believed that the Pennington County States Attorney's office
intended to recharge him. And when defendants learned that
Pennington County was not going to recharge Flying Horse,
defendants offered Flying Horse a parole plan that would move
Flying Horse to the CTP.  

Flying Horse, however, refused to consent to plan. Id. From that
point, the reason Flying Horse was not released was because Flying
Horse did not have an approved parole plan. Id. Flying Horse offers
no evidence of retaliatory motive. Defendants are entitled to
qualified immunity on Flying Horse's retaliation claim.

Official Capacity Claims

Flying Horse sued all defendants in their official capacity under
42 U.S.C. Section 1983. As the Supreme Court has stated, a suit
against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a
suit against the official but rather is a suit against the
official's office.

Here, as Flying Horse's requested remedy, he seeks to recover money
damages. Because Flying Horse sued defendants in their official
capacity, Flying Horse has asserted a claim for money damages
against the state of South Dakota. South Dakota has not waived its
sovereign immunity. Thus, the court finds that defendants are
protected by sovereign immunity. Defendants motion for summary
judgment is granted as to Flying Horse's official capacity claims
for damages.

Absolute Immunity

Flying Horse names the South Dakota Board of Pardons and Paroles
(Board) and South Dakota Department of Corrections (DOC) as
defendants. The Supreme Court has explained that Congress, in
passing 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, did not abrogate states' Eleventh
Amendment immunity from suit in federal court. Thus, Flying Horse's
claims against the DOC and the Board, which are state entities, are
barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 1, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yy96hgsc from Leagle.com.

Joseph R. Flying Horse, Plaintiff, pro se.

James Hansen, DOC Parole Agent, Sued in his Official and Indivdual
Capacities, Doug Clark, DOC Supervising Parole Agent, Sued in his
Official and Indivdual Capacities, Krista Bast, SDSP Case Manager,
Sued in her Official and Indivdual Capacities, Seth Hughes, SDSP
Unit Coordinator, Sued in his Official and Indivdual Capacities,
Darin Young, SDSP Warden, of the South Dakota State Penitentiary,
Sued in his Official and Indivdual Capacities, Denny Kaemingk, DOC
Secretary of Corrections, Sued in his Official and Indivdual
Capacities, Miranda Ward, SDSP Case Manager, Sued in her Official
and Individual Capacities, Riley DeGroot, SDSP Case Manager, Sued
in his Official and Individual Capacities, Troy Ponto, SDSP
Associate Warden, Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities,
Darik Beiber, SDSP Unit Manager, Sued in his Official and
Individual Capacities, Val McGovern, Board Staff, Sued in her
Official and Individual Capacities, Stacy Cole, Board Staff Sued,
in her Official and Individual Capacities, Kayla Stucky, Board
Staff, Sued in his Official and Individual Capacities, Ashley
McDonald, DOC Attorney, Sued in his Official and Individual
Capacities, South Dakota Department of Corrections, South Dakota
Board of Pardons and Paroles, Mark Smith, Kay Nikolas, Kenneth
Albers, Paige Wilbur Bock, Reverend Patricia White Horse-Cards, Tim
Gross, JC Smith, Amber Stevens, DA Fitzhugh, Melissa Maturan &
Hunter Summers, Defendants, represented by Jeffery J. Tronvold ,
Attorney General of South Dakota.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Phishing Scam Related Suits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company
continues to defend class action suits related to "Phishing" Scam.

In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two in the federal
courts of California, one in the Superior Court of California and
one in the federal court in the District of Colorado, each on
behalf of a purported class of the company's current and former
team members whose personally identifiable information ("PII") was
inadvertently disclosed to an unauthorized third party that
perpetrated an email "phishing" scam against one of the company's
team members.

The complaints allege that the company failed to properly safeguard
the PII in accordance with applicable law. The complaints seek
damages on behalf of the purported class in unspecified amounts,
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

In June 2016, a motion was filed before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to transfer and consolidate all
four of the cases to the federal court in the District of Arizona.


The JPML granted the motion on October 6, 2016. On May 24, 2017,
the JPML granted the company's motion to stay proceedings in the
case pending a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the question of whether
arbitration agreements like those signed by each of the named
plaintiffs are enforceable.

On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Epic
Systems Corp. v. Lewis and upheld enforceability of arbitration
agreements containing class action waivers, like the ones the named
plaintiffs signed in this matter.

On March 1, 2019, a number of individual plaintiffs filed
arbitration demands. On May 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a second
amended class action complaint in the District of Arizona.

The second amended complaint alleges that certain subclasses of
team members are not subject to the company's arbitration agreement
and attempts to pursue those team members' claims in federal court.


Sprouts Farmers said, "We intend to defend both the federal class
action and the arbitrations vigorously, but it is not possible at
this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any potential
liability from, the cases."

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides
fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its
stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods,
packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and
dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body
care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded
in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Securities Class Suit in Arizona Concluded
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the settlement
agreement in a securities class action has been approved by the
court and the complaint has been subsequently dismissed.

On March 4, 2016, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of Arizona against the company and certain of its
directors and officers on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of shares of the company's common stock in its underwritten
secondary public offering which closed on March 10, 2015 (the
"March 2015 Offering").

The complaint purports to state claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on an alleged
failure by our company to disclose adequate information about
produce price deflation in the March 2015 Offering documents.

The complaint seeks damages on behalf of the purported class in an
unspecified amount, rescission, and an award of reasonable costs
and attorneys' fees. After removal to federal court, the plaintiff
sought remand, which the court granted in March 2017.  

On May 25, 2017, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss in the
Superior Court for the State of Arizona, which the court granted in
part and denied in part by order entered August 30, 2017.

On August 4, 2018, the company reached an agreement in principle to
settle these claims. The parties' settlement agreement was approved
by the court on May 31, 2019 and the complaint was subsequently
dismissed.

Sprouts Farmers said, "The settlement was funded from our directors
and officers liability insurance policy and did not have a material
impact on our consolidated financial statements."

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., a healthy grocery store, provides
fresh, natural, and organic food products in the United States. Its
stores offer fresh produce, meat and seafood, deli and baked goods,
packaged groceries, vitamins and supplements, bulk foods, dairy and
dairy alternatives, frozen foods, beer and wine, and natural body
care and household items. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. was founded
in 2002 and is based in Phoenix, Arizona.


TD AMERITRADE: Briefing on Appeal in Ford Class Suit Completed
--------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that briefing
on the appeal in the case, Roderick Ford (replacing Gerald Klein)
v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., is complete.

In 2014, five putative class action complaints were filed regarding
TD Ameritrade, Inc.'s routing of client orders and one putative
class action was filed regarding Scottrade, Inc.'s routing of
client orders.

Five of the six cases were dismissed and the United States Court of
Appeals, 8th Circuit, affirmed the dismissals in those cases that
were appealed.

The one remaining case is Roderick Ford (replacing Gerald Klein) v.
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14CV396 (U.S.
District Court, District of Nebraska).

In the remaining case, plaintiff alleges that, when routing client
orders to various market centers, defendants did not seek best
execution, and instead routed clients' orders to market venues that
paid TD Ameritrade, Inc. the most money for order flow.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants made misrepresentations and
omissions regarding the Company's order routing practices.

The complaint asserts claims of violations of Section 10(b) and 20
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint seeks
damages, injunctive relief, and other relief. Plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification, which defendants opposed.

On July 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a
recommendation that plaintiff's motion for class certification be
denied. Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendation, which defendants opposed.

On September 14, 2018, the District Judge sustained plaintiff's
objections, rejected the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and
granted plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On September 28, 2018, defendants filed a petition requesting that
the U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, grant an immediate appeal
of the District Court's class certification decision.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, granted defendants'
petition on December 18, 2018. Briefing on the appeal is complete.


