CAR_Public/190822.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, August 22, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 168

                            Headlines

1220 COLLINS AVENUE: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
2U INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
7-ELEVEN INC: Court Dismisses Franchisee's Wage Payment Suit
ABACUS DATA: Court Denies Izor TCPA Suit Dismissal
ABIOMED, INC: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Villare Says

AMERICAN FAMILY: Court Won't Reconsider Anderson Suit Dismissal
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Gutierrez Files Suit in New Jersey
ARCONIC INC: Second Amended Complaint Filed in Howard Suit
ARS NATIONAL: Certification of Class Sought in Johnson Suit
AVON PRODUCTS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in New York Underway

BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend Gusinsky Revocable Trust Suit
BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend Strougo Class Action
BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Appeal in Shareholders' Suit Still Pending
BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Settlement in Suits v. Steak n Shake Approved
BLACK & DECKER: Class Action Over False Vacuum Horsepower Claims

BLACK TIE MGMT: Bailey Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Removes Barry et al. Suit to D. Massachusetts
BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Appeals Ruling in Taha CHRIA Suit to 3rd Cir.
CALI BAMBOO: Klaehn Files Product Liability Suit in S.D. Calif.
CANADA: Class Action Filed Over Forced Sterilization

CAPITAL ONE: Faces Aballo et al. Suit over Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Faces Aminov Suit over Breach of Personal Data
CAPITAL ONE: ROBERTSON Sues over Data Breach
CAPITAL ONE: Tsirigos et al. Sue over Data Breach
CARBONITE INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit

CARBONITE INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
CARBONITE INC: Sept. 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
CARDINAL HEALTH: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
CARDINAL HEALTH: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
CARDINAL HEALTH: Sept. 30 Lead Plaintiff Deadline

CHEMOURS CO: Contaminated Drinking Water Suit Underway in Delaware
CHEMOURS CO: N.Y. Suits Over PFAS Contamination Still Pending
CHEMOURS CO: Still Defends Ohio Lawsuit over PFAS in Blood Serum
CHEMOURS CO: Suits over Tainted Water Underway in Michigan & N.H.
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Class Suit over Indiana Superfund Site Ongoing

CHICAGO, IL: City Attorneys Try to Stop Red Light Camera Suit
CITIGROUP INC: 5 Banks Face Class Suit in UK Antitrust Court
COINBASE INC: Leidel Moves to Certify Class of CRYPTSY Users
CONNECTICUT: Sentenced Inmates Class Certified in Barfield Suit
COZY COMFORT: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

CREDIT ONE: Burke Moves for Certification of Four TCPA Classes
CULTURED QUOTES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barnett Alleges
CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Gross Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
DIRECTOR UNITED: 3d Cir. Affirms Class Subsets Notice in Gorgonzola

DOMETIC GROUP: Class Certification in RV Refrigerator Case Denied
DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Class Action vs. SCANA Ongoing
DOMINION ENERGY: Remand Order in City of Warren Suit Flipped
DOMINION ENERGY: Remand Order in Metzler Suit Reversed
DONALD TRUMP: Class Suit Over 'Secrets to Success' OK'd to Proceed

DPC NEW YORK: Soto Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
EL POLLO: Deal Reached in Olvera, Perez, Vega & Gonzalez Suits
EL POLLO: Settlement of Turocy and Huston Suits Underway
ELECTRICITY MAINE: Lawsuit on Hiatus as Settlement Talks Ongoing
ELI LILLY: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in MSP Recovery Claims Suit

EPIC GAMES: Facing Class Suit Over Hacked Fortnite Accounts
FIRST AMERICAN: R. Campbell's Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
FLORIDA: Legal Aid Groups Bring Class Action Over Medicaid Cuts
FRED'S INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
GENUINE PARTS: Court Dismisses B. Hill for Lack of Jurisdiction

GITHUB: Faces Class Action Over Role in Capital One Data Breach
GLOBAL PAYMENT: Certification of Class Sought in Maloney Suit
GODADDY INC: Settlement Reached in Bennett Class Suit
GRANTS PASS, OR: Judge OKs Class-Action Status For Homeless
GUIDANT GLOBAL: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Coordinators

HOMEJAB, LLC: Walli Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
IDEANOMICS INC: Sept. 17 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
INDEPENDENCE COUNTY, AR: Baxter Suit Asserts Discrimination
INTEGRATED TECH: Class Certified Under FLSA in Monplaisir Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

JUST ENERGY: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
JUST ENERGY: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
JUST ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
KANSAS CITY: Prince Seeks Overtime Wages for Laborers
KEMET CORP: AASI and Benchmark Class Suits Dismissed

KEMET CORP: Trial in Capacitors Antitrust Suit Set for Feb. 2020
KWIK EQUIPMENT: Townsend Alleges Time-Shaving
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Hayhurst Files Fraud Suit in S.D. W. Va.
LANSING TRADE: Budicak Suit Transferred to District of Kansas
LANSING TRADE: Budicak's Action Transferred to Kansas

LEE MEMORIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Defends Class Action by TVPX ARS
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit Against Unit Ongoing
LOWE'S HOME: Weeks Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
M&T BANK: Silveira Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California

MALLINCKRODT PLC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
MDL 1566: Court Renders Final Dismissal Judgment
MDL 2555: Soler-Somohano Appeals Decision to 9th Cir.
MEDNAX INC: Bid to Nix Suit Over Anesthesiology Business Pending
MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: "Cleven" Class Cert. Ruling under Appeal

MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Brown Class Cert. Ruling under Appeal
MIDLAND FUNDING: NJ App. Div. Affirms Woo-Padva Suit Dismissal
MRS BPO: Court Stays Proceedings in Rozani Suit
MU HEALTH: Patients File Class-Action Following Data Breach
MY PILLOW INC: Court Denies Wuest's Bid for Class Certification

NATIONAL CREDIT: Bailey Sues over Debt Collection Practices
NATIONAL GENERAL: Sept. 23 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
NAVIENT CORP: Consolidated Class Suit in New Jersey Ongoing
NAVIENT CORP: Still Faces Suit by Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund
NAVIENT CORP: Suits over Breach of Consumer Protection Laws Pending

NCAA: Faces Bates Suit over UA Athletes' Football Injuries
NETFLIX INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NETFLIX INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
NEW BALANCE: Carrillo Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
NOVAVIVE USA: Fauley Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco

ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Galestan Settlement Wins Final Approval
OPTIMUM OUTCOMES: Class Certification Sought in Zurakov Suit
OTTOMAN RESTAURANT: Perez Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
PFIZER INC: Al Haj's Bid to Certify Cont'd; Sept. 17 Hearing Set
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Allen's FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Cal. App Affirms Arbitration Denial in Serrano
POWER SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Remand of Treadwell BIPA Suit
PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Lopez Wins Leave to File an Un-redacted Bid
RED LION HOTELS: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
REDDING, CA: Judge Selection and Court Proceedings Commence

RESTAURANTS BRANDS: C$6-Mil. Class Action Settlement Okayed
RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Suits over Non-Compete Policy Ongoing
RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Unit Faces Class Suit over Non-Compete Policy
RIDGEWOOD, NJ: Remand of Water Utility Rates Suit to Council Upheld
SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Jian FLSA Suit

SI-BONE INC: Court Refuses to Dismisses Fromer TCPA Suit
SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Court Won't Strike Class Allegations in Boddie
SMGC CONSTRUCTION: Camacho Seeks Overtime Wages
SOUTH CAROLINA: Court OKs Partial Settlement in Geissler Suit
SOUTH TEXAS PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Cooper Alleges

SPARK ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bank Suit Alleges
SPECIALIST STAFFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Lundy Says
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Timothy L. Miles Files Securities Class Suit
STERICYCLE INC: Settlement of Illinois Suit Wins Final Approval
STERICYCLE INC: Settlement Opt-Outs File Own Complaints

STYLESEAT INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SUN-MAID GROWERS: D. Diaz Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
TAMMY WOLOSKI: Court Narrows Counterclaims in CFRA Suit
TDL GROUP: Class Suit Claims Tim Hortons Suppressed Wages
TESLA INC: Class Suit Cites 19 Issues With Model S & X Updates

TESLA, INC: Rasmussen Sues over Vehicles' Defective Batteries
TIXE REALTY: Grigorian Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
TOP SHIPS: Court Dismisses C. Brady's Securities Suit
TRIA BEAUTY: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
ULTA SALON: Rowe Moves for Certification of Brand Partners Class

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Strickland Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
UNITED STATES: Two Classes of Detainees Certified in Brito Suit
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Students Sue Over Title IX Protocol
VENATOR MATERIALS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
VERB TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Suit

VRL CONTRACTING: Siles Seeks OT Pay for Home Health Aides
WHEATFIELD, NY: Court Dismisses Landfill Toxic Exposure Suit
WIDEOPENWEST INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in NY Pending
[*] Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Class Action Settlements

                            *********

1220 COLLINS AVENUE: Morgan Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 1220 Collins Avenue,
Inc. The case is styled as Jon R. Morgan on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1220 Collins Avenue,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07455-ER (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 9,
2019).

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

1220 Collins Avenue, Inc. (trade name Webster, The) is in the
Family Clothing Stores business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan Shalom, Esq.
     Shalom Law, PLLC
     124-04 Metropolitan Avenue
     Kew Gardens, NY 11374
     Phone: (516) 807-1748


2U INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
(http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/2uinc/)announced that a class action
has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of 2U, Inc. (TWOU)
common stock during the period between February 26, 2018 and July
30, 2019 (the "Class Period").  This action was filed in the
Southern District of New York and is captioned Chinn v. 2U, Inc.,
et al., No. 19-cv-07479.

The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased 2U common stock during the Class Period to
seek appointment 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. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from
August 7, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact plaintiff's counsel, Brian Cochran at 800/449-4900
or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com You can view
a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/2uinc/

The complaint charges 2U and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 2U is an
educational technology company that partners with nonprofit
colleges and universities to offer online degree programs through a
cloud-based "software-as-a-service" platform.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding 2U's
business model and cash flows, as well as the competitive pressures
facing 2U. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that: (i)
2U's business model needed to undergo substantial adjustment to
compete in an increasingly saturated online education market and
the Company's cash flows were inadequate for maintaining its
purported growth trajectory; (ii) the Company would not be able to
take advantage of promised economies of scale, as the cost of
creating content and attracting and retaining students increased,
rather than diminished, as the Company grew in size and complexity;
(iii) the growth rate in revenue from enrollments was decelerating
and had plateaued; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, 2U was
experiencing accelerating losses, its business plan was
unsustainable, and defendants lacked any reasonable basis for 2U's
Class Period projections and financial forecasts. As a result of
defendants' false statements, the price of 2U common stock was
artificially inflated to more than $98 per share during the Class
Period.

Then on July 30, 2019, 2U released disappointing financial results
for the second quarter of 2019. Defendants explained that 2U was
"moderating [its] outlook for the business in the short term" and
expected to suffer losses of between $157.5 million and $151.5
million for the year, a 300% year-over-year increase. 2U's CEO also
disclosed that the Company needed to significantly curtail
expansion plans that had been announced only a few months earlier,
in November 2018, stating that the growth story had been a
"mistake" and he now needed to "level set" with the investment
community. On this news, the price of 2U stock declined, falling to
a close of $12.80 per share, a one-day decline of 65% and a decline
of more than 86% from the stock's Class Period high of $98 per
share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
2U common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For six
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
[GN]


7-ELEVEN INC: Court Dismisses Franchisee's Wage Payment Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned NIRAL
PATEL, Plaintiff, v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Defendant. No. 18 C 07010.
(N.D. Ill.).

Niral Patel runs a 7-Eleven store under a franchise agreement
between 7-Eleven and a corporation that he owns. In October 2018,
Patel sued 7-Eleven under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act (IWPCA), alleging that he is in reality a 7-Eleven employee
under the definition of the Act, and that 7-Eleven has been taking
improper deductions from his wages.

7-Eleven's motion to dismiss consists of two main arguments.

7-Eleven's primary argument is that Patel has failed to adequately
plead an agreement by 7-Eleven to pay him wages under the Act.   

Pleading a claim under the IWCPA requires a plaintiff to allege
that compensation is due to him as an employee from an employer
under an employment contract or agreement.  The IWPCA defines wages
as any compensation owed an employee by an employer pursuant to an
employment contract or agreement between the two parties, whether
the amount is determined on a time, task, piece, or any other basis
of calculation.

An agreement to pay wages need not amount to a valid written
contractit can be informal. Nevertheless, the IWPCA authorizes
claims only for the enforcement of an already-existing agreement.
The Act does not create new rights and obligations between the
parties: it provides no substantive relief beyond what the
underlying employment contract requires. If there is no agreement
to pay wages or compensation, then there is no valid IWPCA claim.
So although Patel's claim is that 7-Eleven took improper deductions
from his wages, the Act requires that there be wages owed in the
first place in order to pursue a claim under the Act.

The complaint in this case does not successfully allege that
7-Eleven agreed to pay wages to Patel. None of Patel's arguments to
the contrary is convincing.

Patel argues that the profit-split arrangement in the franchise
agreement constitutes an agreement to pay wages. It is not clear
whether the complaint ever refers specifically to the profit-split
arrangement, though Paragraph 22 mentions that 7-Eleven deducts
franchise' fees" from the store account and the franchise agreement
is central to the allegations in the complaint so it may be
considered during the dismissal-motion stage.

Patel's argument is that the profit he receives from the store
account when he draws on it constitutes his wages from 7-Eleven.
The fact that the funds are funneled through an account controlled
by 7-Eleven, Patel reasons, is proof of this. But Patel's argument
conflicts with the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in Enger v. Chicago
Carriage Cab Corp, 812 F.3d at 570. In that case, the plaintiff
taxi drivers alleged that the fares paid by passengers but
processed by the taxi company's credit card processing service were
really wages paid to the drivers.