The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce have filed amicus curiae briefs in support
of the Company's appeal.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this lawsuit and
is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the ultimate
resolution of the lawsuit, or the potential loss, if any, that may
result.

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

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors and
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides its
services primarily through the Internet, a network of retail
branches, mobile trading applications, interactive voice response,
and registered representatives through telephone. The company was
founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


TD AMERITRADE: Settlement Hearing in Ciuffitelli Set for Nov. 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1,
2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that a district
judge has preliminarily approved the class settlements and
scheduled a settlement hearing for November 26, 2019.

An amended putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon in Lawrence Ciuffitelli
et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin
LLP, Tonkon Torp LLP, TD Ameritrade, Inc., and Integrity Bank &
Trust, Case No. 3:16CV580, on May 19, 2016.

A second amended putative class action complaint was filed on
September 8, 2017, in which Duff & Phelps was added as a defendant.


The putative class includes all persons who purchased securities of
Aequitas Commercial Finance, LLC and its affiliates on or after
June 9, 2010.

Other groups of plaintiffs have filed non-class action lawsuits in
Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County, against these and other
defendants: Walter Wurster, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al.,
Case No. 16CV25920 (filed Aug. 11, 2016), Kenneth Pommier, et al.
v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 16CV36439 (filed Nov. 3,
2016), Charles Ramsdell, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case
No. 16CV40659 (filed Dec. 2, 2016), Charles Layton, et al. v.
Deloitte & Touche et al., Case No. 17CV42915 (filed October 2,
2017) and John Cavanagh, et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al., Case
No. 18CV09052 (filed March 7, 2018).

FINRA arbitrations have also been filed against TD Ameritrade, Inc.
The claims in these actions include allegations that the sales of
Aequitas securities were unlawful, the defendants participated and
materially aided in such sales in violation of the Oregon
securities laws, and material misstatements and omissions were
made.

While the factual allegations differ in various respects among the
cases, plaintiffs' allegations include assertions that: TD
Ameritrade, Inc. customers purchased more than $140 million of
Aequitas securities; TD Ameritrade, Inc. served as custodian for
Aequitas securities; recommended and referred investors to
financial advisors as part of its advisor referral program for the
purpose of purchasing Aequitas securities; participated in
marketing the securities; recommended the securities; provided
assurances to investors about the safety of the securities; and
developed a market for the securities. In the Ciuffitelli putative
class action, plaintiffs allege that more than 1,500 investors were
owed more than $600 million on the Aequitas securities they
purchased.

On August 1, 2018, the Magistrate Judge in that case issued
findings and a recommendation that defendants' motions to dismiss
the pending complaint be denied with limited exceptions not
applicable to the Company. TD Ameritrade, Inc. and other defendants
filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and
recommendation, which plaintiffs opposed.

On September 24, 2018, the District Judge issued an opinion and
order adopting the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendation.


In the non-class action lawsuits, approximately 200 named
plaintiffs collectively allege a total of approximately $150
million in losses plus other damages.

In the Wurster and Pommier cases, the Court, on TD Ameritrade
Inc.'s motion, dismissed the claims by those plaintiffs who were TD
Ameritrade, Inc. customers, in favor of arbitration. Twenty-nine of
those plaintiffs filed claims in a FINRA arbitration on March 13,
2019.

The Court in the Wurster and Pommier cases denied TD Ameritrade's
motion to dismiss the claims by the plaintiffs who were not TD
Ameritrade customers. Plaintiffs in the Ramsdell case have filed a
second amended complaint in which TD Ameritrade, Inc. is not named
as a defendant.

On September 24, 2018, plaintiffs in the Cavanagh case dismissed
their claims against TD Ameritrade, Inc.

In May 2019, TD Ameritrade settled all of the pending non-class
action claims for an immaterial amount paid by its insurers.

Plaintiffs and defendants Tonkon Torp and Integrity Bank entered
into agreements to settle the claims in the Ciuffitelli case on a
class basis for an aggregate amount of $14.6 million subject to
Court approval.

Following a mediation, on July 9, 2019, plaintiffs and the
remaining defendants in the Ciuffitelli case reached an agreement
to settle the claims on a class basis for $220 million subject to
Court approval.

If the Court approves the settlement, TD Ameritrade will contribute
$20 million and its insurers $12 million of the aggregate
settlement amount.

On July 15, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and a
recommendation that the District Judge preliminarily approve the
class settlements, and scheduled a settlement hearing for November
26, 2019.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome or the timing of the
ultimate resolution of this litigation, or the potential losses, if
any, that may result.

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides securities brokerage and
related technology-based financial services to retail investors and
traders, and independent registered investment advisors (RIAs) in
the United States. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation provides its
services primarily through the Internet, a network of retail
branches, mobile trading applications, interactive voice response,
and registered representatives through telephone. The company was
founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.


TEXAS: 5th Cir. Revises Ruling on Brown Consent Decree
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOBBY R. BROWN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, WILLIAM E. SCOTT,
Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee, TYRONE DAY; KENNETH HICKMAN; R.
WAYNE JOHNSON; TORRANCE FLEMINGS; KENNETH PRYOR; JULIAN A. RANDALL;
LONNIE DEAN COLLINS; LAMONT EDWARD WILSON, Intervenor
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BRYAN COLLIER, Executive Director of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Defendant-Appellant. BOBBY R.
BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, TYRONE DAY; KENNETH HICKMAN; R. WAYNE JOHNSON;
TORRANCE FLEMINGS; KENNETH PRYOR; JULIAN A. RANDALL; LONNIE DEAN
COLLINS; LAMONT EDWARD WILSON, Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
BRYAN COLLIER, Executive Director of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 14-20249,
Consolidated With Case No. 14-20444 (5th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's (i)
denial of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ")'s
motion to terminate the consent decree, and (ii) award of
attorneys' fees to Brown and the Inmate Intervenors.

Pursuant to a provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act
("PLRA"), TDCJ seeks to terminate a consent decree entered in 1977,
which exempts Muslim inmates from the requirement that all
religious gatherings and activities in Texas state prisons attended
by more than four inmates must be directly supervised by either
prison staff or a prison-approved outside volunteer.  The district
court denied the motion in part, concluding that a portion of the
consent decree remains necessary to correct current and ongoing
violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act ("RLUIPA"), the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment,
and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

More than 40 years ago, Brown, a Muslim, initiated a class action
against the executive director of TDCJ that resulted in the 1977
consent decree.  That decree required TDCJ to make an exception for
Muslim inmates to a policy that otherwise applied to those
attending religious activities.  TDCJ's rules and policies have
required religious worship services or study gatherings attended by
more than four inmates to be "directly" supervised by either prison
staff, which would include a chaplain employed by TDCJ, or a
prison-approved outside volunteer.  

The 1977 consent decree afforded Muslim inmates the right to
participate in group religious services and studies that were
"indirectly" supervised if no prison staff member or outside
volunteer was available for direct supervision.  Indirect
supervision means that a prison staff member is in the vicinity and
observes the religious gathering intermittently, through windows or
by the use of audio or video equipment, but does not remain present
in the room or area where the activity is occurring.

However, members of other faiths were not permitted to gather as
frequently due to the lack of civilian volunteers.  William Scott,
a Jehovah's Witness, sued the director of TDCJ in federal district
court in 2009, seeking an injunction ordering prison officials to
allow him and other members of the Jehovah's Witness faith to meet
without volunteers, just as Muslims were permitted to do as a
result of the consent decree.  

The district court's 2012 opinion and order in the Scott suit
reflected that there were 217 offender faith preferences
represented in the TDCJ system, and 59 designated faith groups at
the Huntsville Unit, where Scott had been confined for a period of
time.  The district court held in Scott that the Establishment
Clause requires "denominational neutrality," its "prohibition
against preferential treatment of religion is 'absolute,'" and that
Muslim inmates "are preferred to Jehovah's Witnesses with respect
to the volunteer policy.  