The Seventh Circuit disagreed, in part because even in that
scenario, in which the fares were transferred back to the drivers
from the company's credit card processor, the obligation to pay the
driver arose from the passenger, and not the taxi company. The
transfers of the fares back to the taxi driver, the Seventh Circuit
held, did not constitute wages. The same reasoning applies here.
Just as taxi fares originate with the passengers, Patel's 7-Eleven
store's revenues are paid by its customers. If no one made a
purchase at the store in a given timeframe, then 7-Eleven would not
be obligated to let Patel draw down any amount from the store
account for that period. The default weekly draw amount of $0.00
listed in the franchise agreement supports that. And in any case,
if the store failed to make any sales there would be nothing in the
account to draw down, as it is Patel who deposits revenue into the
account in the first place.

That is not a wage-payment arrangement.

The bottom line is that Patel has failed to plead any agreement to
pay wage formal or informal between himself or 7-Eleven, so his
IWPCA claim must be dismissed. But because this is Patel's first
complaint, the dismissal is without prejudice for now. If Patel is
going to file an amended complaint, then it must be filed by August
26, 2019. If no amended complaint is filed by that deadline, then
the dismissal will convert to a dismissal with prejudice and the
case will be dismissed.

As for Patel's motion for a preliminary injunction, it must be
denied because there is no longer an operative complaint. Because
there is no complaint for the reasons described above, there can be
no likelihood of success. And, in any event, there does not appear
to be any need for the extraordinary remedy of interim relief given
all of the steps that must occur before the termination of a
franchise is actually effectuated.

7-Eleven's motion to dismiss is granted without prejudice to an
amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5podjpa from
Leagle.com.

Niral Patel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley S. Manewith --
bmanewith@msiegellaw.com -- Siegel & Dolan Ltd., Marc J. Siegel --
msiegel@msiegellaw.com -- Siegel & Dolan Ltd., Michelle Cassorla --
mcassorla@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice
& Shannon E. Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Riordan,
P.C., pro hac vice.

7-Eleven, Inc., Defendant, represented by Norman Mitchell Leon --
norman.leon@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Amy Michelle Rubenstein
-- amy.rubenstein@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP.


ABACUS DATA: Court Denies Izor TCPA Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in
the case captioned PAUL IZOR, Plaintiff, v. ABACUS DATA SYSTEMS,
INC, Defendant. Case No. 19-cv-01057-HSG. (N.D. Cal.) and to stay
the case pending guidance from the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), briefing for which is complete.

Plaintiff brings two causes of action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA): (1) violations of 47 U.S.C. Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii) for Defendant allegedly sending unsolicited text
messages using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and (2)
violations of 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) for Defendant's alleged
violation of a regulation, 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200, promulgated
under the statute.   

Defendant only moves to dismiss Plaintiff's second cause of action.


Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated both of these
subsections.

Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's cause of action under 47
U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5) for two reasons, neither of which is
persuasive.

First, Defendant contends that its alleged solicitations to
Plaintiff's cellular phone did not violate the statute as a matter
of law because each subsection narrowly applies to solicitations to
residential telephone subscribers. But Defendant overlooks 47
C.F.R. Section 64.1200(e), which extends the protections afforded
by subsections (c) and (d) to solicitations to wireless telephone
numbers.

Defendant's second argument is that Plaintiff fails to allege any
facts explaining why Abacus purportedly does not have procedures
for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive
telemarketing calls,  as described in 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(d).
But Defendant again overlooks a dispositive issue: implementation
of adequate procedures is an affirmative defense, and thus
Plaintiff bears no burden to prove its inapplicability in the
complaint.

Defendant moves the Court to stay the case in its entirety until
the FCC issues guidance concerning what constitutes an ATDS, under
either the primary jurisdiction doctrine or the Court's
discretionary control of its docket.  

Plaintiff opposes any stay, among other reasons, because (1)
controlling Ninth Circuit authority resolves the relevant question
and (2) given the existence of controlling authority, a stay will
not simplify the issues in this case.

The primary jurisdiction doctrine allows courts to stay proceedings
or to dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution
of an issue within the special competence of an administrative
agency and is to be used only if a claim requires resolution of an
issue of first impression, or of a particularly complicated issue
that Congress has committed to a regulatory agency, and if
protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates
preliminary resort to the agency which administers the scheme.

The Court finds that the primary jurisdiction doctrine does not
support a stay pending FCC guidance concerning what constitutes an
ATDS. As Defendant notes in its motion, the FCC released a Public
Notice seeking comment on the issue in May 2018. But the Ninth
Circuit has since definitively answered the question. Marks v.
Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041, 1053 (9th Cir. 2018), held
that the term ATDS means equipment which has the capacity (1) to
store numbers to be called or (2) to produce numbers to be called,
using a random or sequential number generator and to dial such
numbers automatically even if the system must be turned on or
triggered by a person.

In essence, then, Defendant asks this Court to hold that the state
of the law is so unclear that this case must await FCC guidance
when the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly found otherwise. The Court
declines that invitation and finds that primary jurisdiction does
not support granting Defendant's request for a stay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4w9lkel from Leagle.com.

Paul Izor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Avi Kaufman , Kaufman P.A., 400
Northwest 26th StreetMiami, FL 33127, David S. Ratner --
david@davidratnerlawfirm.com -- David Ratner Law Firm LLP, Rachel
Elizabeth Kaufman, Kaufman PA, 31 Samana Dr, Miami, FL, 33133-2609,
pro hac vice & Stefan Louis Coleman, Law Offices of Stefan Coleman,
LLC,1072 Madison Ave # 1, Lakewood, NJ 08701,  pro hac vice.

Abacus Data Systems, Inc, a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Esteban Morales Fabila -- emorales@mintz.com --
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC.


ABIOMED, INC: Violates Securities Exchange Act, Villare Says
------------------------------------------------------------
KYLE VILLARE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABIOMED, INC., MICHAEL R. MINOGUE, and
TODD A. TRAPP, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-07319 (S.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 6, 2019), seeks 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 case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased
or otherwise acquired ABIOMED securities between January 31, 2019
through July 31, 2019, both dates inclusive.

On August 1, 2019, pre-market, Defendants issued a press release
announcing ABIOMED's financial and operating results for the first
quarter of fiscal year 2020. Among other results, the 1Q 2020 Press
Release disclosed ABIOMED's third consecutive quarter of slowing
revenue growth, reporting "first quarter fiscal 2020 revenue of
$207.7 million, an increase of 15.4% compared to revenue of $180.0
million for the same period of fiscal 2019". This represented a
significant decrease in revenue growth from 2Q 2019.

Commenting on the Company's surprising financial result
disappointment, the Company's Chairman, President and CEO,
Defendant Michael R. Minogue, revealed that the Company's "new
training programs, organizational changes in distribution, and
external initiatives will require time to drive more growth in the
future".

The Company also slashed its previously issued full-year 2020
guidance from total revenues in the range of $900-945 million to
total revenues in the range of $885-925 million, which fell roughly
$22 million short of market expectations.

Following the Company's disclosure of its 1Q 2020 financial
performance and revised guidance, Investor's Business Daily
published an article raising concern with Defendant Minogue's prior
public statements, titled: "This Medtech's CEO Promised To 'Correct
The Course' - That Didn't Happen".

On this news, ABIOMED's stock price fell $73.69 per share, or
26.45%, to close at $204.87 per share on August 1, 2019.

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

ABIOMED was founded in 1981 and is headquartered in Danvers,
Massachusetts. The Company engages in the research, development,
and sale of medical devices to assist or replace the pumping
function of the failing heart, and also provides continuum of care
to heart failure patients. ABIOMED offers, among other things,
catheters and micro heart pumps under the Impella brand with
integrated motors and sensors for use in interventional cardiology.
The Company sells its products through direct sales and clinical
support personnel in the United States, Canada, Europe, and
Asia.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20 th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42 nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

AMERICAN FAMILY: Court Won't Reconsider Anderson Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia, Macon Division, issued an Order denying Plaintiffs' Motion
for Reconsideration in the case captioned GARTH ANDERSON,
Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Case
No. 5:15-CV-475 (MTT). (M.D. Ga.).

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), Plaintiff
Anderson moves for reconsideration of the Court's Order, granting
Defendant American Family Insurance Company's (AFIC) motion for
summary judgment.

Anderson alleges AFIC failed to assess his home for diminished
value and failed to compensate him for diminished value in
adjusting a claim for water damage from a burst pipe.  He claims
that AFIC did not pay him enough for his loss.

Anderson now moves for reconsideration, arguing that AFIC, in its
briefing on appeal, takes the position that its policies do not
cover diminished value as that term is used in Mabry and Royal
Capital and that it has no duty to assess for diminished value
unless its insureds can prove AFIC owes them such a duty on a
case-by-case basis.  

AFIC claims that Anderson's argument misconstrues AFIC's statements
on appeal and that it fails to state an appropriate basis for the
Court to grant relief. AFIC also argues that if American Family is
bound by legal positions taken in this Court, the Eleventh Circuit
can bind American Family to those positions.

Rule 60(b)(3) Standard

Rule 60(b)(3) allows a court to relieve a party from a final
judgment for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing
party. The movant has the burden of proving that assertion by clear
and convincing evidence. Evidence of an opposing party's
carelessness is insufficient to justify relief. Litigants cannot
use a motion for reconsideration to ask a district court to
relitigate old matters, raise arguments, or present evidence that
could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.

Anderson claims that even if AFIC does admit that its policies
cover a category of damages labeled diminished value, AFIC's
definition of that term differs from the Court's. According to
Anderson, AFIC's definition of diminished value excludes stigma and
is limited to uncured defects.

In response, AFIC repeats its admission that its policies cover
diminished value, including diminished value due to stigma. AFIC
also argues that Anderson offers no evidence that AFIC is refusing
to recognize coverage or disclaiming any duty to conduct
assessments for stigma-diminished value for policyholders in
Georgia.

The Court agrees: AFIC clearly admitted and continues to admit that
its policies cover diminished value resulting from stigma.

Although AFIC concedes the issue of coverage, its position on the
scope of what it calls its duty to assess is more complex. As the
Court understands AFIC's argument, it does not deny that an insurer
owes a general duty to assess every element of a loss, including
diminished value. If AFIC were to argue it had no such duty, it
would be an argument flatly contrary to Georgia law and AFIC's
admissions in this Court.

Rather, AFIC has denied that it had a duty to assess Anderson's
property for diminished value.. AFIC appears to argue that although
the insurer's duty to assess would not require any specific
assertion of diminished value by the insured, the duty to assess is
not automatic in every case. AFIC appears to claim that the insurer
has a duty to assess for diminished value in a particular loss only
where there is evidence of the potentiality for diminished value.

Finally, and noting that this dispute arises from AFIC's
alternative grounds for affirmance, AFIC's alleged
misrepresentations or reneged admissions are not material to the
basis for this Court's ruling: that Anderson, based on the record
before the Court, did not suffer diminished value.

In sum, if AFIC is arguing on appeal that it does not have a legal
duty to assess for every element of a loss when it processes
claims, then that would be inconsistent with its representations to
this Court, although that misrepresentation would not be material
to the Court's reasoning in its Order granting summary judgment.
Nor does the Court believe that Rule 60(b)(3)'s procedure to
correct judgments obtained by fraud is an invitation for district
courts to scrutinize prevailing parties' appellate briefs for
consistency. If AFIC's positions during this litigation are, as
Anderson alleges, so inconsistent as to amount to fraud, then
Anderson may make that argument on appeal.

Anderson's motion for reconsideration is denied and Anderson's
motion for a hearing on the motion for reconsideration is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y468y3kf from Leagle.com.

GARTH ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by ADAM P. PRINCENTHAL --
adam@princemay.com -- C. COOPER KNOWLES. 750 Hammond Drive,
Building 12, Suite 350, Sandy Springs, GA 30328, CLINTON W. SITTON.
3405 Piedmont Road, Suite 500, Atlanta, GA, 30305, JAMES C. BRADLEY
-- jbradley@rpwb.com -- KIMBERLY KEEVERS PALMER --
kkeevers@rpwb.com -- MICHAEL J. BRICKMAN  -- mbrickman@rpwb.com  --
NINA FIELDS BRITT -- nfields@rpwb.com -- & RICHARD KOPELMAN, 3405
Piedmont Road, N.E., Suite 500, Atlanta, GA, 30305

AMERICAN FAMILY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
COLLIER WEST MCKENZIE, 5th Floor, Suntrust Bank Building, 435
Second Street, Macon, GA 31201, HEATHER CARSON PERKINS --
heather.perkins@FaegreBD.com -- LARRY E. LATARTE --
larry.latarte@FaegreBD.com -- MICHAEL S. MCCARTHY --
michael.mccarthy@FaegreBD.com -DULANY LUCETTA POPE --
lucetta.pope@FaegreBD.com -- & ROBERT C. NORMAN, Jr.. 435 2nd St,
Macon, GA 31201


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Gutierrez Files Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Medical
Collection Agency, Inc. The case is styled as Edgar Gutierrez
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY INC., QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, OPTUM360 LLC, DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 2:19-cv-16545 (D. N.J., Aug. 9, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

American Medical Collection Agency (AMCA) is a debt collecting
agency managing more than $1 billion in annual receivables.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chantal Khalil, Esq.
     Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
     Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson, Esq.
     Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP
     445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Phone: (914) 298-3281
     Fax: (914) 824-1561

The Defendants are represented by:

     Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq.
     Pouneh Aravand, Esq.
     Sidley Austin LLP (NY)
     787 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (212) 839-8555
     Fax: (212) 839-5599

          - and -

     READE WILLIAM SELIGMANN, ESQ.
     Alston & Bird LLP
     90 Park Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 210-9400
     Email: reade.seligmann@alston.com


ARCONIC INC: Second Amended Complaint Filed in Howard Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Arconic 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 second amended complaint has been filed
in the case, Howard v. Arconic Inc. et al.

A purported class action complaint related to the Grenfell Tower
fire was filed on August 11, 2017 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Arconic Inc.
and Klaus Kleinfeld.