The district court concluded if alternative means exist to treat
Muslim and Jehovah's Witness prisoners without favoritism, then the
Establishment Clause demands them.  It concluded that injunctive
relief based on the Establishment Clause violation was warranted
but did not enter an injunction at that time.  It instead ordered
the Executive Director of TDCJ "to propose a method of compliance"
within 60 days.  The district court's opinion in Scott observed
that "if Muslims regularly engage in communal worship without an
approved religious volunteer present, evidence exists that the
government's rule against Jehovah's Witnesses' meetings is not
closely fitted to the government's compelling interest in enforcing
the Brown consent decree.

In the Scott litigation, Scott had also requested injunctive relief
under RLUIPA.  The district denied that request.  

TDCJ responded to the district court's decision in Scott by
promulgating Administrative Directive AD-07.30 (rev. 7) (June 30,
2014), which the parties refer to as the "Scott Plan."  Under the
Scott Plan, all religious gatherings of more than four inmates
require direct supervision, including worship and studies by more
than four Muslim inmates.  The Scott Plan conflicts with the 1977
consent decree that permitted Muslim inmates to congregate with
only indirect supervision.  Under the Scott Plan, each religious
group is permitted to have a group worship service for one hour per
week that is directly supervised by prison staff.  Additional group
religious activities are permitted if supervised by an outside,
authorized volunteer.

In the present case, and as a result of the district court's
conclusion in the Scott case that TDCJ had violated the
Establishment clause by preferring adherents to the Religion of
Islam over the Jehovah's Witness faith group, TDCJ moved to
terminate the 1977 Brown consent decree pursuant to the PLRA.
Pursuant to provisions of the PLRA, TDCJ's motion operated as an
automatic stay of the 1977 Brown consent decree, allowing TDCJ to
implement the Scott Plan pending further proceedings in the
district court.  Accordingly, the direct supervision requirement
for all religious groups in TDCJ prisons, including members of the
Religion of Islam, went into effect in 2013.

After the implementation of the Scott Plan, Muslim inmates may
attend a weekly, one-hour Jumu'ah service directly supervised by
TDCJ chaplains or employees, but opportunities for Muslim prisoners
to participate in other communal worship or studies diminished due
to a dearth of Muslim volunteers from outside the prison system.
Protestant and Catholic prisoners, by contrast, maintained the
ability to engage in group worship or study in addition to the
one-hour, weekly service directly supervised by TDCJ-employees
because of a relative abundance of outside volunteers.26

The district court held an evidentiary hearing on TDCJ's motion to
dissolve the 1977 decree.  That decree had 22specific provisions,
20 of which the district court terminated without objection by any
party.  But the district concluded that two provisions were
necessary to correct current and ongoing violations of the federal
Constitution and to give effect to statutory rights of Muslim
inmates, effectively rejecting the Scott Plan as it applies to
Muslim inmates.

One of the two provisions of the 1977 consent decree that the
district court refused to dissolve, found in section III (15) of
the decree, required TDCJ officials to "allow adherents to the
Religion of Islam at each unit of the Texas Department of
Corrections equal time for worship services and other religious
activities each week as is enjoyed by adherents to the Catholic,
Protestant and Jewish faiths.  The other provision that the
district court ordered be left intact is found in section III (8)
of the consent decree, which required TDCJ officials to permit
inmates professing adherence to the Religion of Islam to congregate
for worship, study, and other religious functions and activities
under the supervision of an inmate leader whenever an ordained
Islamic minister is unavailable at a regularly scheduled time for
worship and study.

The district court held that the Scott Plan and its direct
supervision requirement result in violations of three different
federal rights.  Specifically, it held that the Scott Plan (1)
unjustifiably imposes a substantial burden on Muslim inmates'
religious exercise, thereby violating RLUIPA;36 (2) restricts
Islamic religious exercise in violation of the Free Exercise Clause
of the First Amendment;37 and (3) disfavors Islam and favors other
faiths, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Subsequently, the district court awarded attorneys' fees in favor
of Brown and a group of Muslim inmates who intervened in the case
(the Inmate Intervenors) as prevailing parties.

The TDCJ appeals both the district court's denial of its motion to
terminate the consent decree and the award of attorneys' fees.  A
motions panel of the court ordered that the district court's
judgment on the merits be stayed pending appeal.

In sum, the Fifth Circuit holds that the consent decree does not
remain necessary to correct current and ongoing violations of
RLUIPA, the Free Exercise Clause, or the Establishment Clause.
Accordingly, the TDCJ's motion to vacate the consent decree should
have been granted.

The district court also awarded attorneys' fees to Brown and the
Inmate Intervenors as prevailing parties pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1988(b).  However, in light of its conclusion as to the
merits of the TDCJ's motion to vacate the consent decree, Brown and
the Inmate Intervenors are not prevailing parties.  The Court
vacated the award of attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's July 5, 2019 Order is available at
https://is.gd/W64yh4 from Leagle.com.

Gerald Mark Birnberg -- birnberg@wba-law.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Edward A. Mallett -- edward@msblawyers.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Celamaine Cunniff, for Defendant-Appellant.

Kevin Hayden Theriot, for Defendant-Appellant.

Carolyn Frances Corwin -- ccorwin@cov.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Deborah Carleton Milner -- cmilner@velaw.com -- for Intervenor
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Leslie Carol Griffin -- leslie.griffin@unlv.edu -- for Intervenor
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Crystal Robles, for Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee.


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Continues to Defend PERS Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Public Employees' Retirement
Systems of Mississippi v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al. (previously
the Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al.)

On November 16, 2016, a purported TreeHouse shareholder filed a
class action captioned Tarara v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10632, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against TreeHouse and certain of its
officers.

The complaint, amended on March 24, 2017, is purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of TreeHouse common stock from January 20,
2016 through and including November 2, 2016.

It asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks, among other things, damages and costs and expenses.

On December 22, 2016, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Wells v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-16359,
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse
and certain of its officers.

This complaint, purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of
TreeHouse, asserts state law claims against certain officers for
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and corporate waste.

On February 7, 2017, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Lavin v. Reed, Case No. 17-cv-01014, in the
Northern District of Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of its
officers.  

This complaint is also purportedly brought derivatively on behalf
of TreeHouse, and it asserts state law claims against certain
officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste.

On February 8, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder filed
an action captioned Bartelt v. Reed, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-00835, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

This complaint is purportedly brought derivatively on behalf of
TreeHouse and asserts state law claims against certain officers for
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, and corporate waste, in addition to asserting
violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Finally, on June 3, 2019, another purported TreeHouse shareholder
filed an action captioned City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement
System v. Reed, et al., Case No. 2019-CH-06753, in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, against TreeHouse and certain of
its officers.

Like Wells, Lavin, and Bartelt, this complaint is purportedly
brought derivatively on behalf of TreeHouse and asserts claims for
contribution and indemnification, breach of fiduciary duty, and
aiding abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.

All five complaints make substantially similar allegations (though
the amended complaint in Tarara now contains additional detail).

Essentially, the complaints allege that TreeHouse, under the
authority and control of the individual defendants:

(i) made certain false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and future prospects; and

(ii) failed to disclose that (a) the Company's private label
business was underperforming; (b) the Company's Flagstone business
was underperforming; (c) the Company's acquisition strategy was
underperforming; (d) the Company had overstated its full-year 2016
guidance; and (e) TreeHouse's statements lacked reasonable basis.

The complaints allege that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of TreeHouse common stock during the class period,
thus purportedly harming investors.

The Bartelt action also includes substantially similar allegations
concerning events in 2017, and the Ann Arbor complaint also seeks
contribution from the individual defendants for losses incurred by
the company in these litigations.