A related purported class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
August 25, 2017, under the caption Sullivan v. Arconic Inc. et al.,
against Arconic Inc., two former Arconic executives, several
current and former Arconic directors, and banks that acted as
underwriters for Arconic's September 18, 2014 preferred stock
offering (the "Preferred Offering").

The plaintiff in Sullivan had previously filed a purported class
action against the same defendants on July 18, 2017 in the Southern
District of New York and, on August 25, 2017, voluntarily dismissed
that action without prejudice.

On February 7, 2018, on motion from certain putative class members,
the court consolidated Howard and Sullivan, closed Sullivan, and
appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case.

On April 9, 2018, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated purported
class action filed a consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the registration
statement for the Preferred Offering contained false and misleading
statements and omitted to state material information, including by
allegedly failing to disclose material uncertainties and trends
resulting from sales of Reynobond PE for unsafe uses and by
allegedly expressing a belief that appropriate risk management and
compliance programs had been adopted while concealing the risks
posed by Reynobond PE sales.

The consolidated amended complaint also alleged that between
November 4, 2013 and June 23, 2017 Arconic and Kleinfeld made false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information about the Company's commitment to safety, business and
financial prospects, and the risks of the Reynobond PE product,
including in Arconic's Form 10-Ks for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, its Form 10-Qs and
quarterly financial press releases from the fourth quarter of 2013
through the first quarter of 2017, its 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016
Annual Reports, its 2016 Annual Highlights Report, and on its
official website.

The consolidated amended complaint sought, among other things,
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of attorney and
expert fees and expenses. On June 8, 2018, all defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a
claim.

On June 21, 2019, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss in full, dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in
its entirety without prejudice.

On July 23, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges generally the same
claims as the consolidated amended complaint with certain
additional allegations, as well as claims that the risk factors set
forth in the registration statement for the Preferred Offering were
inadequate and that certain additional statements in the sources
identified above were misleading.

The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
compensatory damages and an award of attorney and expert fees and
expenses.

Arconic Inc. engineers, manufactures, and sells lightweight metals
worldwide. The company operate in three segments: Engineered
Products and Solutions, Global Rolled Products, and Transportation
and Construction Solutions. The company was founded in 1888 and is
based in New York, New York.


ARS NATIONAL: Certification of Class Sought in Johnson Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Johnson, Wendy Untershine, and Thomas Olszewski move the
Court to certify the class described in the complaint of their
lawsuit titled CYNTHIA JOHNSON, WENDY UNTERSHINE, and THOMAS
OLSZEWSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01137-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant the Plaintiffs (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiffs contend that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiffs contend that they are obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs note.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representative, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

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


AVON PRODUCTS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in New York Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, 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 is seeking
dismissal of the class action suit entitled, In re Avon Products,
Inc. Securities Litigation (formerly captioned as Bevinal v. Avon
Products, Inc., et al.)

On February 14, 2019, a purported shareholder's class action
complaint (Bevinal v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., No. 19-cv-1420)
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain former
officers of the Company.  

On June 3, 2019, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and class
counsel. The complaint was subsequently amended on June 28, 2019
and recaptioned "In re Avon Products, Inc. Securities Litigation"
on July 8, 2019.

The amended complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all purchasers or acquirers of Avon common stock
between January 21, 2016 and November 1, 2017, inclusive.

The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on
allegedly false or misleading statements and alleged market
manipulation with respect to, among other things, changes made to
Avon's credit terms for Representatives in Brazil.  

On July 26, 2019 the company filed a motion to dismiss.

Avon Products said, "In light of the early stage of the litigation,
we are unable to predict the outcome of this matter and are unable
to assess the likelihood of loss or to make a reasonable estimate
of the amount or range of loss that could result from an
unfavorable outcome."

Avon Products, Inc. manufactures and markets beauty and related
products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, south Latin America,
North Latin America, and the Asia Pacific. The company was founded
in 1886 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom.


BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend Gusinsky Revocable Trust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, 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, Gusinsky Revocable Trust v.
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., et al.

On June 25, 2019 an alleged stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Beazer Homes USA, Inc., and certain of its
current officers and its Board of Directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia also relating to Strougo
v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc., et al. inventory impairment charges.

The proposed class consists of all persons and entities that
acquired the company's securities between August 1, 2014 and June
25, 2019.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including, among other things, that the company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about its business, operations, and prospects during
the proposed Class Period, as well as a breach of fiduciary duties
by its Board of Directors.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs but does not specify the amount.

Beazer Homes said, "We believe the allegations are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. However, the
outcome of this legal proceeding cannot be predicted with
certainty."

Beazer Homes USA, Inc., incorporated on November 24, 1993, is a
geographically diversified homebuilder. The Company markets and
sells its products through its Website, www.beazer.com; mobile
site, m.beazer.com; real estate listing sites, online advertising,
including search engine marketing and display advertising, social
media, video, brochures, direct marketing and out-of-home
advertising, including billboards and signage, as well as other
activities. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.


BEAZER HOMES: Continues to Defend Strougo Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, 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, Strougo v. Beazer Homes USA,
Inc., et al.

During the quarter ended March 31, 2019, the company recognized
inventory impairment charges related to 15 communities in
California, all of which were previously land held for future
development assets.

Related to these inventory impairment charges, on June 5, 2019, an
alleged stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., and certain of its current officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The proposed class consists of all persons and entities that
acquired our securities between August 1, 2014 and May 2, 2019.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including, among other things, that the company made materially
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about its business, operations, and prospects during
the proposed Class Period.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs but does not specify the amount.

Beazer Homes said, "We believe the allegations are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend against the claims. However, the
outcome of this legal proceeding cannot be predicted with
certainty."

Beazer Homes USA, Inc., incorporated on November 24, 1993, is a
geographically diversified homebuilder. The Company markets and
sells its products through its Website, www.beazer.com; mobile
site, m.beazer.com; real estate listing sites, online advertising,
including search engine marketing and display advertising, social
media, video, brochures, direct marketing and out-of-home
advertising, including billboards and signage, as well as other
activities. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.


BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Appeal in Shareholders' Suit Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Biglari 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 a shareholders' appeal
from a judge's order dismissing their lawsuits is still pending.

On January 29, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company and the members of the
company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana. The shareholder generally alleges claims of breach
of fiduciary duty by the members of our Board of Directors and
unjust enrichment to Mr. Biglari as a result of the dual class
structure.

On March 26, 2018, a shareholder of the Company filed a purported
class action complaint against the Company and the members of the
company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana.

This shareholder generally alleges claims of breach of fiduciary
duty by the members of the company's Board of Directors. This
shareholder sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on April 26, 2018
to approve the dual class structure. On April 16, 2018, the
shareholders withdrew their motions to enjoin the shareholder vote
on April 26, 2018.

On May 17, 2018, the shareholders who filed the January 29, 2018
complaint and the March 26, 2018 complaint filed a new,
consolidated complaint against the Company and the members of the
company's Board of Directors in the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana.

The shareholders generally allege claims of breach of fiduciary
duty by the members of the company's Board of Directors and unjust
enrichment to Mr. Biglari arising out of the dual class structure.


The shareholders seek, for themselves and on behalf of all other
shareholders as a class, a declaration that the defendants breached
their duty to the shareholders and the class, and to recover
unspecified damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and
an award of their attorneys’ fees and other costs.

On December 14, 2018, the judge of the Superior Court of Hamilton
County, Indiana issued an order granting the Company's motion to
dismiss the shareholders' lawsuits. On January 11, 2019, the
shareholders filed an appeal of the judge's order dismissing the
lawsuits.

The Company continues to believe the claim is without merit and
will defend the appeal vigorously.

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

Biglari Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, primarily operates
and franchises restaurants in the United States. The company owns,
operates, and franchises restaurants under the Steak n Shake and
Western Sizzlin names. The company was formerly known as The Steak
n Shake Company and changed its name to Biglari Holdings Inc. in
April 2010. Biglari Holdings Inc. was founded in 1934 and is based
in San Antonio, Texas.


BIGLARI HOLDINGS: Settlement in Suits v. Steak n Shake Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Biglari 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 a court has approved the
terms of settlement in the Drake and Clendenen suits against Steak
n Shake.

On September 8, 2014, two former restaurant manager employees filed
a purported class action lawsuit against Steak n Shake (Drake v.
Steak n Shake).

On January 30, 2017, a former restaurant manager employee filed a
purported class action lawsuit against Steak n Shake (Clendenen v.
Steak n Shake).

The plaintiffs generally allege claims that Steak n Shake
improperly classified its managerial employees as exempt. On
February 28, 2019, a jury returned a verdict in the Drake case
against Steak n Shake.

The Company agreed to settle both cases for $8,350,000 and the
Court approved the terms of the settlement on July 26, 2019.  

Biglari Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, primarily operates
and franchises restaurants in the United States. The company owns,
operates, and franchises restaurants under the Steak n Shake and
Western Sizzlin names. The company was formerly known as The Steak
n Shake Company and changed its name to Biglari Holdings Inc. in
April 2010. Biglari Holdings Inc. was founded in 1934 and is based
in San Antonio, Texas.


BLACK & DECKER: Class Action Over False Vacuum Horsepower Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marian Johns, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Virginia
man has filed a class action lawsuit against Stanley Black & Decker
claiming it misled consumers regarding the amount of horsepower its
Craftsman-brand wet/dry vacuums generate.

According to the Aug. 1 filing in U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut, William Montgomery, individually and on
behalf of others, filed the complaint against the defendant Stanley
Black & Decker Inc., doing business as Craftsman, alleging breach
of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud and violation of Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act and
Consumer Protection Act.

In the suit, Montgomery alleges that the packing on the Craftsman
vacuums that claim the vacuums have a peak 1.75 horsepower and up
to 6.5 peak horsepower on some of the vacuums is false because "it
is physically impossible" for the products to reach that type of
horsepower output with their designated wattage and amperages of
the vacuums.

Montgomery alleges that the false horsepower claims allow the
company to sell the vacuums at higher prices and deceives consumers
into purchasing the Craftsman vacuums over "comparable models," the
suit states.

Montgomery seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for
the nationwide class along with equitable monetary relief,
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. He is represented by James
J. Reardon Jr., Esq. -- James.Reardon@reardonscanlon.com -- of
Reardon Scanlon in West Hartford, Connecticut. [GN]


BLACK TIE MGMT: Bailey Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JORDAN BAILEY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. BLACK TIE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY LLC, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01677-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio),
moves the Court to enter an order pursuant to Section 216(b) of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):

   A. conditionally certifying this case as a FLSA collective
      action under Section 216(b) against Defendants Black Tie
      Management Company LLC, Black Tie Moving Services LLC,
      Black Tie Moving Columbus LLC, Black Tie Moving Cleveland
      LLC, Black Tie Moving Cincinnati LLC, James Dustin Black,
      and Christopher Hess on behalf of Plaintiff Bailey and
      others similarly situated;

   B. directing that notice be sent by United States mail and
      email to all former and current drivers, movers, and
      related positions with different titles, employed by
      Defendants who performed off-the-clock work, were not paid
      travel time, and/or not paid overtime from April 29, 2016
      through the final disposition of this matter;

   C. approving the attached proposed Notice and Consent to Join
      Form informing such present and former employees of the
      pendency of this collective action and permitting them to
      opt into the case;

   D. directing the Defendants to provide within 14 days a Roster
      of such present and former employees that includes their
      full names, their dates of employment, and their last known
      home addresses and personal email addresses;

   E. directing that Notice, in the form approved by the Court,
      be sent to such present and former employees within 30 days
      using the home and email addresses listed in the Roster;
      and

   F. providing that duplicate copies of the Notice may be sent
      in the event new, updated, or corrected mailing addresses
      or email addresses are found for one or more of such
      present or former employees.

The FLSA collective is defined as:

     All former and current drivers, movers, and related
     positions with different titles, employed by Defendants who
     performed off-the-clock work, were not paid travel time,
     and/or not paid overtime from April 29, 2016 through the
     final disposition of this matter ("Opt-ins," "FLSA
     Collective," or "Putative Collective Members").[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          34 N. High St., Suite 502
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 824-5770
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D
          Massillon, OH 44646
          Telephone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


BOB'S DISCOUNT: Removes Barry et al. Suit to D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of STEPHEN BARRY; and JOSEPH RIBEIRO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. BOB'S DISCOUNT FURNITURE, LLC, Defendant, filed a
notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State
of Massachusetts, County of Worcester (Case No. 2019-00821) to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on August 5,
2019. The clerk of court for the District of Massachusetts assigned
Case No. 4:19-cv-40103. The case is assigned to Timothy S.
Hillman.

Bob's Discount Furniture, LLC retails home furniture. The Company
offers couches, sofas, tables, dinning room sets, mattresses, home
accents, entertainment centers, desks, file cabinets, book cases,
and stools. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian G. Leary, Esq.
          Robert M. Shaw, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          10 St. James Avenue
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 523-2700
          Facsimile: (617) 523-6850
          E-mail: brian.leary@hklaw.com
                  robert.shaw@hklaw.com


BUCKS COUNTY, PA: Appeals Ruling in Taha CHRIA Suit to 3rd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Bucks County Correctional Facility and Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Daryoush Taha v. County of Bucks, et al., Case No.
2-12-cv-06867, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 15, 2019, Greg
Metz, writing for The Reporter, reported that Bucks County intends
to appeal a federal jury's verdict from May 28 which found them to
be in violation of Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record
Information Act (CHRIA).

The county had been disseminating the criminal record history of
nearly 67,000 individuals booked in the Bucks County Correctional
Facility between 1938 and 2013.

Members of the lawsuit, Taha v. County of Bucks, have been awarded
punitive damages of $1,000 for each member, with the precise number
of eligible recipients to be determined by the court at a later
date.

Any of the 66,799 individuals processed through the Bucks County
Correctional Facility in the 75 year period the county was
disseminating this information is eligible to receive damages part
of the award.