The company believes that these claims are without merit and intend
to defend against them vigorously.

Since its initial docketing, the Tarara matter has been
re-captioned as Public Employees' Retirement Systems of Mississippi
v. TreeHouse Foods, Inc., et al., in accordance with the Court's
order appointing Public Employees' Retirement Systems of
Mississippi as the lead plaintiff.

On May 26, 2017, the Public Employees' defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court denied on February 12, 2018. On April 12,
2018, the Public Employees' defendants filed their answer to the
amended complaint.  

On April 23, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report with the
Court, which set forth a proposed discovery and briefing schedule
for the Court's consideration.  

On July 13, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a motion to certify the
class, and defendants filed their response in opposition to the
motion to certify the class on October 8, 2018.

On November 12, 2018, the parties filed an agreed motion to stay
proceedings to allow them to explore mediation. The motion was
granted on November 19. The parties thereafter engaged in mediation
but failed to resolve the dispute.

On March 29, 2019, the parties resumed litigation by filing an
agreed motion for extension of time, which was granted on April 9.


Pursuant to that schedule, lead plaintiff filed its reply class
certification brief on May 17, 2019. No hearing on class
certification has been set, and document production must be
substantially completed by August 2, 2019.

Due to the similarity of the complaints, the parties in Wells and
Lavin entered stipulations deferring the litigation until the
earlier of (i) the court in Public Employees' entering an order
resolving defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss therein or (ii)
plaintiffs' counsel receiving notification of a settlement of
Public Employees' or until otherwise agreed to by the parties.  

On September 27, 2018, the parties in Wells and Lavin filed joint
motions for entry of agreed orders further deferring the matters in
light of the Public Employees' Court's denial of the motion to
dismiss in February 2018.  

The Wells and Lavin Courts entered the agreed orders further
deferring the matters on September 27, 2018 and October 10, 2018,
respectively. In Wells, the next status conference is set for
October 8, 2019.

On June 25, 2019, the parties jointly moved to consolidate the
Bartelt matter with Lavin, so that it would be subject to the Lavin
deferral order. This motion was granted on June 27, 2019, and
Bartelt is now consolidated with Lavin and deferred.

There is no set status date in Lavin at this time. In Ann Arbor,
the current deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint is August 9, 2019.

TreeHouse will seek to consolidate this action with Wells so that
it would also be subject to the order currently deferring that
litigation.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Negrete Class Suit v. Ralcorp Holdings Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings,
Inc., et al.

The Company is also party to matters challenging its wage and hour
practices. These matters include a number of class actions
consolidated under the caption Negrete v. Ralcorp Holdings, Inc.,
et al, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, in which the plaintiffs allege a pattern of
violations of California and/or federal law at several current and
former Company manufacturing facilities across the State of
California.

TreeHouse said, "While the Company cannot predict with certainty
the results of this or any other legal proceeding, it does not
expect this matter to have a material adverse effect on its
financial condition, results of operations, or business."

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Seeks Approval of Accord in Suit v. Sturm Foods
----------------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Company is pursuing
court approval of a settlement for all related parties and matters
in a class action suit against the Company's Sturm Foods, Inc.

In 2011, the Company's Sturm Foods, Inc. business was sued in an
action captioned Suchanek et al v. Sturm Foods, Inc. and TreeHouse,
Inc., and the suit was followed by several class action proceedings
in eight states which were consolidated into one case pending in
federal court in East St. Louis, Illinois.

The suit's primary allegation relates to certain purported label
misrepresentations as to the nature of its Grove Square coffee
products.

Without admitting liability or fault, the Company is pursuing court
approval of a settlement for all related parties and matters for an
amount not to exceed $25.0 million.

As a result of these developments, the Company has recognized a
$25.0 million accrual as of June 30, 2019, which represents the
best estimate of liability.

The proposed settlement will likely be finalized by the court in
2019.

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. operates as a food and beverage manufacturer
in the United States, Canada, and Italy. The company operates
through Baked Goods, Beverages, Condiments, Meals, and Snacks
segments. TreeHouse Foods, Inc. was founded in 1862 and is based in
Oak Brook, Illinois.


TWILIO INC: Agreement Reached in Bauman Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the plaintiffs and the Saxe Defendants
have reached a settlement agreement in the case, Jeremy Bauman v.
David Saxe, et al.

On September 1, 2015, Twilio was named as a defendant in a First
Amended Complaint in a putative class action captioned Jeremy
Bauman v. David Saxe, et al. pending in the United States District
Court, District of Nevada relating to the alleged sending of
unsolicited text messages to the plaintiffs and putative class
members.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted, and on
September 20, 2016 the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
with additional allegations that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Nevada Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("NDTPA"), NRS 41.600(2)(e).

On January 10, 2019, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification under the TCPA and denied plaintiff's request to
certify a class under the NDTPA. On February 13, 2019, the court
issued an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss as to
Plaintiffs' TCPA claim and granting dismissal as to Plaintiffs'
NDTPA claim.

On February 22, 2019, the court stayed the case and directed all
parties to mediation, which was conducted on May 15, 2019. On May
17, 2019, the original defendants (the "Saxe Defendants") and the
Company entered an agreement, which among other things, obligates
the Saxe Defendants to fully fund all monetary and non-monetary
aspects of the settlement of the matter and to obtain the dismissal
of the plaintiffs' and the class's claims against the Company with
prejudice.

On May 22, 2019 the plaintiffs and the Saxe Defendants filed a
motion to stay the case noting that they had reached agreement on
the material terms of a settlement and needed additional time to
draft a settlement agreement for submission to the court for review
and approval.

The Company did not oppose that motion. Plaintiffs and the Saxe
Defendants continue to negotiate an agreement for submittal to the
court.

Twilio said, "Based on, among other things, the Company's agreement
with the Saxe Defendants, the Company does not believe a loss is
reasonably possible or estimable."

Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables
developers to build, scale, and operate communications within
software applications in the United States and internationally. The
company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of
application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed
voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications.
Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


TWILIO INC: Feb. 2020 Final Compliance Hearing in Flowers Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 2, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the final compliance hearing in Angela
Flowers v. Twilio Inc., has been scheduled for February 25, 2020.

On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled Angela
Flowers v. Twilio Inc.

The complaint alleges that the Company's products permit the
interception, recording and disclosure of communications at a
customer’s request and are in violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief as
well as monetary damages.

On January 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiff's class certification motion. The
court certified two classes of individuals who, during specified
time periods, allegedly sent or received certain communications
involving the accounts of three of the Company's customers that
were recorded.

Following mediation, on January 7, 2019, the parties signed a long
form settlement agreement, providing for a payment of $10.0 million
into a common fund and injunctive relief involving certain updates
to Twilio's Acceptable Use Policy and customer documentation.

On January 15, 2019, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement, and the parties signed an
amended settlement agreement to conform to the court's order. The
court entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement
on June 17, 2019. A final compliance hearing has been scheduled for
February 25, 2020.

Twilio said, "Given insurance coverage, the Company continues to
estimate its potential liability in the Flowers matter to be $1.7
million and carries this reserved amount in its condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2019."

Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables
developers to build, scale, and operate communications within
software applications in the United States and internationally. The
company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of
application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed
voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications.
Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


UNDER ARMOUR: Bid to Dismiss Maryland Securities Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action suit in Maryland, is still
pending.

On March 23, 2017, three separate securities cases previously filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland (the "Court") were consolidated under the
caption In re Under Armour Securities Litigation, Case No.
17-cv-00388-RDB (the "Consolidated Action").

On August 4, 2017, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action,
North East Scotland Pension Fund, joined by named plaintiff Bucks
County Employees Retirement Fund, filed a consolidated amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint") against the Company, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial
Officers Lawrence Molloy and Brad Dickerson.

The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act") and Section 20(a) control person liability under
the Exchange Act against the officers named in the Amended
Complaint, claiming that the defendants made material misstatements
and omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's growth
and consumer demand for certain of the Company's products.

The class period identified in the Amended Complaint is September
16, 2015 through January 30, 2017. The Amended Complaint also
asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), in connection with the
Company's public offering of senior unsecured notes in June 2016.

The Securities Act claims are asserted against the Company, the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Molloy, the Company's
directors who signed the registration statement pursuant to which
the offering was made and the underwriters that participated in the
offering.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the offering materials utilized
in connection with the offering contained false and/or misleading
statements and omissions regarding, among other things, the
Company's growth and consumer demand for certain of the Company's
products.

On November 9, 2017, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 19, 2018,
the Court dismissed the Securities Act claims with prejudice and
the Exchange Act claims without prejudice.

The lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on November 16,
2018, naming the Company and Mr. Plank as the remaining defendants.
The Company and the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on January
17, 2019, which is still pending with the Court.

The Company continues to believe that the claims asserted in the
Consolidated Action are without merit and intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as
to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this
time to estimate the possible impact of the outcome of this
matter.

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

Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.


UNDER ARMOUR: Suit Over MyFitnessPal Data Breach Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a consumer class action lawsuit related to the company's
MyFitnessPal application and website.

In 2018, an unauthorized third party acquired data associated with
the Company's Connected Fitness users' accounts for the Company's
MyFitnessPal application and website.

A consumer class action lawsuit has been filed against the Company
in connection with this incident, and the Company has received
inquiries regarding the incident from certain government regulators
and agencies.  

The Company does not currently consider these matters to be
material and believes its insurance coverage will provide coverage
should any significant expense arise.

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

Under Armour Inc. designs, develops, markets, and distributes a
range of apparel and accessories using synthetic microfiber
fabrications in the U.S. and internationally. The company was
founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.


VANDA PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend Gordon Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2019, that the company continues to defend a securities class
action suit entitled, Gordon v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.

In February 2019, a securities class action, Gordon v. Vanda
Pharmaceuticals Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York naming the Company and certain of its
officers as defendants.

An amended complaint was filed on July 23, 2019. The amended
complaint, filed on behalf of a purported stockholder of the
Company, asserts claims on behalf of a putative class of all
persons who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities
between November 4, 2015 through February 11, 2019, for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or omissions regarding Fanapt(R),
HETLIOZ(R) and the Company's interactions with the FDA regarding
tradipitant between November 3, 2015 and February 11, 2019.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends
to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Company does not anticipate
that this litigation will have a material adverse effect on its
business, results of operations or financial condition.

Vanda said, "However, this lawsuit is subject to inherent
uncertainties, the actual cost may be significant, and the Company
may not prevail. The Company believes it is entitled to coverage
under its relevant insurance policies, subject to a retention, but
coverage could be denied or prove to be insufficient."

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

Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc., incorporated on November 13, 2002, is a
biopharmaceutical company. The Company is focused on the
development and commercialization of therapies to address unmet
medical needs. The company is based in Washington, D.C.


VHX CORPORATION: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VHX Corporation. The
case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. VHX Corporation doing business as: Tastemade.com, Vimeo, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04575 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019).

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

VHX was a digital distribution platform targeting independent
filmmakers. In May 2016, VHX was acquired by Vimeo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group, P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11217
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


WAYFAIR INC: Massachusetts Securities Class Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Wayfair Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to defend two
securities lawsuits in Massachusetts.

On January 10, 2019 and January 16, 2019, putative securities class
action complaints were filed against the Company and three of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The two complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, relating to
certain prior disclosures of the Company.

Each plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or acquired stock of the Company between August 2, 2018
and October 31, 2018 and seeks damages and other relief based on
allegations that the defendants' conduct affected the value of such
stock.

The Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

Wayfair said, "At this time, based on available information
regarding this litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably
assess the ultimate outcome of these cases or determine an
estimate, or a range of estimates, of potential losses."

Wayfair Inc. (Wayfair), incorporated on August 8, 2014, offers
browsing, merchandising and product discovery for a range of
products from various suppliers. The Company operates through two
segments: U.S. and International. The U.S. segment consists of
amounts earned through product sales through the Company's five
sites in the United States and through sites operated by third
parties in the United States. The company is based in Boston,
Massachusetts.


WESTERN UNION: 10th Cir. Appeal in Smallen Class Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the appeal in Lawrence
Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust et al.
v. The Western Union Company et al., is ongoing.

On February 22, 2017, the Company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and a former
executive officer of the Company were named as defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits, both of which asserted claims
under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange
Commission rule 10b-5 and section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

On May 3, 2017, the two cases were consolidated by the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado under the
caption Lawrence Henry Smallen and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable
Living Trust et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:17-cv-00474-KLM (D. Colo.).

On September 6, 2017, the Court appointed Lawrence Henry Smallen
and Laura Anne Smallen Revocable Living Trust as the lead
plaintiff.

On November 6, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint ("Amended Complaint") that, among other things, added two
other former executive officers as defendants, one of whom
subsequently was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims under section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rule 10b-5 and
section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and alleges that, during the
purported class period of February 24, 2012, through May 2, 2017,
the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to
disclose purported adverse material facts regarding, among other
things, the Company's compliance with AML and anti-fraud
regulations, the status and likely outcome of certain governmental
investigations targeting the Company, the reasons behind the
Company's decisions to make certain regulatory enhancements, and
the Company's premium pricing.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January
16, 2018, and on March 27, 2019, the Court dismissed the action in
its entirety with prejudice and entered final judgment in the
defendants' favor on March 28, 2019.

On April 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On June 24, 2019,
plaintiffs filed their opening brief on appeal.

Plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of one former executive
officer and only appealed the district court's conclusion that the
remaining defendants did not make statements concerning the
Company's compliance programs with the requisite intent.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The Company and
the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in
this matter."

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Class Suit v. Argentina Unit Still Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA"), a company subsidiary,
continues to defend a class action suit in Argentina.

In October 2015, Consumidores Financieros Asociacion Civil para su
Defensa, an Argentinian consumer association, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in Argentina's National Commercial Court No.
19 against the Company's subsidiary Western Union Financial
Services Argentina S.R.L. ("WUFSA").

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that WUFSA's fees for
money transfers sent from Argentina are excessive and that WUFSA
does not provide consumers with adequate information about foreign
exchange rates.

The plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order requiring
WUFSA to reimburse consumers for the fees they paid and the foreign
exchange revenue associated with money transfers sent from
Argentina, plus punitive damages. The complaint does not specify a
monetary value of the claim or a time period.

In November 2015, the Court declared the complaint formally
admissible as a class action. The notice of claim was served on
WUFSA in May 2016, and in June 2016 WUFSA filed a response to the
claim and moved to dismiss it on statute of limitations and
standing grounds.

In April 2017, the Court deferred ruling on the motion until later
in the proceedings. The process for notifying potential class
members has been completed and the case is currently in the
evidentiary stage.

Western Union said, "Due to the stage of this matter, the Company
is unable to predict the outcome or the possible loss or range of
loss, if any, associated with this matter. WUFSA intends to defend
itself vigorously."

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

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WESTERN UNION: Frazier Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the case entitled,
Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., has been stayed
pending arbitration.

On April 26, 2018, the Company, its Western Union Financial
Services, Inc. (WUFSI) subsidiary, its President and Chief
Executive Officer, and various "Doe Defendants" (purportedly
including Western Union officers, directors, and agents) were named
as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims
for alleged violations of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and the Colorado Organized Crime Act, civil
theft, negligence, unjust enrichment, and conversion under the
caption Frazier et al. v. The Western Union Company et al., Civil
Action No. 1:18-cv-00998-KLM (D. Colo.).