Bucks County was brought into question after criminal history had
been disseminated through an inmate lookup tool on the county's
website from 2011-2013.

The appellate case is captioned as Daryoush Taha v. County of
Bucks, et al., Case No. 19-2761, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee DARYOUSH TAHA, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated is represented by:

          Alan E. Denenberg, Esq.
          ABRAMSON & DENENBERG PC
          1315 Walnut Street, 12th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 546-1345
          E-mail: adenenberg@adlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          Robert J. LaRocca, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          Aarthi Manohar, Esq.
          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
          1600 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  rlarocca@kohnswift.com
                  klaukaitis@kohnswift.com
                  amanohar@kohnswift.com
                  jshub@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Theodore M. Schaer, Esq.
          ZARWIN BAUM DEVITO KAPLAN SCHAER & TODDY PC
          1818 Market Street, 13th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 569-2800
          E-mail: kbsamuels@zarwin.com

Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF BUCKS and BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY are represented by:

          Frank A. Chernak, Esq.
          Brett M. Waldron, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP
          1735 Market Street, 21st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 772-7363
          E-mail: fchernak@mmwr.com
                  bwaldron@mmwr.com

               - and -

          Erin K. Clarke, Esq.
          Burt M. Rublin, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 772-7284
          E-mail: clarkee@ballardspahr.com
                  rublin@ballardspahr.com

Defendant-Appellee CITIZEN INFORMATION ASSOCIATES LLC is
represented by:

          Jay B. Harris, Esq.
          FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC
          Ten Penn Center
          1801 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 893-9300
          E-mail: jharris@finemanlawfirm.com


CALI BAMBOO: Klaehn Files Product Liability Suit in S.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cali Bamboo LLC. The
case is styled as William Klaehn on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cali Bamboo LLC a
California Limited Liability Company, Does 1 through 200 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:19-cv-01498-LAB-KSC (S.D. Cal., Aug. 9,
2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract Product Liability.

Cali Bamboo LLC manufactures wood building products. The Company
offers bamboo, hardwood, vinyl, and flooring, fencing, decking,
plywood, lumber, paneling, and slats, as well as provides
installation and maintenance services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael F. Ram
     Robins Kaplan LLP
     2440 W El Camino Real, Suite 100
     Mountain View, CA 94040
     Phone: (650) 784-4040
     Fax: (650) 784-4041
     Email: mram@robinskaplan.com



CANADA: Class Action Filed Over Forced Sterilization
----------------------------------------------------
Jillian Taylor, writing for CBC News, reports that a Manitoba woman
says while she was in labour at a Brandon hospital in 1985, a nurse
suggested she have her tubes tied because "her life was not going
well."

The woman, whose identity is protected by a publication ban, is now
one of two Manitoba plaintiffs in a proposed class-action lawsuit
that alleges Indigenous women across Canada endured forced or
coerced sterilization, a practice that "has roots in the eugenics
policies in Canada in place in the early part of the 20th century,
and continues to this day."

Court documents filed at Manitoba's Court of Queen's Bench in June
say the woman, identified as Ms. I., was 25 years old at the time
of her experience in the Brandon hospital and was about to deliver
her fourth child. She is a Sixties Scoop adoptee and a member of
the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation.

Saskatchewan law firm Semaganis Worme Lombard is handling the
proposed class action, in which Ms. I and another Manitoba woman,
identified as Ms. P., are the representative plaintiffs.

2 Indigenous women allege they were sterilized against their will
in Manitoba hospitals — one of them in 2018

The proposed class action alleges health-care professionals
sterilized both Ms. I and Ms. P. without proper and informed
consent.

While both women signed forms, they say they were not in the right
state of mind to properly consent to a life changing procedure.

Both Ms. I. and Ms. P. agreed to tubal ligation either while in
labour or in the hours following.

Suit alleges racial discrimination, negligence

The statement of claim names several defendants, including the
federal and provincial governments, St. Boniface Hospital, all five
of Manitoba's health authorities, the Manitoba College of
Physicians and Surgeons, the College of Registered Nurses of
Manitoba, and two unidentified people.

The proposed class action alleges health professionals were
negligent, misrepresented their intentions, discriminated against
the plaintiffs because of their race, and failed to provide proper
care following labour and delivery.

Ms. I. and Ms. P. both allege systemic racism played a role in
their coerced sterilizations.

The woman say the experiences left them with mental anguish,
depression, loss of self-worth as Indigenous women, and heavy
menstrual cycles with debilitating pain.

Class-action lawyer told of 2 coerced sterilizations of Indigenous
women in Manitoba
"Forced sterilization is destructive to their health, family,
relationships and culture," reads the statement of claim.

"All levels of the health care system bear responsibility."

A publication ban on identifying Ms. I. and Ms. P. was granted by
the Court of Queen's bench on July 25.

None of the allegations in their statement of claim has been proven
in court.

'Fast and confusing'

The statement of claim says after the Brandon nurse suggested Ms.
I. consider tubal ligation, the plaintiff recalled saying "I don't
know" and "no" to the procedure.

The document alleges that when Ms. I. was recovering after the
birth of the baby, the nurse came back with a clipboard and said
Ms. I. could have her tubes tied, instead of cut, and they could be
untied at a later date.

"Ms. I. recalls that the conversation was 'fast and confusing' and
that she may have signed consent forms," the court document says.

Medical records show Ms. I. did sign a consent form on Dec. 26,
1985, and the tubal ligation was performed less than 24 hours
later.

Ms. I. alleges no further information was given to her regarding
side effects, and she was never able to have another child.

Felt pressured to consent

Ms. P. alleges she was forced into having the tubal ligation
procedure at Winnipeg's St. Boniface Hospital in 2018, when she was
also 25.

She had the procedure immediately after she delivered her second
child by caesarean section.

"Before the scheduled [caesarean], two health-care professionals
came into Ms. P.'s room and asked her boyfriend to leave," states
the court document.

"One of the health professionals told her she had 'unhealthy
pregnancies' and was at risk of dying, with her baby, during the
birth process.

"The health professional suggested that Ms. P. should not have any
more pregnancies and encouraged her to have a tubal ligation."

The statement of claim says Ms P. felt she did not have a choice,
and felt agreeing to the tubal ligation was the only way to have
her baby safely delivered.

Class action lawsuit proposed on coerced sterilization in Alberta

The proposed class action is seeking no less than $7 million per
class member.

The class action has not yet been certified by the courts.

In addition to the Manitoba cases, separate lawsuits were
previously filed in Saskatchewan and Alberta seeking class-action
status on behalf of women with similar claims. [GN]


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Aballo et al. Suit over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
AIMEE ABALLO; and SETH ZIELICKE, individually on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION; CAPITAL ONE, N.A.; CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A.; and
GITHUB, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-04475-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
Aug. 1, 2019) is an action against the Defendants for their failure
to safeguard the Plaintiffs and the class' sensitive personal
information.

According to the complaint, the Defendant Capital One announced the
results of its delinquent behavior on July 29, 2019, when it
explained that an "outside individual" had "obtained" customers'
sensitive, Personal Information, that Capital One had collected and
stored. This outside individual ("the hacker") posted this Personal
Information on GitHub.com, the Defendant GitHub's website, which
encourages hacking and which is publicly available. As a result of
GitHub's failure to monitor, remove, or otherwise recognize and act
upon obviously-hacked data that was displayed, disclosed, and used
on and by GitHub and its website, the Personal Information sat on
GitHub.com for nearly three months.

As a result of GitHub's misconduct, the Personal Information of the
Plaintiffs and the Class was compromised and their Personal
Information was disclosed to third parties without their consent,
placing them at a greater risk of identity theft. The Plaintiffs
and the Class have also suffered out of pocket losses form
procuring credit protection services, identity theft monitoring,
and other expenses related to identity theft losses or protective
measures.

Capital One Financial Corporation provides commercial banking
services. The Bank accepts deposits and offers personal credit
cards, investment products, loans, and online banking services.
Capital One serves customers in the State of Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L. Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950

               - and -

          Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950


CAPITAL ONE: Faces Aminov Suit over Breach of Personal Data
-----------------------------------------------------------
EMANUYEL AMINOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION; CAPITAL
ONE BANK (USA), N.A.; and CAPITAL ONE, N.A., Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-01006-RDA-JFA (E.D. Va., Aug. 1, 2019) is an action against
the Defendants for their failure to safeguard the Plaintiff and the
class's sensitive personal information.

According to the complaint, on July 29, 2019, the Defendant Capital
One announced that an unauthorized party had gained access to one
of its cloud-based servers (the "Server"), used to store private
and identifying information about its customers, including
information customers were required to and did provide when
applying for Capital One products and services and data maintained
by the company that tracked its customers' activities
(collectively, "Personal Information"). According to a criminal
complaint filed that same day in the federal district court in
Seattle, the unauthorized party – identified as Paige Thompson
– is alleged to have repeatedly accessed or attempted to access
the Server with impunity for over a four month period and copied
the Personal Information of 106 million Capital One customers into
her own private storage site (the "Data Breach" or "Breach").

Capital One's announcement revealed that the unauthorized access to
its Server began in March 2019 and continued unabated until July
2019, giving criminals ample opportunity to access and download the
Plaintiffs' Personal Information for months. In the criminal
complaint, prosecutors explained that Thompson – a former
employee of Amazon Web Services, which hosted the breached Server
– exploited a negligently configured firewall on Capital One's
system in order to access customers' data on the Capital One Server
at various times between March 12 and July 17, 2019.

According to Capital One, the Breach was only discovered after an
anonymous "ethical" or "white hat" hacker notified the company in
July 2019 that its customers' data appeared to be leaked online. As
the result of Capital One's failure to reasonably secure its
Server, a cybercriminal with a stated intent to distribute obtained
the Personal Information of over 100 million customers, including
Plaintiff and the other Class members, exposing them to an
increased risk of fraud and identity theft, and causing them
injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, the lost value
of their Personal Information, and the lost time and expense
necessary to protect themselves against the foreseeable fraud and
identity theft that Capital One's conduct caused.

Capital One Financial Corporation provides commercial banking
services. The Bank accepts deposits and offers personal credit
cards, investment products, loans, and online banking services.
Capital One serves customers in the State of Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodie E. Buchman, Esq.
          Pierce C. Murphy, Esq.
          SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE LLC
          201 N. Charles Street, 26th Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 385-2225
          Facsimile: (410) 547-2432
          E-mail: jbuchman@mdattorney.com
                  pmurphy@mdattorney.com

               - and -

          Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
          Christopher C. Gold, Esq.
          Dorothy P. Antullis, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
          E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
                  cgold@rgrdlaw.com
                  dantullis@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: mreich@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          COHEN & MIZRAHI, LLP
          300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (929) 575-4175
          Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
          E-mail: dan@cml.legal
                  edward@cml.legal


CAPITAL ONE: ROBERTSON Sues over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------
LINDA ROBERTSON, the Plaintiff, vs. CAPITAL ONE, N.A. and CAPITAL
ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION and CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01368-UN1 (M.D. Pa., Aug. 7, 2019),
seeks monetary damages, restitution and declaratory relief from
Defendants, arising from a data breach announced to the public on
July 29, 2019.

From approximately March 12 to July 17, 2019, the sensitive
financial and personal data of an unknown number of customers was
compromised as a result of Capital One's failure to adequately
secure individual’s personal and financial information on its
systems.

According to the complaint, an unauthorized person, identified as
Paige Thompson of the State of Washington, intruded upon servers
controlled by Capital One through a vendor of Capital One called
Amazon Web Services, Inc., a division of Amazon, which provides
cloud computing services to Capital One.

According to Capital One, 106 million people had their personal
information stolen, including 100 million U.S. residents and 6
million Canadian residents who had, or applied for, Capital One
accounts. The breach exposed 40,000 Social Security numbers and
about 80,000 linked bank account numbers. The scope of the breach
is massive. The bank says it became aware of it on July 19.

Plaintiff's Personal Information was exposed by Capital One. She
seeks to recover damages and equitable relief on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated in the United
States.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
          1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          Facsimile: (215) 985-4169

CAPITAL ONE: Tsirigos et al. Sue over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Tsirigos, Vaseleke Inembolidis, James Arnold, Allen Moure,
Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04507 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 6, 2019), alleges
that Defendant failed to provide adequate privacy, security, and
confidentiality safeguards for Plaintiff's and each Class member's
information and documents.

According to the complaint, Defendant solicited and promoted its
Products and Services to plaintiff and class members through
multimedia campaigns, including television, digital, radio and
print mediums, direct to consumer promotions and partnerships with
leading non-profit organizations.

In July 2019, the personal, financial and bank account information
of plaintiffs and class members was revealed as compromised.

In particular, the compromised information included first and last
names, addresses, zip codes, birthdays, credit scores, payment
history, Social Security Numbers and bank account
information linked with defendant.

The most recent reports indicate the breach occurred in March 2019
but Defendant failed to inform plaintiffs and class members until
week before the filing of complaint. This caused over 100 million
users of defendant's services to have their personal and financial
exposed for five months.

Defendant made data security one of its primary selling points in
competing for customers in the highly competitive credit card
industry, through use of technologies and numerous disclosures in
customers' mailboxes pertaining to its privacy and security
policies.

As a result of Defendants' breach of contract, Plaintiff and Class
members have suffered actual damages resulting from the exposure of
their personal information, and they remain
at risk of suffering additional damages.

Accordingly, Plaintiff and Class members have been injured by
Defendants’ breach of contract and are entitled to damages and/or
restitution in an amount to be proven at trial.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          505 Northern Blvd., Suite 311
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 303-0552
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

CARBONITE INC: Bragar Eagel Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on behalf of all investors that purchased
Carbonite, Inc. ( CARB) securities between February 7, 2019 and
July 25, 2019 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until September
30, 2019 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the lawsuit.