The complaint alleges that, during the purported class period of
January 1, 2004 to the present, and based largely on the admissions
and allegations relating to the DPA, the FTC Consent Order, and the
NYDFS Consent Order, the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud
customers through Western Union’s money transfer system.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 17, 2018. The
amended complaint is similar to the original complaint, although it
adds additional named plaintiffs and additional counts, including
claims on behalf of putative California, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, and New Jersey subclasses for alleged violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

On August 28, 2018, the Company and the other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of individual arbitrations with the named
plaintiffs, which defendants contend are contractually required.

On March 27, 2019, the Court granted that motion and stayed the
action pending individual arbitrations with the named plaintiffs.

Western Union said, "To date, no such individual arbitration
requests have been filed. Due to the stage of the matter, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, which could be associated with it. The
Company and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
themselves in this matter."

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

The Western Union Company provides money movement and payment
services worldwide. The company operates in two segments,
Consumer-to-Consumer and Business Solutions. It serves primarily
through a network of agents. The Western Union Company was
incorporated in 2006 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


WHOLE FOODS: Nichols Sues over Use of Biometric Identifiers
-----------------------------------------------------------
KENYATTA NICHOLS, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, vs. WHOLE
FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., the Defendant, Case No.: 2019CH09096
(Ill. Cir., Aug. 6, 2019), alleges that Defendant violated the
Biometric Information Privacy Act and compromised the privacy and
security of the biometric identifiers and information of Plaintiff
and other similarly-situated employees.

The Defendant is a natural and organic grocer operating Whole Foods
stores throughout Illinois. The Plaintiff was employed at
Defendant's store located at 7245 Lake Street in River Forest,
Illinois 60305.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an hourly employee in
its prepared foods and deli section from approximately April 2017
to July 2017.

The Defendant required employees to use a biometric time clock
system to record their time worked.

The Defendant required Plaintiff and other employees to scan their
fingerprints in Defendant's biometric time clock each time they
started and finished working, including punching in and out for
lunch breaks.

Unlike an employee identification number or employee identification
card, fingerprints are unique and permanent identifiers.

By requiring employees to use their fingerprints to record their
time, instead of identification numbers or badges only, Defendant
ensured that one employee could not clock in for another, the
lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
         Maureen A. Salas, Esq
         Zachary C.Flowerree, Esq
         Sarah J. Arendt, Esq
         WERMAN SALAS P.C.
         77 West Washington, Suite 1402
         Chicago, IL 60602
         Telephone: (312) 419-1008
         E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                 msalas@flsalaw.com
                 zf1owerree@flsalaw.com
                 sarendt@flsalaw.com

WILLIS TOWERS: 5th Cir. Affirms Stanford Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld the approval
of the settlement of lawsuits related to the collapse of The
Stanford Financial Group.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 15 similar lawsuits
relating to Stanford's collapse, for which Willis of Colorado, Inc.
acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance.

The complaints in these actions generally allege that the
defendants actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud
by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that
they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or
prospective Stanford client investors. The complaints further
allege that these letters, which contain statements about Stanford
and the insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford,
contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in
this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly
fraudulent certificates of deposit.

The 15 actions are as follows:

   -- Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings
plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others.
On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of a putative,
worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a
defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Third Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that the
plaintiffs' claims are precluded by the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA").

On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N ('Roland'). On August 31, 2011, the
court issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with
prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of briefing
and oral argument.

Following the completion of briefing and oral argument, on March
19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded the actions. On
April 2, 2012, the defendants-appellees filed petitions for
rehearing en banc. On April 19, 2012, the petitions for rehearing
en banc were denied.

On July 18, 2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth
Circuit's reversal in Troice.

On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted our petition.
Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the Supreme Court
heard oral argument on October 7, 2013.

On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth
Circuit's decision.

On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to Defer
Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference
and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March
28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs' request
to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss, but
granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order; (b)
requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all parties on
the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties submitted on
September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting a schedule for
briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, which schedule, among other things, provided for the
submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification
(following the completion of briefing and discovery) on April 20,
2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to plaintiffs'
motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in further support of
the motion.

Pursuant to an agreed stipulation also filed with the court on
April 20, 2015, the defendants on June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in
further opposition to the motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a
hearing on the motion.

On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

   -- Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-22085,
was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings plc and
Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.
The complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan
and other South American Stanford investors and alleges claims
under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and Florida statutory and common law and
seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred, for consolidation or
coordination with other Stanford-related actions (including
Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML').

The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni. On
August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.

   -- Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in the
Northern District of Texas.

The complaint was filed individually and on behalf of a putative
class of Venezuelan Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas
statutory and common law and sought damages in excess of $1
billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 18, 2009, the parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated
to the consolidation of those actions (under the Troice civil
action number), and, on December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in
Canabal filed a notice of dismissal, dismissing the action without
prejudice.

   -- Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the
same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court (Bexar
County).

The complaint alleges claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $300
million, attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 20, 2009, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or
coordination with the other Stanford-related actions.

On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rupert to the Northern District of Texas. On January
24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert to Texas state court (Bexar
County), but stayed the action until further order of the court.

On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay,
which motion was denied by the court on September 16, 2014.

On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.

On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with
the appeal in the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action
discussed below, and the consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as
of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was
held on September 2, 2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
affirmed.

The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert.

   -- Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of
seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas.

The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On February 13, 2015, the parties filed an Agreed Motion for
Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they agreed to the dismissal of
certain claims pursuant to the motion to dismiss decisions in the
Troice action discussed above and the Janvey action.

Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group
Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova action. On June
19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have not
opposed the motion.

   -- Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585,
was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County).

The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law
and Texas common law and seeks special, consequential and treble
damages of more than $37 million and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 11, 2011, certain defendants, including Willis of
Colorado, Inc., (i) removed Rishmague to the Western District of
Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On August 8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the
transfer of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it
is currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined
with the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift
the court's stay of the Rupert action.

On September 9, 2014, the court remanded Rishmague to Texas state
court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until further order of
the court and denied the plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On
October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of
their motion to lift the stay to the Fifth Circuit.

On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with
the appeal in the Rupert action, and the consolidated appeal was
fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral argument on the
consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015. On September 16,
2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in Rishmague.

   -- MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed
on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County).

The complaint alleges claims under Texas and Colorado statutory law
and Texas common law and seeks actual, special, consequential and
treble damages of approximately $4 million and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On March 29, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas,
Inc. (i) removed MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the
pendency of this related action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of
Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the
Southern District of Texas to stay the action pending a
determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to
the Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination
with the other Stanford-related actions.

Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur in the
Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions.

On September 29, 2014, the parties stipulated to the remand (to
Texas state court (Harris County)) and stay of MacArthur until
further order of the court (in accordance with the court's
September 9, 2014 decision in Rishmague), which stipulation was 'so
ordered' by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not
yet responded to the complaint in MacArthur.

   -- Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were filed
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis of
Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County), alleging
violations of Florida common law. The five suits are:

(1) Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company,
et al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford
investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million;

(2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of 64
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $83.5
million;

(3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company,
et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of two Stanford
investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $3 million;

(4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of 11
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $6.5
million; and

(5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited
Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on behalf of 10
Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $12.5
million.

On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. removed all five cases to
the Southern District of Florida and, on June 4, 2013, notified the
JPML of the pendency of these related actions.

On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order sua
sponte staying and administratively closing that action pending a
determination by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to
the Northern District of Texas for consolidation and coordination
with the other Stanford-related actions.

On June 11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other
four actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20,
2013, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer
of the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the
transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any
opposition to be filed.

On June 28, 2013, with no opposition having been filed, the JPML
lifted the stay, enabling the transfer to go forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.

On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court.

On January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit.

On April 22, 2015 and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth
Circuit dismissed the Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack
of jurisdiction. The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaints in Ranni or Barbar.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and
de Gadala-Maria.

On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed motions to
dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de Gadala-Maria
for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15, 2015, the court
dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its entirety with leave to
replead within 21 days.

On July 21, 2015, the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within
21 days.

On August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other
things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a
defendant).

On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaints. The motions await disposition by the court.

   -- Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the Northern
District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate.

The complaint was filed (i) by Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as
Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford Receivership Estate, and
the Official Stanford Investors Committee (the 'OSIC') against all
defendants and (ii) on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of
Stanford investors against Willis North America Inc.

Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC allege claims under Texas common law
and the court's Amended Order Appointing Receiver, and the putative
class plaintiffs allege claims under Texas statutory and common
law. Plaintiffs seek actual damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs.

As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of collective
losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford
certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion.

On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which
motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted
in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014.

On December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order.

On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First Amended
Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's motion to
amend the court's December 5 order to certify an interlocutory
appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

On February 4, 2015, the court granted Willis's motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the December 5 order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28,
2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015.

By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties requested that the court
consolidate the scheduling orders entered in Troice and Janvey to
provide for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015
in both cases. On March 6, 2015, the court entered an order
consolidating the scheduling orders in Troice and Janvey, providing
for a class certification submission date of April 20, 2015 in both
cases, and vacating the July 20, 2015 class certification
submission date in the original Janvey scheduling order.

On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its motion
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On March 31, 2016, the parties in the Troice and Janvey actions
entered into a settlement in principle.

   -- Martin v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No.
201652115, was filed on August 5, 2016, on behalf of one Stanford
investor against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited, Willis
of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate in Texas state
court (Harris County).

The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeks actual damages of less than $100,000, exemplary damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 12, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
which added five more Stanford investors as plaintiffs and seeks
damages in excess of $1 million. The defendants have not yet
responded to the amended complaint in Martin.

   -- Abel, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
3:16-cv-2601, was filed on September 12, 2016, on behalf of more
than 300 Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc,
Willis Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate, also in the Northern District of Texas.

The complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law
and seeks actual damages in excess of $135 million, exemplary
damages, attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 10, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which, among other things, added several more Stanford investors as
plaintiffs. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint
in Abel.

The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions above
seek overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a
portion of the total alleged collective losses incurred by
investors in Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the
fact that Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a
portion of time that Stanford issued certificates of deposit.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company recognized a $70 million
litigation provision for loss contingencies relating to the
Stanford matters based on its ongoing review of a variety of
factors as required by accounting standards.

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle for $120 million relating to this litigation, and
increased its provisions by $50 million during that quarter.

The settlement is contingent on a number of conditions, including
court approval of the settlement and a bar order prohibiting any
continued or future litigation against Willis related to Stanford,
which may not be given.

Therefore, the ultimate resolution of these matters may differ from
the amount provided for. The Company continues to dispute the
allegations and, to the extent litigation proceeds, to defend the
lawsuits vigorously.

Settlement  

On March 31, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement in
principle, as reflected in a Settlement Term Sheet, relating to the
Stanford litigation matter. The Company agreed to the Settlement
Term Sheet to eliminate the distraction, burden, expense and
uncertainty of further litigation.

In particular, the settlement and the related bar orders described
below, if upheld through any appeals, would enable the Company (a
newly-combined firm) to conduct itself with the bar orders'
protection from the continued overhang of matters alleged to have
occurred approximately a decade ago.

Further, the Settlement Term Sheet provided that the parties
understood and agreed that there is no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the Company. The Company expressly denies any
liability or wrongdoing with respect to the matters alleged in the
Stanford litigation.

On or about August 31, 2016, the parties to the settlement signed a
formal Settlement Agreement memorializing the terms of the
settlement as originally set forth in the Settlement Term Sheet.
The parties to the Settlement Agreement are Ralph S. Janvey -- in
his capacity as the Court-appointed receiver for The Stanford
Financial Group and its affiliated entities in receivership -- the
Official Stanford Investors Committee, Samuel Troice, Martha Diaz,
Paula Gilly-Flores, Punga Punga Financial, Ltd., Manuel Canabal,
Daniel Gomez Ferreiro and Promotora Villa Marina, C.A., on the one
hand, and Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company (formerly
Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company), Willis Limited,
Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the Willis
associate, on the other hand.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed to
settle and dismiss the Janvey and Troice actions (collectively, the
'Actions') and all current or future claims arising from or related
to Stanford in exchange for a one-time cash payment to the Receiver
by the Company of $120 million to be distributed to all Stanford
investors who have claims recognized by the Receiver pursuant to
the distribution plan in place at the time the payment is made.

The Settlement Agreement also provides the parties' agreement to
seek the Court's entry of bar orders prohibiting any continued or
future litigation against the Defendants and their related parties
of claims relating to Stanford, whether asserted to date or not.
The terms of the bar orders therefore would prohibit all
Stanford-related litigation described above, and not just the
Actions, but including any pending matters and any actions that may
be brought in the future. Final Court approval of these bar orders
is a condition of the settlement.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion to
approve the settlement. On October 19, 2016, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement. Several of the plaintiffs in
the other actions above objected to the settlement, and a hearing
to consider final approval of the settlement was held on January
20, 2017, after which the Court reserved decision.

On August 23, 2017, the Court approved the settlement, including
the bar orders. Several of the objectors appealed the settlement
approval and bar orders to the Fifth Circuit. Oral argument on the
appeals was heard on December 3, 2018, and, on July 22, 2019, the
Fifth Circuit affirmed the approval of the settlement, including
the bar orders.

The Company will not make the $120 million settlement payment until
the settlement is not subject to any further appeal.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WILLIS TOWERS: Bid to Dismiss Amended Class Complaint Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
court has dismissed the amended complaint filed by filed by City of
Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund ('Fort Myers') and
Alaska Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust ('Alaska'), in its
entirety.

On February 27, 2018 and March 8, 2018, two purported former
stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson, City of Fort Myers General
Employees' Pension Fund ("Fort Myers") and Alaska
Laborers-Employers Retirement Trust ("Alaska"), filed putative
class action complaints on behalf of a putative class of Legacy
Towers Watson stockholders against the former members of the Legacy
Towers Watson board of directors, Legacy Towers Watson, Legacy
Willis and ValueAct, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
City of Fort Myers General Employees' Pension Fund v. Towers Watson
& Co., et al., C.A. No. 2018-0132, and Alaska Laborers-Employers
Retirement Trust v. Victor F. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 2018-0155,
respectively.

Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia
action described above, the complaints assert claims against the
former directors of Legacy Towers Watson for breach of fiduciary
duty and against Legacy Willis and ValueAct for aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty.

On March 9, 2018, Regents filed a putative class action complaint
on behalf of a putative class of Legacy Towers Watson stockholders
against the Company, Legacy Willis, ValueAct, and Messrs. Haley,
Casserley, and Ubben, in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned
The Regents of the University of California v. John J. Haley, et
al., C.A. No. 2018-0166.

Based on similar allegations as the Eastern District of Virginia
action, the complaint asserts claims against Mr. Haley for breach
of fiduciary duty and against all other defendants for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

Also on March 9, 2018, Regents filed a motion for consolidation of
all pending and subsequently filed Delaware Court of Chancery
actions, and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff and for the
appointment of Bernstein as Lead Counsel for the putative class.

On March 29, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska responded to Regents'
motion and cross-moved for appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
for the appointment of their counsel, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Co-Lead Counsel.

On April 2, 2018, the court consolidated the Delaware Court of
Chancery actions and all related actions subsequently filed in or
transferred to the Delaware Court of Chancery.

On June 5, 2018, the court denied Regents' motion for appointment
of Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel and granted Fort Myers' and
Alaska's cross-motion. On June 20, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska
designated the complaint previously filed by Alaska (the 'Alaska
Complaint') as the operative complaint in the consolidated action.
On September 14, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Alaska Complaint.