The complaint, filed on August 1, 2019, alleges that throughout the
class period defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the technological quality of the Server Backup
VM Edition and its potential to add "meaningfully" to Carbonite's
financial performance for fiscal 2019. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) Carbonite's Server Backup VM Edition
was of poor quality and technologically flawed; (ii) Carbonite was
receiving poor reviews and complaints from customers about the
Server Backup VM Edition; (iii) the poor quality and technological
flaws of the Server Backup VM Edition was acting as a "disruptive"
factor throughout the Carbonite salesforce and keeping that sales
organization from closing opportunistically on several larger deals
during fiscal 2019; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing,
Carbonite lacked any reasonable basis for issuing its positive
projections and financial forecasts.

Finally, on July 25, 2019, Carbonite announced that it was
withdrawing its Server Backup VM Edition product from the
marketplace and consequently dramatically lowered its financial
projections for fiscal 2019 and 2020. That same day, the strongest
proponent and supporter of Server Backup VM Edition, Defendant Ali,
announced he was leaving Carbonite. On this news, Carbonite stock
declined more than 24%, from $23.90 per share when the market
closed on July 25, 2019, to $18.01 per share when the market closed
on July 26, 2019, on extremely heavy trading volume.

If you purchased Carbonite shares during the Class Period, are a
long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Melissa Fortunato by
email at investigations@bespc.com, or telephone at (212) 355-4648,
or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation
to you.

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

Contacts:

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


CARBONITE INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP alerts investors in Carbonite, Inc.
(CARB) to the securities class action, Luna v. Carbonite, Inc. et
al., No. 1:19-cv-11662 filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

If you invested in Carbonite between February 7, 2019 and July 25,
2019 (the "Class Period") and suffered losses you do not need to
sign up to be included in the putative class of investors.

If you suffered significant losses (in excess of $50,000) you may
qualify to be a lead plaintiff -- one who selects and oversees the
attorneys prosecuting the case.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must move the Court no later than September 30, 2019 (the "Lead
Plaintiff deadline"). Contact Hagens Berman immediately for more
information about the case and being a lead plaintiff
https://www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/CARB or contact Reed
Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling
510-725-3000 or emailing CARB@hbsslaw.com

According to the Complaint, Defendants misled investors about the
technological quality of the Company's Server Backup VM Edition and
its potential to add "meaningfully" to Carbonite's financial
performance for fiscal 2019. In truth, according to the Complaint,
the Server Backup VM Edition's functionality was of poor quality
and suffered from technological flaws, received poor customer
reviews and complaints, and caused disruption within Carbonite's
salesforce.

On July 25, 2019, the market learned the truth when Carbonite
announced that it was withdrawing the Server Backup VM Edition
product from the marketplace and consequently dramatically lowered
its financial projections for fiscal 2019 and 2020. That same day,
Carbonite's CEO Mohamad S. Ali -- the strongest proponent and
supporter of Server Backup VM Edition -- abruptly stepped down.

On this news, Carbonite stock declined nearly 25%, wiping out over
$200 million in market capitalization.

"We're focused on are investors' losses and whether Carbonite
misled investors about the quality and functionality of its Server
Backup VM Edition product," said Hagens Berman partner Reed
Kathrein.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Carbonite should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 510-725-3000 or email CARB@hbsslaw.com

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight
cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents
investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex
litigation.  More about the firm and its successes is located at
http://www.hbsslaw.com/

Contact:

         Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
         Reed Kathrein, Esq.
         Tel.No.: 510-725-3000
         Email: reed@hbsslaw.com [GN]


CARBONITE INC: Sept. 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until September 30, 2019 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against
Carbonite, Inc. (CARB), if they purchased the Company's shares
between February 7, 2019 and July 25, 2019, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Carbonite and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost
to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at
1-877-515-1850 or via email lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com or visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgm-carb/ to learn more. If
you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by September 30, 2019.

About the Lawsuit

Carbonite and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

On July 25, 2019, the Company disclosed that it was pulling its
premier "Server Backup VM Edition" software product from the
marketplace, significantly reducing its financial projections for
fiscal 2019 and 2020, and that its CEO had resigned.

On this news, the price of Carbonite's shares plummeted nearly 25%,
wiping out over $200 million in market capitalization.

The case is Luna v. Carbonite, Inc. et al., 1:19-cv-11662.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in
New York, California and Louisiana. [GN]


CARDINAL HEALTH: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Cardinal Health, Inc. (CAH) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of those
who purchased or acquired the securities of Cardinal Health between
March 2, 2015 through May 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements by asserting that Cordis Corp., a medical device
manufacturer that Cardinal Health acquired in March 2015, would
benefit from Cardinal Health's advanced inventory management and
supply chain information technology solutions. Defendants also
falsely represented that Cardinal Health properly "reserve[d] for
inventory obsolescence" and that "[i]nventories presented in the
consolidated balance sheets [were] net of reserves for excess and
obsolete inventory." When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the September 30,
2019 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


CARDINAL HEALTH: Schall Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Cardinal
Health, Inc. (NYSE:CAH) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 2,
2015 and May 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 30, 2019.

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

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

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Cardinal Health touted that Cordis Corp.,
which it acquired in March 2015, would greatly benefit from
leveraging the Company's inventory and supply chain technology. The
Company also made false statements that it had properly "reserve[d]
for inventory obsolescence" and that "[i]nventories presented in
the consolidated balance sheets [were] net of reserves for excess
and obsolete inventory." Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about Cardinal
Health, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

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

CONTACT:

         Brian Schall, Esq.
         The Schall Law Firm
         Tel: 310-301-3335
         Cell: 424-303-1964
         E-mail: info@schallfirm.com
                 brian@schallfirm.com [GN]


CARDINAL HEALTH: Sept. 30 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until September 30, 2019 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Cardinal
Health, Inc. (CAH), if they purchased the Company's shares between
March 2, 2015 and May 2, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This
action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Cardinal Health and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn
toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cah/ to learn more.
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by September 30, 2019.

About the Lawsuit

Cardinal Health and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

On May 3, 2018, Cardinal Health disclosed dismal results for
3Q2018, including a cut to its FY2018 earnings guidance, based
primarily on the "disappointing performance" of its Cordis Corp.
unit, contrary to the Company's prior statements, including an
inventory miscalculation that resulted in millions of dollars of
expired unsellable product being written off.

On this news, the price of Cardinal's shares plummeted.

Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund v. Cardinal Health, Inc.,
2:19-cv-03347.

About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities,
antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger &
acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly
traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in
New York, California and Louisiana. [GN]


CHEMOURS CO: Contaminated Drinking Water Suit Underway in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company 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 is defending
against a putative class action suit in Delaware alleging
contamination in drinking water.

In May 2019, a putative class action was filed in Delaware state
court against two electroplating companies alleging that they are
responsible for perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds
("PFAS") contamination, including PFOA and perfluorooctane sulfonic
acid (PFOS), in drinking water and the environment in the nearby
community.

The suit also names 3M Company (3M), E. I. du Pont de Nemours
(DuPont) and Chemours, asserting they sold PFAS containing
materials to the electroplating companies.

The putative class of residents alleges negligence, nuisance,
trespass and other claims and seeks medical monitoring, personal
injury and property damages, and punitive damages.

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America. It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS CO: N.Y. Suits Over PFAS Contamination Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company 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 E. I. du Pont de Nemours
and Company ("DuPont") continues to defend lawsuits in New York
related to alleged exposure to and/or contamination from
perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds(PFAS).

E. I. du Pont de Nemours (DuPont) has been named in approximately
49 lawsuits pending in New York courts, which are not part of the
Leach class, brought by individual plaintiffs alleging negligence
and other claims in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into
drinking water, and seeking medical monitoring, compensatory, and
punitive damages against current and former owners and suppliers of
a manufacturing facility in Hoosick Falls, New York.

The Company has been included as a named defendant in seven of
these lawsuits.

Two other lawsuits in New York have been filed by a business
seeking to recover its losses and by nearby property owners and
residents in a putative class action seeking medical monitoring,
compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

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

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America. It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS CO: Still Defends Ohio Lawsuit over PFAS in Blood Serum
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company 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 itself in a putative class action in Ohio related to
detectable level of perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds
(PFAS) in blood serum.

In October 2018, a putative class action was filed in Ohio federal
court against 3M Company (3M), E. I. du Pont de Nemours (DuPont),
Chemours, and other defendants seeking class action status for U.S.
residents having a detectable level of PFAS in their blood serum.
The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including
the establishment of a "PFAS Science Panel."

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America. It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS CO: Suits over Tainted Water Underway in Michigan & N.H.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company 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 has been
named as a defendant in putative class action suits in Michigan and
New Hampshire related to the designed, manufactured, and sold
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and/or PFAS constituents of AFFF.

In May 2019, two putative class actions were filed in federal
courts in Michigan and New Hampshire seeking class status for
individuals who have lived or worked on the former Pease Air Force
Base and Wurtsmith Air Force Base who consumed public water.

The lawsuits are filed against several defendants alleged to have
designed, manufactured, and sold AFFF and/or PFAS constituents of
AFFF. Plaintiffs seek damages including medical monitoring.

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America. It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Class Suit over Indiana Superfund Site Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company 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 itself against a putative class lawsuit initiated by area
residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery Inc.
multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana.

Six lawsuits, including one putative class action, pending against
DuPont by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead
Refinery multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana.

Several of the lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for
DuPont environmental liabilities.

The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages,
property diminution, and damages under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA,"
often referred to as "Superfund").

At separation, DuPont assigned Chemours its former plant site,
which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund
area, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at
the Superfund site.

Management believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not
estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among
others, that such matters are in their early stages and have
significant factual issues to be resolved.

The Chemours Company provides performance chemicals in North
America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and
Latin America. It operates through three segments: Titanium
Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Chemours
Company was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Wilmington,
Delaware.


CHICAGO, IL: City Attorneys Try to Stop Red Light Camera Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that Chicago
city attorneys are urging dismissal of a putative class action suit
against the city, which demands the city compensate drivers who
didn't receive second notices of camera-generated traffic citations
between 2003 and 2010, contending the suit was lodged too late and
second notices were not required anyway.

In January, plaintiffs Fred Hampton and Glenn Williams filed for a
class action in Cook County Circuit Court for themselves and other
motorists who were mailed red light camera and speed camera
automated tickets from 2003 to 2010, but did not receive second
notices of the alleged violations. The notices were to give those
drivers, who didn't respond to first notices, a chance to contest
the citations before they were fined. Plaintiffs argued the failure
to send second notices invalidates the citations. The class action
could involve hundreds of thousands of drivers.

Last year, the city settled a similar action, filed in 2015, for
citations issued between 2010 and 2015. The suit sought to include
all citations issued since implementation of the camera system in
2003, but the settlement only went back to 2010. Under the terms of
the $38 million settlement, each class member pocketed an average
of $58, with $11 million going to the Chicago firm of Myron M.
Cherry & Associates, which represented plaintiffs.

The firm of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel is handling the
new suit. The firm has offices in Chicago, Philadelphia and Ann
Arbor, Mich.

The new suit, as did the old one, alleges the city violated its own
ordinance by not sending a second notice of violation to people who
were mailed tickets.

City Hall is arguing it was optional for the city to send second
notices, not mandatory, and noted Illinois Vehicle Code does not
require second notices.

Plaintiffs have countered the ordinance uses the word "shall"
regarding followup notices.

"The Court should not rescue the City from this quagmire of its own
making. If the City Council did not intend to make the second
notice requirement mandatory, it should have used different
language or amended the ordinance to clarify its intent,"
plaintiffs said.

The city further maintained that although there is no unjust
enrichment count in the suit, plaintiffs are essentially accusing
the city of unjust enrichment, which carries a five-year statute of
limitations and would kill the suit.

Plaintiffs brushed aside the city's contention unjust enrichment is
in play, calling the city's arguments"specious efforts to impose a
limitations period where none exists."

Plaintiffs said the city on multiple occasions in circuit court and
on appeal during the first class action, argued for the five-year
limit, but judges rejected the arguments. In addition, plaintiffs
claimed the citations in question are void, and the U.S. Supreme
Court said in 2016: "When we say that a judgment is void, that
judgment may be challenged at any time."

The city also asserted the suit is no good, because plaintiffs
lodged their action before exhausting administrative remedies.
However, plaintiffs replied the citations don't turn on whether
drivers were guilty, but on the validity of citations and case law
interpretation, which cannot be addressed at the administrative
level.

The case is assigned to Associate Judge David Atkins.

City Hall is represented by corporate counsel and the Chicago firm
of Thompson Coburn LLP. [GN]


CITIGROUP INC: 5 Banks Face Class Suit in UK Antitrust Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Nadja Bester, writing for Beincrypto.com, reports that five large
banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Barclays, RBS, and UBS,
are being sued in a UK antitrust court. The class-action suit
follows on a successful suit against these banks in the US over
allegations of global foreign exchange rigging. Banks have already
paid out more than $11 billion in damages over similar allegations
in the US and Europe.

The UK Demands Its Pound of Flesh in Damages Over International
Forex Cartel
The banks involved are major players in the world economy.
US-headquartered JPMorgan is the world's sixth-largest bank by
total assets and the biggest banking corporation outside China. US
bank Citigroup is the 13th largest bank in the world, UK-based
Barclays 17th, UK Royal Bank of Scotland 24th, and Swiss UBS 27th.
(Data sourced from S&P Global Market Intelligence's 2019 global
banking ranking).

Michael O'Higgins, the former chairman of British watchdog, the
Pensions Regulator, leads the claim and filed with the Competition
Appeal Tribunal. Therium Capital Management is funding the suit. A
global leader in litigation finance group active across Europe, the
USA, and Australia, they have a track record of $36 billion funded
claims. UK-domiciled units will be automatically included.
According to Britain's 2015 Consumer Rights Act, UK-based members
of a class action are naturally included in a suit unless they
actively opt-out. Overseas-based claimants, however, should still
sign up.