On October 31, 2018, Fort Myers and Alaska filed an amended
complaint, which, based on similar allegations, asserts claims
against the former directors of legacy Towers Watson for breach of
fiduciary duty and against ValueAct and Mr. Ubben for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

On January 11, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on March 29, 2019, the parties completed
briefing on the motions. The court heard argument on the motions on
April 11, 2019 and, on July 25, 2019, dismissed the amended
complaint in its entirety.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


WILLIS TOWERS: UC Regents' Appeal in Securities Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
1, 2019, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the
appeal initiated by the Regents of the University of California in
the merger related class action suit remains pending.

On November 21, 2017, a purported former stockholder of Legacy
Towers Watson filed a putative class action complaint on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all Legacy Towers Watson
stockholders as of October 2, 2015 against the Company, Legacy
Towers Watson, Legacy Willis, ValueAct Capital Management
("ValueAct"), and certain current and former directors and officers
of Legacy Towers Watson and Legacy Willis (John Haley, Dominic
Casserley, and Jeffrey Ubben), in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The complaint asserted claims against certain defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") for allegedly false and misleading statements in the proxy
statement for the Merger; and against other defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for alleged "control person"
liability with respect to such allegedly false and misleading
statements.

The complaint further contended that the allegedly false and
misleading statements caused stockholders of Legacy Towers Watson
to accept inadequate Merger consideration. The complaint sought
damages in an unspecified amount.

On February 20, 2018, the court appointed the Regents of the
University of California ("Regents") as Lead Plaintiff and
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP ("Bernstein") as Lead
Counsel for the putative class, consolidated all subsequently
filed, removed, or transferred actions, and captioned the
consolidated action "In re Willis Towers Watson plc Proxy
Litigation," Master File No. 1:17-cv-1338-AJT-JFA. On March 9,
2018, Lead Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.

On April 13, 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, and, on July 11, 2018, following briefing and
argument, the court granted the motions and dismissed the Amended
Complaint in its entirety.

On July 30, 2018, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the
court's July 11, 2018 dismissal order to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and, on December 6, 2018, the
parties completed briefing on the appeal.

On May 8, 2019, the parties argued the appeal, which awaits
disposition by the Fourth Circuit.

Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company operates as an
advisory, broking, and solutions company worldwide. Its Human
Capital and Benefits segment provides actuarial support, plan
design, and administrative services for traditional pension and
retirement savings plans; plan management consulting, broking, and
administration services for health and group benefit programs; and
benefits outsourcing services. The company is based in London,
England.


XPO LOGISTICS: Continues to Defend Labul Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company continues to
defend a class action suit entitled, Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc.
et al.

On December 14, 2018, two putative class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its current and former executives, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, based on
alleged material misstatements and omissions in the Company's
public filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On January 7, 2019, the plaintiff in one of the class actions,
Leeman v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al., No. 1:18-cv-11741 (S.D.N.Y.),
voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice.

In the other putative class action, Labul v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et
al., No. 3:18-cv-02062 (D. Conn.), which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, on April 2, 2019,
the court appointed Local 817 IBT Pension Fund, Local 272
Labor-Management Pension Fund, and Local 282 Pension Trust Fund and
Local 282 Welfare Trust Fund (together, the "Pension Funds") as
lead plaintiffs.

On June 3, 2019, the Pension Funds, with additional plaintiff
Norfolk County Retirement System, filed a consolidated class action
complaint against the Company and certain of its current and former
executives, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, based on alleged
material misstatements and omissions in the Company's public
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Defendants' motions to dismiss are due on August 2, 2019.

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement Payments Made in Intermodal Drayage Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has reached
an agreement to settle the majority of the pending Division of
Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) Claims, the settlement payment
has been made, and the settled claims have been dismissed.

Certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries received
notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of approximately
150 owner-operators contracted with these subsidiaries filed claims
in 2012 with the DLSE in which they assert that they should be
classified as employees, rather than independent contractors.

These claims seek reimbursement for the owner-operators' business
expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease
payments. Decisions were rendered in June 2015 by a DLSE hearing
officer with respect to claims of five plaintiffs, resulting in
awards in an aggregate amount of approximately $1 million,
following which the Company appealed the decisions in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California ("Central
District Court").

On May 16, 2017, the Central District Court issued judgment finding
that the five claimants were employees rather than independent
contractors and awarding an aggregate of approximately $1 million
plus post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the claimants.

The Company appealed this judgment, but on February 20, 2019, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to
consider the appeal on technical grounds.

In addition, separate decisions were rendered in April 2017 by a
DLSE hearing officer in claims involving four additional
plaintiffs, resulting in an award for the plaintiffs in an
aggregate amount of approximately $1 million, which the Company has
appealed to the California Superior Court, Long Beach. The
remaining DLSE claims (the "Pending DLSE Claims") were transferred
to California Superior Court in three separate actions involving
approximately 170 claimants, including the claimants mentioned
above who originally filed claims in 2012.

The Company has reached an agreement to settle the majority of the
Pending DLSE Claims, the settlement payment has been made, and the
settled claims have been dismissed.

In addition, certain of the Company's intermodal drayage
subsidiaries are party to putative class action litigations and
other administrative claims in California brought by independent
contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries.

In these litigations, the contract carriers assert that they should
be classified as employees, rather than independent contractors.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies that are probable and
reasonably estimable relating to the claims.

XPO Logistics said, "The Company is unable at this time to estimate
the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess
of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these
claims given, among other reasons, that the range of potential loss
could be impacted substantially by future rulings by the courts
involved, including on the merits of the claims."

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement Reached in Last Mile Logistics Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 1, 2019, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2019, that the company has reached
agreements to resolve the Last Mile Logistics Classification
Claims.

Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are party
to several putative class action litigations brought by independent
contract carriers who contracted with these subsidiaries.

In these litigations, the contract carriers, and in some cases the
contract carriers' employees, assert that they should be classified
as employees, rather than independent contractors.

The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the
claims generally allege unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, or failure
to provide meal and rest periods, and seek reimbursement of the
contract carriers’ business expenses.

The cases include four related matters pending in the Federal
District Court, Northern District of California:

Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren, Bill McDonald
and Joel Morales v. XPO Logistics, Inc. ("Carter"), filed in March
2016;

Ramon Garcia v. Macy's and XPO Logistics Inc. ("Garcia"), filed in
July 2016;

Kevin Kramer v. XPO Logistics Inc. ("Kramer"), filed in September
2016; and

Hector Ibanez v. XPO Last Mile, Inc. ("Ibanez"), filed in May 2017.


The Company has reached agreements to settle the Carter, Garcia,
Kramer and Ibanez matters and has accrued the full amount of the
settlements. The settlements will require court approval.

With respect to other pending claims, the Company believes that it
has adequately accrued for the potential impact of loss
contingencies that are probable and reasonably estimable.

XPO Logistics said, "The Company is unable at this time to estimate
the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess
of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of these
claims given, among other reasons, that the number and identities
of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are uncertain and the range of
potential loss could be impacted substantially by future rulings by
the courts involved, including on the merits of the claims."

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

XPO Logistics, Inc. provides transportation and logistics services
in the United States, North America, France, the United Kingdom,
Europe, and internationally. XPO Logistics, Inc. was founded in
1996 and is based in Greenwich, Connecticut.


ZAZZLE INC: Diaz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zazzle Inc. The case
is styled as Edwin Diaz on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zazzle Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-07424 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 8, 2019).

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

Zazzle is an American online marketplace that allows designers and
customers to create their own products with independent
manufacturers, as well as use images from participating
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph H Mizrahi, Esq.
     Cohen & Mizrahi LLP
     300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 299-6612
     Fax: (929) 575-4195
     Email: joseph@cml.legal



                            *********

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 ***