A Suit Five Years in the Making
The practice first came to light in 2013. Regulators undertook
probes into bank trading practices in the US, UK, and Switzerland.
They implicated more than a dozen financial institutions. Globally,
banks have paid out roughly $11.8 billion in fines and penalties,
with an additional $2.3 billion spent in customer and investor
compensation.

Traders at various banks in cahoots with each other used exclusive
chatrooms to exchange commercially sensitive information. Traders
shared forex trading strategies and ‘standing down' practices to
allow another trader to engage in trade on such chatrooms. These
informal chatrooms, named 'Three-way banana split', ‘Essex
Express', 'Semi Grumpy Old Men', and others effectively controlled
currency markets in some of the world's leading economies.

The European Union and the USA have both already fined guilty banks
heavily. This new class-action suit brings the possibility of
recovering damages over customer and investor losses to Britain. In
the US, regulators also fined Goldman Sachs and HSBC.

Banks Trustworthy, Cryptocurrency Untrustworthy?
In 1832, US President Andrew Jackson vetoed the second Bank
Recharter Bill, a move that helped get him re-elected later that
year. In a commonly attributed quote, he told a banking delegation,
"You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and
by the eternal God, I will rout you out." Another quote commonly
believed to have been said by Sir Josiah Stamp, former President of
the Bank of England, reads:

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers
own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to
create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough
deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the
power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will
disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier
and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves
of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue
to create money."

Markets are neither free nor fair, and thanks to unscrupulous
practices, banking clients end up paying a premium for entrusting
their capital and assets to traditional finance. [GN]


COINBASE INC: Leidel Moves to Certify Class of CRYPTSY Users
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled BRANDON LEIDEL, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COINBASE, INC., a
Delaware corporation d/b/a, Global Digital Asset Exchange (GDAX),
Case No. 9:16-cv-81992-KAM (S.D. Fla.), moves for class
certification.

The nationwide class action is brought on behalf of a class of
similarly-situated users of Project Investors, Inc. d/b/a CRYPTSY
("CRYPTSY"), a cryptocurrency exchange and Money Services Business
based in South Florida that served clients in the United States and
abroad (the "Class").

Mr. Leidel notes that the Court has already certified the same
Class requested in this Motion in the related case styled Leidel,
et al. v. Project Investors, Inc. d/b/a CRYPTSY, Paul Vernon, and
Lorie Ann Nettles, Case No. 9:16-cv-80060-MARRA (the "CRYPTSY
CASE").  This related class action asserts claims on behalf of the
same Class against Defendant COINBASE, a California head quartered
cryptocurrency exchange, through which CRYPTSY's founder, Paul
Vernon ("VERNON"), converted into U.S. Dollars the cryptocurrency
he stole from the Class and then transferred the stolen funds to
his personal bank accounts before absconding to China.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc A. Wites, Esq.
          WITES LAW FIRM
          4400 North Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 933-4400
          Facsimile: (954) 354-0205
          E-mail: mwites@witeslaw.com

               - and -

          David C. Silver, Esq.
          Jason S. Miller, Esq.
          SILVER MILLER
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 755-4799
          Facsimile: (954) 755-4684
          E-mail: DSilver@SilverMillerLaw.com
                  JMiller@SilverMillerLaw.com


CONNECTICUT: Sentenced Inmates Class Certified in Barfield Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael P. Shea granted to the extent set forth in the
ruling the motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled
ROBERT BARFIELD, ET AL. v. ROLLIN COOK in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Correction, Case No.
3:18-cv-01198-MPS (D. Conn.).

Accordingly, the Court certifies this class:

     All sentenced persons (1) who have been or will be diagnosed
     with chronic Hepatitis C; (2) who are or will be in the
     custody of the Connecticut Department of Corrections; and
     (3) who have at least sixteen weeks remaining to serve on
     their sentences.

Robert Barfield, John Knapp, Darnell Tatem, and Jason Barberi are
appointed as class representatives.  Attorneys Kenneth J. Krayeske,
Esq., and DeVaughn L. Ward, Esq., are appointed as class counsel.

In the operative complaint, the Plaintiffs brought suit against
Commissioner Scott Semple in both his official and individual
capacities.  They alleged three claims against Semple in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the CT DOC: (1) deliberate
indifference to medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Count One); (2) violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 12131 et seq.
(Count Two); and (3) violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 701 et seq. (Count Three).[CC]


COZY COMFORT: Jones Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cozy Comfort Company
LLC. The case is styled as Kahlimah Jones, Individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Cozy Comfort Company LLC doing business as: thecomfy.com,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-04620 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 12, 2019).

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

Cozy Comfort Company LLC doing business as: thecomfy.com is an
on-line retail store services featuring blanket throws, namely,
whole body blankets.[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


CREDIT ONE: Burke Moves for Certification of Four TCPA Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ROBERTA BURKE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.
and FIRST CONTACT, LLC, Case No. 8:18-cv-00728-TPB-TGW (M.D. Fla.),
asks the Court to certify these classes:

   * Credit One Reference Class:

     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) Credit One placed a non-emergency
     telephone call relating to a Credit One debt (4) using
     substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone
     Plaintiff (5) from March 27, 2014 through the present and
     (6) where person was listed as a reference;

   * Credit One Do Not Call Class:

     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) Credit One placed a non-emergency
     telephone call relating to a Credit One debt (4) using
     substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone
     Plaintiff (5) from March 27, 2014 through the present (6)
     where Credit One's records note said telephone number was a
     wrong number and/or not to call and (7) where neither the
     subscriber nor any customary user of the cellular telephone
     number, at the time of the call, was a Credit One account
     holder;

   * First Contact Reference Class:

     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) First Contact placed a non-emergency
     telephone call relating to a Credit One debt (4) using
     substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone
     Plaintiff (5) from March 27, 2014 through the present and
     (6) where person was listed as a reference; and

   * First Contact Do Not Call Class:

     (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular
     telephone number (3) First Contact placed a non-emergency
     telephone call relating to a Credit One debt (4) using
     substantially the same system(s) that were used to telephone
     Plaintiff (5) from March 27, 2014 through the present (6)
     where any Defendants' records note said telephone number was
     a wrong number and/or not to call and (7) where neither the
     subscriber nor any customary user of the cellular telephone
     number, at the time of the call, was a Credit One account
     holder.

The Plaintiff moves the Court to order the action may proceed as a
class action against Credit One and its debt-collector
co-Defendant, First Contact, for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Theodore H. Kuyper, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com
                  tkuyper@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey E. Parmer, Esq.
          William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
          4030 Henderson Blvd.
          Tampa, FL 33629
          Telephone: (813) 500-1500
          E-mail: Geoff@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                  Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


CULTURED QUOTES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Barnett Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
JILLIAN BARNETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CULTURED QUOTES LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-23175-FAM (S.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Cultured Quotes LLC is a Pennsylvania company engaged as an online
retailer that sells jewelry to individuals. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

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


CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Gross Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders Curaleaf Holdings, Inc.
(CURLF)

Investors Affected : November 21, 2018 - July 22, 2019

A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Curaleaf, on its website and social media pages,
marketed its CBD products to be used as drugs and dietary
supplements, contrary to law; (2) Curaleaf also sold unapproved
animal drugs on its website; (3) such conduct would result in a
warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; and (4)
as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations,
and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock.

         CONTACT:
         The Gross Law Firm
         15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
         New York, NY, 10018
         Phone: (212) 537-9430
         Fax: (833) 862-7770
         Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com [GN]


CURALEAF HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Curaleaf Holdings, Inc. (OTC: CURLF) from November
21, 2018 through July 22, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Curaleaf investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Curaleaf class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1638.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Curaleaf, on its website and social media pages, marketed
its CBD products to be used as drugs and dietary supplements,
contrary to law; (2) Curaleaf also sold unapproved animal drugs on
its website; (3) such conduct would result in a warning letter from
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"); and (4) as a result,
defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 4,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1638.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

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

         Contact Information:

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


DIRECTOR UNITED: 3d Cir. Affirms Class Subsets Notice in Gorgonzola
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's Notice to Certain Class
Subsets in the case captioned AUDREY GORGONZOLA; GAIL G. HUDSON;
KATHRYN DAANE; DOLORES VASSALLUZZO; HAROLD P. THOMAS; THOMAS C.
MARCIN, v. DIRECTOR UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,
Appellant. Nos. 17-3309, 18-1852. (3rd Cir.).

OPM has appealed three orders of the District Court: two orders
requiring OPM to notify certain subsets of the class of their
potential right to an annuity recalculation, and another order
requiring OPM to hold back, for a future award of attorneys' fees,
30% of any retrospective payments made to any class members.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is a government agency
tasked with administering retirement benefits for our nation's
civil servants.These appeals arise from a long-running dispute over
how OPM has handled the annuities of retired nurses who worked for
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Almost nine years ago,
five retired VA nurses brought a class action against OPM, alleging
that the agency had failed to notify and recalculate the annuities
of VA nurses who were entitled to an annuity recalculation under a
2002 law.

OPM moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. OPM argued mainly
that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) created an exclusive
remedial scheme for federal benefits claims: initial adjudication
by OPM, with an appeal available to the MSPB, and subsequent
judicial review available only in the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit.

The District Court denied OPM's motion, holding that it did have
subject matter jurisdiction, albeit to a limited extent. In a
thorough opinion, the District Court concluded that it did not have
jurisdiction to order OPM to recalculate any individual's payment,
as that relief can only be sought through the CSRA. But it
explained that it did have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to
an undisclosed, systematic determination of OPM to fail to notify
individuals of their eligibility for certain benefits, an
eligibility that OPM unequivocally concedes is statutorily
required.  

The District Court eventually certified the class, granted summary
judgment for the plaintiffs on their Equal Protection claim. The
District Court explained that OPM, with no rational basis, had
treated retired nurses differently by providing some with notice of
their rights and others without. The District Court also determined
that the plaintiffs had alleged a viable Due Process claim, and it
ordered that the parties proceed to discovery.  

As directed by the District Court, the parties submitted a Joint
Status Report The Report explained that OPM had generated four
lists:

   1. A list of all active federal annuitants who retired between
April 7, 1986, and January 23, 2002, or their survivor annuitants)
who had worked part time at the VA before April 7, 1986 (List 1).

   2. A list of all active federal annuitants who retired between
April 7, 1986, and January 23, 2002, and may have worked part time
at the VA before 1972 (List 2).

   3. A list of all beneficiaries of deceased or survivor
annuitants who had received annuities based on qualifying part-time
VA work (List 3).

   4. A list of all beneficiaries of deceased annuitants who may
have worked part time at the VA before 1972.

According to the Joint Status Report, the parties had agreed upon
procedures to identify and notify Lists 1 and 3, as well as the
language of the notices.  The District Court, approved the notice
forms for Lists 1 and 3 with some minor qualifications and ordered
their issuance. Two days later, the District Court issued another
order directing OPM to hold back 30% of any retrospective payments
to annuitants for a possible future attorneys' fee award. OPM
appealed both the notice order and the holdback order.

OPM asks us to vacate the District Court's notice and holdback
orders.

OPM admits that it has complied with the two notice orders it has
appealed.  As a general principle, once a party has complied with a
court order or injunction, and has not been penalized or suffered
any prejudice that could be remedied on appeal, the appeal is moot.
The Court holds that OPM's appeals of the notice orders are moot.

OPM disagrees, arguing that its appeals are not moot because it is
still possible to undo the effects of the compliance with the
injunction. It points out that the notices directed by the notice
orders included a provision stating that a certain percentage of
any recalculated annuity payment will be held back for a potential
attorneys' fee award. That provision, OPM argues, keeps these
appeals alive because, if we were to vacate the notice orders, OPM
could send a new mailing repudiating the holdback provision. But
OPM's dispute over notification of the holdback, at bottom, is
about allocation of attorneys' fees. A fight over attorneys' fees
cannot save an interlocutory appeal from mootness.  

OPM also argues that its appeals of the notice orders are not moot
because the parties continue to disagree over the notice to be
provided to different subsets of class members. Deciding the
present appeals, OPM contends, could affect the other, ongoing
disputes in this case. But the issue here is not the mootness of
the entire case but the mootness of these interlocutory appeals.
Once the issue on appeal is moot, it does not matter whether the
entire case remains live; the Court cannot hear the appeal.

OPM finally suggests that we should hear its appeals of the notice
orders in the interest of judicial efficiency, contending that the
primary issue here  whether the District Court had subject matter
jurisdiction will inevitably return and need to be re-briefed and
re-argued. But OPM does not provide, nor can we locate, any support
for the proposition that an appeal can be heard in the name of
judicial efficiency when the appeal is no longer live. And that is
unsurprising, given that mootness is a jurisdictional issue. OPM
relies on our decision in In re Grand Jury Matter #3, 847 F.3d 157,
164-65 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam), but there, the defendant still
stood to be harmed by the appealed order. Here, by contrast, the
notice orders have run their course and cannot cause any additional
harm to OPM.

Because OPM's appeals of the notice orders are now moot, the Court
will dismiss them for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court also must dismisses OPM's appeal of the holdback order
because it is an interlocutory appeal that we cannot consider at
this time.

As a general rule, the Court have jurisdiction to hear appeals only
from final decisions. There are, of course, some exceptions. As
relevant here, the Court have appellate jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(a)(1) to review interlocutory orders of the
district courts of the United States granting, continuing,
modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions. The Court have
defined injunctions as orders that are directed to a party,
enforceable by contempt, and designed to accord or protect some or
all of the substantive relief sought by a complaint in more than a
temporary fashion.

Under that definition, the holdback order is not an order granting
an injunction because it is not designed to accord or protect some
or all of the substantive relief sought. It is essentially an order
securing funds, and we have held that such orders are not
appealable under Section 1292(a)(1).  

OPM nevertheless argues that the holdback order is injunctive
because it affects a portion of the substantive relief that
plaintiffs seek in this case retroactive annuity payments by
requiring that a percentage of such payments be held in trust by
OPM. But payment of annuities is no longer the substantive relief
at issue in this case. Per the District Court's ruling on its
subject matter jurisdiction, this case is now solely about
providing notice, not payments. OPM insists that it faces legal
consequences from imposition of the holdback order, but legal
consequences alone do not make the holdback order designed to
accord or protect some or all of the substantive relief sought in
this case. Any order securing funds has legal consequences, but
that does not make it injunctive under the definition we adopted in
Cohen.

Lastly, OPM contends that, even if the holdback order is not
independently appealable, the Court should exercise pendent
appellate jurisdiction over it. But because the other possible
jurisdictional hook, the appeals of the notice orders, is now moot,
the Court cannot exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over the
holdback order.

The Court will dismiss OPM's appeals for lack of jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's August 5, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y6qnpqvg from Leagle.com.

Marleigh D. Dover, Stephanie R. Marcus, [ARGUED] United States
Department of Justice, Civil Division, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530, Counsel for Appellant.

Jonathan K. Cohn, Maureen Davidson-Welling, [ARGUED] John E.
Stember, Stember Cohn & Davidson-Welling, 425 First Avenue, 7th
Floor, The Hartley Rose Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219,

Timothy P. O'Brien, 1705 Allegheny Building, 429 Forbes Avenue,
Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Counsel for Appellees.


DOMETIC GROUP: Class Certification in RV Refrigerator Case Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Florida Record, reports that a federal
judge has denied class certification in an action against the
manufacturer of refrigerators built into many of the country's
recreational vehicles (RVs).

In what may be the end of a long-running legal action, a judge for
the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida it was simply
not feasible to identify the members of the class.

The lawsuit alleged Dometic manufactured defective products that
led to "excessive corrosion" of its boiler tubes, which, as a
result, could catch fire. The class claim, on behalf of every
customer who bought one, was that they overpaid at point of
purchase.

However, without delving into any other of the standards for class
certification, Judge Robert N. Scola, of the Southern District of
Florida, ruled that it failed the "ascertainability" test, that is
there was no "administratively feasible" way of identifying class
members.

Dometic sold the refrigerators to the RV makers and dealers, and,
therefore, had no involvement in the sale to the consumer, he
ruled.

Erica Rutner, Esq. -- erutner@lashgoldberg.com -- a partner in Lash
& Goldberg LLP's Miami office and one of the lead defense lawyers
on the case, said had the action moved forward, it would have
involved small amounts of money for each member, but potentially $1
billion in total. She noted that the judge did appear to be
somewhat frustrated when delivering his opinion and finding that
the action did not even pass the "ascertainability" test.

"I would say this is near finality," Rutner told the Florida
Record, although adding there is nothing stopping an unnamed member
of the class taking action. However, Rutner added, the U.S. Supreme
Court has found that in such cases involving class actions
"substantial deference" should be given to previous rulings.

On the action itself, Rutner said, "Our position is there was no
evidence through a year of discovery of any actual damage caused by
alleged defects."

A previous suit against the company was dismissed by summary
judgment after it was dound that the plaintiffs did not have
standing as they were unable to prove any damage or injury.

Rutner believes the ruling could have some influence over future
class actions, making them harder to proceed, particularly if
members are all purchasers of a particular product where the
manufacturer is the target  and it holds no record of sales. [GN]


DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Class Action vs. SCANA 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 SCANA Corporation
continues to defend an employment class action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.

In August 2017, a case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on behalf of persons who were formerly
employed at the NND Project. In July 2018, the court certified this
case as a class action.  

In February 2019, certain of these plaintiffs filed an additional
case. In those cases, the plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that SCANA Corpoation, Fluor Corporation and Fluor Enterprises,
Inc. violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
in connection with the decision to stop construction at the NND
Project.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to provide
adequate advance written notice of their terminations of employment
and are seeking damages, which are estimated to be as much as $75
million for 100% of the NND Project.

In September 2018, a case was filed in the State Court of Common
Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina by Fluor Enterprises,
Inc. and Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc. against Dominion
Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and Santee Cooper.

The plaintiffs make claims for indemnification, breach of contract
and promissory estoppel arising from, among other things, the
defendants' alleged failure and refusal to defend and indemnify the
Fluor defendants in the aforementioned case. These cases are
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: Remand Order in City of Warren Suit Flipped
------------------------------------------------------------
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 U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order remanding a
lawsuit by the City of Warren to state court.  

In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA
Corporation (SCANA), Dominion Energy and certain former executive
officers and directors of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas
in Lexington County, South Carolina (the City of Warren Lawsuit).

The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger
agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value
of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted
these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin
and/or rescind the merger.

In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In June 2018, the case was
remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington
County.

Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was
consolidated with a similar appeal in the Metzler lawsuit discussed
below.

In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the order remanding the case to state court.  

Dominion Energy said, "The case is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina."

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: Remand Order in Metzler Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------
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 U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit has reversed the order remanding the
so-called Metzler lawsuit to state court.  

In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against
Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA Corporation
(SCANA) and Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) in the
State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina (the
Metzler Lawsuit).

The allegations made and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are
substantially similar to that described for the City of Warren
Lawsuit.

In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018.

In August 2018, the case was remanded back to the State Court of
Common Pleas in Richland County. Dominion Energy appealed the
decision to remand to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, where the appeal was consolidated with the City of Warren
Lawsuit.

In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the order remanding the case to state court.  

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina.

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.


DONALD TRUMP: Class Suit Over 'Secrets to Success' OK'd to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Arciga, writing for The Daily Beast, reports that President
Trump, his three children, and his company must face a class-action
lawsuit that accuses them of scamming thousands of people with two
multilevel marketing operations and a live-seminar program that
promised to reveal Trump's "secrets to success" in real estate, a
judge ruled on July 31, 2019.  U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield
ruled that the lawsuit, filed by four anonymous individuals, can
proceed with "fraud, unfair competition, and deceptive trade
practices" claims, Bloomberg reports. Their accusations of federal
racketeering were dismissed, however. The four plaintiffs had
requested anonymity over fears that Trump could publicly blast them
on Twitter and spur his followers to retaliate.

Roberta Kaplan, Esq. -- rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com -- the lawyer for
the plaintiffs, said she was looking forward to obtaining "justice"
for her clients and "thousands of other working Americans just like
them." The attorney for the Trumps, Joanna Hendon, Esq. --
jhendon@spearsimes.com -- said she was "delighted" with the judge's
decision to dismiss the racketeering claim. "We look forward to
disposing with the rest of the case," she said. [GN]


DPC NEW YORK: Soto Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Soto v. DPC New York, Inc., Thomas Pepe, Chris Pepe, Jose
Juan Munoz, Case No. 654428/2019 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Aug. 5,
2019), seeks to recover unpaid wages and liquidated damages
pursuant to the New York Labor Law, and an award of prejudgment and
postjudgment interest for the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated.

DPC New York, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of New York with its principal place of business in New
York County, State of New York.  The Individual Defendants are the
co-owners, shareholders, directors, supervisors, managing agents,
and proprietors, of the Corporate Defendant.

The Defendants own, operate, and/or control a construction company
in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 3rd Avenue Suite 1810
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatpllc.com


EL POLLO: Deal Reached in Olvera, Perez, Vega & Gonzalez Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco 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 26, 2019, that settlements have
been reached in the Olvera, Perez, Vega and Gonzalez lawsuits.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco,
Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) (the "Olvera
Action") on behalf of all putative class members (all hourly
employees from 2010 to the present) alleging certain violations of
California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, and
failure to provide itemized wage statements.

The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies include
compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement
of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. No specific
amount of damages sought was specified in the complaint.

The parties reached a settlement in principle on January 24, 2019
of all claims brought on behalf of approximately 32,000 putative
class members in the Olvera Action, as well as all claims for
failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal
periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage
statements brought in the class actions captioned Martha Perez v.
El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC624001)
(the "Perez Action"), Maria Vega, et al. v. El Pollo Loco, Inc.
(Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC649719 (the "Vega Action"),
and Gonzalez v. El Pollo Loco, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No. BC712867) (the "Gonzalez Action") and codified such
settlement on April 26, 2019.

The settlement reached in the Olvera Action, Perez Action, Vega
Action, and Gonzalez Action resolves all potential claims from
April 12, 2010 through April 1, 2019 that the Company's California
based restaurant employees may have against El Pollo Loco for the
failure to pay all compensation owed, failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks and
failure to provide itemized wage statements, among other wage and
hour related claims.

It is anticipated that the settlement will be approved by the Court
before the end of the year. A $16.3 million accrual of an expected
settlement amount related to this matter was recorded as of
December 26, 2018.

El Pollo Loco said, "Purported class actions alleging wage and hour
violations are commonly filed against California employers. The
Company has similar cases pending that overlap in part with the
Olvera action and fully expects to have to defend against similar
lawsuits in the future."

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary El Pollo Loco,
Inc., develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service
restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name. The company was formerly
known as Chicken Acquisition Corp. and changed its name to El Pollo
Loco Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California.


EL POLLO: Settlement of Turocy and Huston Suits Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David O. Carter convened a hearing Wednesday, August 21,
2019, to consider final approval of the settlement reached in the
securities lawsuits, Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco
Holdings, Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
August 24, 2015, and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on October
22, 2015.

El Pollo Loco 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 26, 2019, that the hearing on
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement
and approval of plan of allocation and motion for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses and awards to lead plaintiffs has been
scheduled on August 21, 2019.

The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs
and class counsel.  A consolidated complaint was filed on January
29, 2016, on behalf of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly
situated, alleging violations of federal securities laws in
connection with Holdings common stock purchased or otherwise
acquired and the purchase of call options or the sale of put
options, between May 1, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the "Class
Period").

The named defendants are Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance
Roberts, and Edward J. Valle (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo Partners, LLC, Trimaran Capital
Partners, and Freeman Spogli & Co. (collectively, the "Controlling
Shareholder Defendants").

Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early 2015,
Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in California
and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such rising costs,
removed a $5 value option from the Company's menu, which resulted
in a decrease in traffic from value-conscious consumers.

Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings
and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false and
misleading statements that concealed the effect that these factors
were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings stock
continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices.

As a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class
allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
Holdings' stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs
allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder
Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the
operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other
things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving
rise to the alleged securities law violations. In both cases,
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs
and expenses (including attorneys' fees).

On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without
prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend
their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2016.


Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March 20,
2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted
Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint. Plaintiffs
filed another amended complaint on April 17, 2017. Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on or about May 17, 2017.
The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint on August 4, 2017.

On December 8, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and on July 3, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs'
motion and certified a class as to all of Plaintiffs' claims.
Defendants filed a petition for appellate review of a portion of
the Court's July 3, 2018 class certification order. On October 19,
2018 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the petition.

On January 23, 2019, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement and
Joint Request for Order to Stay Proceedings, stating the parties
have reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims and
allegations in the action and are negotiating the terms of a
Stipulation of Settlement.  

On January 24, 2019, the Court ordered that all proceedings in the
action be stayed until April 3, 2019, on or before which the
parties were to file a Stipulation of Settlement and a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement.

On April 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the Stipulation of Settlement
and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. On May 13,
2019, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

On July 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and Approval of Plan of Allocation and the
Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and Awards to
Lead Plaintiffs Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4).

Defendants maintain that the Plaintiffs' claims are without merit,
and have entered into the settlement to eliminate the
uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted litigation.


El Pollo Loco said, "A $20.0 million accrual of an expected
settlement amount related to this matter was recorded as of
December 26, 2018 and all settlement payments were made during the
thirteen and twenty-six weeks ended June 26, 2019."

El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary El Pollo Loco,
Inc., develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service
restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name. The company was formerly
known as Chicken Acquisition Corp. and changed its name to El Pollo
Loco Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. was
founded in 1980 and is headquartered in Costa Mesa, California.


ELECTRICITY MAINE: Lawsuit on Hiatus as Settlement Talks Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Valigra, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that a
potential class action lawsuit involving Electricity Maine, one of
the state's largest private electricity sellers, is on a 75-day
hiatus as the parties pursue settlement discussions, according to a
document filed in federal court.

The case alleges that between 2011 and 2014, the Auburn-based
Electricity Maine enrolled nearly 200,000 Maine households and
small businesses in its electricity-supply services with the
promise of substantial cost savings.

The complex case involves more than 220 filings, including amended
complaints by the plaintiffs, affidavits supporting the plaintiffs
and documents refuting their claims by Electricity Maine and other
defendants. The hold on actions on the three-year-old case could
bring it a step closer to being settled.

The plaintiffs allege that instead of decreasing consumers'
electricity bills, Electricity Maine, using fraud and deceptive
practices, cost Maine ratepayers at least $35 million. In a
separate case, Maine's utility regulator asked Electricity Maine in
July 2018 to explain its actions.

The case was filed in U.S. District Court in November 2016, and
seeks class action status, a jury trial and compensatory damages.
In a July filing, all parties in the case asked the court to hold
all deadlines and further activity for 75 days "while the parties
pursue settlement discussions."

One lawyer involved in the case said settlement discussions are
confidential and those involved in the case cannot comment on
them.

The plaintiffs listed in the filing are three Mainers and a South
Portland acupuncture clinic, who filed on behalf of themselves and
others in the class action. The defendants are Electricity Maine,
Provider Power, Spark Holdco and the company's founders, Kevin Dean
and Emile Clavet.

Electricity Maine is a retail electricity supplier that serves as
an option to the standard offer electricity prices from Central
Maine Power and Emera Maine.

The company was founded in 2011, then sold to Houston, Texas,
energy giant Spark Energy in 2016 for $28 million. At the time
Electricity Maine was owned by Provider Power and had about 125,000
customers in Maine and New Hampshire.

Separately, in July 2018 Electricity Maine was asked to explain its
actions to the Maine Public Utilities Commission, which regulates
electric and other utilities.

The joint filing noted that three motions are pending before the
district court. They are the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case
as a class action, the plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert
testimony and the defendants' motion to dismiss the case and compel
arbitration.

The parties to the case attended a settlement conference on July 1
and 2 with U.S. Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison in Bangor.

"As a result of that conference, the parties have made progress
toward a settlement that would fully and finally resolve the
lawsuit," the filing said.

To reach a settlement agreement among all the parties, a separate
agreement must first be reached between Electricity Maine and Spark
and defendants Provider Power, Clavet and Dean. Electricity Maine
and Provider Power said they require additional time to work out
the terms of their agreement.

Before the 75 days is up, the parties will either report to the
court that they have agreed to resolve the lawsuit, which would
require approval by the court, or they would report that they have
not reached an agreement and request more time or for rulings on
the three pending motions.

In a separate case, the court of appeals on July 10 agreed with an
earlier ruling by the district court regarding an insurance company
and Electricity Maine.

Zurich America Insurance Co., which insures Electricity Maine, said
it should not be obligated to defend Electricity Maine in the
proposed class action lawsuit because the damages by the plaintiffs
were not "bodily injury" and thus didn't qualify under the
insurance policy.

Both courts took a broad interpretation of Maine law and said
Zurich America needed to defend Electricity Maine, meaning it had
to pick up some fees if the proposed class action lawsuit is
certified and moves forward.

Larry Schiffer, an attorney with Squire Patton Boggs in New York
who specializes in insurance, said the ruling will not affect
ratepayers.

"This ruling says that the insurance policy Electricity Maine took
out has to pay its share of the defense," Schiffer said in an
article for the National Law Review. "The ruling makes no decision
on the putative class action suit itself." [GN]


ELI LILLY: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in MSP Recovery Claims Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company 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 MSP Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi
Aventis U.S. LLC et al. suit.

The company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are named as
defendants in a consolidated purported class action lawsuit, In re.
Insulin Pricing Litigation, in the U.S. District Court of New
Jersey relating to insulin pricing.

Plaintiffs seek damages under various state consumer protection
laws and the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
Act (federal RICO Act).

Separately, the company, along with Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, are
named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit, MSP
Recovery Claims, Series, LLC et al. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S. LLC et
al., in the same court, seeking damages under various state
consumer protection laws, common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and
the federal RICO Act.

In March 2019, the court dismissed, without prejudice, the
plaintiffs' federal RICO Act, unjust enrichment, and certain state
consumer protection law claims.

Plaintiffs in that lawsuit filed a second amended complaint in
April 2019 reasserting these claims.

Eli Lilly and Company discovers, develops, manufactures, and
markets pharmaceutical products worldwide. The company operates in
two segments, Human Pharmaceutical Products and Animal Health
Products. Eli Lilly and Company was founded in 1876 and is
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.


EPIC GAMES: Facing Class Suit Over Hacked Fortnite Accounts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ana Diaz, writing for Polygon, reports that Epic Games is being
sued over security breaches that allowed hackers to access the
personal information of Epic Games accounts.

The class-action lawsuit, filed by Franklin D. Azar & Associates in
U.S. District Court in North Carolina, alleges Epic's "failure to
maintain adequate security measures and notify users of the
security breach in a timely manner." The lawsuit states that "there
are more than 100 class members."

In January, Epic acknowledged that a bug in Fortnite may have
exposed personal information for millions of user accounts. Check
Point Researchers originally reported how the attacks were carried
out:

By discovering a vulnerability found in some of Epic Games'
sub-domains, an XSS attack was permissible with the user merely
needing to click on a link sent to them by the attacker. Once
clicked, with no need even for them to enter any login credentials,
their Fortnite username and password could immediately be captured
the attacker.

Epic Games acknowledged and fixed the issue, but the suit alleges
that the company has failed to notify affected users. "Epic Games
has not yet directly informed or notified individual Fortnite users
that their [personally identifiable information] may be compromised
as a result of the breach," the lawsuit says.

According to the filing, the plaintiff and anyone else affected by
the breaches "have an ongoing interest in ensuring that their
[personally identifiable information] is protected from past and
future cybersecurity threats."

Polygon reached out to Franklin D. Azar & Associates and Epic
Games; the law firm has yet to respond and Epic Games declined to
comment on the suit. [GN]


FIRST AMERICAN: R. Campbell's Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Transfer the case captioned ROGER CAMPBELL,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, A
DELAWARE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Case No. 19-cv-03695-LB.
(N.D. Cal.) to the Central District of California.

The Defendants are the largest title insurer in the country. A
real-estate developer discovered that all of First American's 885
million confidential customer documents were publicly accessible on
its website. The developer contacted First American, but First
American allegedly refused to respond or to take any ameliorative
action. The developer then contacted a journalist, who wrote an
article stating that all of First American's 885 million documents
were publicly accessible.

First American then terminated access to the documents on its
website. At least 21 class actions have been filed against First
American relating to this exposure of confidential customer
documents.

First American moves to transfer this case to the Central District
of California under (1) the first-to-file rule and (2) 28 U.S.C.
Section 1404(a). More specifically, First American moves to
transfer this case to the Central District of California, Western
Division (where Judge Fischer sits).

The plaintiffs oppose transfer and argue that the court should
leave the case here for now and stay it instead. The plaintiffs
state that the plaintiffs in the sixth-filed class action against
First American filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer the case to the Central
District of California, Southern Division.

The plaintiffs argue that the court should stay this case while the
JPML motion is pending, because there is little point in
transferring this case to the Central District, Western Division
when it will likely be re-transferred shortly to the Central
District, Southern Division.

The well-established first to file rule, allows a district court to
transfer, stay, or dismiss an action when a similar complaint has
already been filed in another federal court. Courts analyze three
factors in determining whether to apply the first-to-file rule:
chronology of the lawsuits, similarity of the parties, and
similarity of the issues.

The first-to-file factors are satisfied here.

First, the first of the class actions against First American, Gritz
v. First American Financial Corp., No. 8:19-cv-01009-DSF-E (C.D.
Cal. filed May 27, 2019), was filed nearly a month before this case
was. In addition to Gritz, thirteen of the other class actions
against First American pending in the Central District were filed
before this case was as well. This factor weighs in favor of
transfer.  

Second, the parties here are substantially similar to the parties
in Gritz. The putative class in this case is substantially similar
to the putative class in Gritz: both are classes of persons who
used First American's title-insurance services and had their
personally identifiable information (PII) compromised. And the
defendants, First American Financial Corp. and First American Title
Co. are identical in both cases. This factor weighs in favor of
transfer.

Third, the issues here are substantially similar to the issues in
Gritz. Both cases allege that First American failed to protect its
customers' PII and made publicly available 885 million confidential
customer documents. Both cases bring claims for breach of contract,
negligence, and violation of California Business and Professions
Code Section 17200 et seq. and the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act. The plaintiffs here also bring a claim for breach of
the covenant of good faith and fair dealing that the Gritz
plaintiff did not explicitly plead, and the Gritz plaintiff brought
a claim for unjust enrichment that the plaintiffs here did not
plead. But the issues in both cases need not be identical, only
substantially similar.  

This factor weighs in favor of transfer.
  
The plaintiffs do not offer any cognizable reason why this case
should not be transferred. The plaintiffs argue that courts stay
motions to transfer while JPML motions are pending. They cite no
applicable cases in support of that proposition. The plaintiffs
also argue that one plaintiff lives in Northern California, where
he executed all agreements with Defendants and where all
performance on the part of Defendants took place. They
conspicuously do not claim that that plaintiff lives in the
Northern District of California because he does not.

First American asks that the court transfer this case specifically
to the Central District of California, Western Division. Even
assuming that this court has the authority to transfer the case to
a specific division in another judicial district, it declines to do
so. The Central District can manage its own docket and determine
the division assignment.

The court grants First American's motion to transfer and transfers
this case to the Central District of California under the
first-to-file rule.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4fxq9fk from Leagle.com.

ROGER CAMPBELL & GILLIAN SCHAADT, Plaintiffs, represented by Bobby
Saadian --bobby@wilshirelawfirm.com -- Wilshire Law Firm, PLC,
Justin F. Marquez -- justin@wilshirelawfirm.com -- Wilshire Law
Firm, PLC, Patty W. Chen -- patty@wilshirelawfirm.com -- Wilshire
Law Firm,Robert James Dart -- rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com -- Wilshire
Law Firm & Thiago Merlini Coelho -- thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com --
Wilshire Law Firm.

FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation &
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, a California corporation, Defendants,
represented by Joel David Siegel -- joel.siegel@dentons.com --
Dentons US LLP & Paul Maynard Kakuske -- paul.kakuske@snrdenton.com
-- SNR Denton US LLP


FLORIDA: Legal Aid Groups Bring Class Action Over Medicaid Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Schlein, writing for Daily Busines Review, reports that a new
proposed class action lawsuit in Florida has accused state agencies
of wrongfully terminating Florida residents' Medicare coverage on a
systemic basis.

The complaint alleged the Florida Agency for Health Care
Administration and the Florida Department of Children and Families
have repeatedly abridged the due-process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as well as federal Medicare
law, in their treatment of beneficiaries.

According to the suit, the defendants have engaged in a "pattern
and practice of terminating Medicaid benefits for individuals whose
coverage would continue" under separate qualifications and
additional review.

The named plaintiffs, Clayton Harrell and Austin Trueblood, were
purportedly not notified that their Medicaid benefits had ended,
although they both remained eligible for the program under
different categories outside the ones in which they had originally
enrolled.

"Since 2014, the legal services organizations of undersigned
counsel have represented at least 30 individuals who lost their
Medicaid coverage due to termination of an adoption subsidy or
[Supplemental Security Income] benefits and for whom defendants
failed to conduct an ex-parte review of their continued eligibility
under another Medicaid category," the complaint said.

The suit claimed both Harrell and Trueblood were entitled to
conduct hearings challenging the termination of their Medicaid
enrollment, as well as receive ongoing coverage pending the outcome
of their appeal.

The putative class would comprise individuals who were stripped of
their Medicaid because their eligibility through Florida's Adoption
Assistance program or federal disability benefits concluded, "but
who may remain eligible for another category of Medicaid,"
according to the lawsuit.

"The legal services organizations . . . rely on individuals
contacting them and it is unknown how many individuals are not
aware of their services but may nonetheless be impacted by
defendants' failures," the suit said. "Without assistance from
undersigned counsels' organizations to enforce their right to
continued Medicaid eligibility and educate them about their right
to adequate, pre-termination notice and hearing, these individuals
would likely still be without Medicaid."

Katy DeBriere, legal director of Florida Health Justice Project,
told the Daily Business Review the proposed class might number in
the thousands. She said the litigation's origins lie with identical
cases litigated by her and peers at Jacksonville Area Legal Aid and
Disability Rights Florida. DeBriere said she and other advocates
"were really tired of fixing these issues on an individual basis."

"I can't even imagine the amount of people who don't realize it's a
legal issue, and they can call for legal help," she said. "We would
like to see this issue fixed on a systemic basis because we've seen
too many clients to whom this has happened."

The complaint noted "by its own admission, DCF does not employ a
sufficient amount of staff" to correctly process Florida residents'
Medicare eligibility.

"All the written policies with DCF say the right things, they're
just not happening," DeBriere said, adding additional staffing and
more thorough information processing could alleviate the problems
experienced by her clients. "Ideally we'd be working with these
state agencies to come up with fixes to make sure people are not
falling through the cracks. So we need to have a conversation,
whether that be through litigation or sitting in mediation, and ask
why aren't these policies being implemented?"

DCF's media office did not return requests for comment by press
time. Patrick Manderfield, deputy communications director with the
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, said the agency does
not comment on pending litigation.

Florida's Children First founder and Talenfeld Law managing partner
Howard Talenfeld said he's observed the circumstances outlined in
the complaint in his own practice. Talenfeld, a longtime advocate
for children's rights and on child-disability issues, is not
involved in the class-action litigation. But he said Florida has an
extensive history of being sued over inadequate welfare and
disability programs.

"We've seen Medicaid extraordinarily limit services to its clients
on many fronts," Talenfeld said, noting problems such as those
detailed in the suit stem in part from significant budget cuts to
public assistance programs. The attorney added Florida courts have
been "extremely supportive" of certified classes with similar
allegations.

"This case is extremely concerning, because we know that when they
fall off of Medicaid or the adoption subsidies end, these children
are without resources to fully transition into adulthood," he said.
"I'm extremely hopeful that the agency leaders . . . will respond
to these serious allegations with corrective action." [GN]


FRED'S INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Fred's, Inc. (NASDAQ: FRED) between December 20, 2016
and June 28, 2017 (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Fred's investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Fred's class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1621.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") had informed
defendants that the merger between Rite Aid Corp. and Walgreens was
unlikely to garner regulatory approval as then constituted because
of the significant market overlap between Rite Aid and Walgreens
stores; (2) defendants did not possess "clarity" from their
non-public discussions with FTC regulators that the deal would be
approved, but, rather, FTC officials had expressed concern that the
planned divestitures did not go far enough to preserve competition
in the pharmaceutical marketplace; (3) delay in the regulatory
review process and FTC requests for additional information were not
simply routine and inconsequential as defendants had represented;
(4) FTC Staff indicated to defendants that Fred's did not have the
financial capability and incentives to acquire and operate the
assets, nor the competitive ability to maintain or restore
competition in the market; (5) Fred's wouldn't purchase the Rite
Aid stores and certain assets related to store operations located
across the eastern and western United States pursuant to the Asset
Purchase Agreement; and (6) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about Fred's business, operations,
and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 27,
2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1621.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact:

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


GENUINE PARTS: Court Dismisses B. Hill for Lack of Jurisdiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order dismissing for Lack of Jurisdiction the
case captioned BRANDON HILL, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENUINE PARTS COMPANY dba
Napa Auto Parts, and DOES 1-100, Defendants. Case No. 1:18-CV-1550
AWI SAB. (E.D. Cal.).

This is a putative class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiff
Brandon Hill against his former employer, Defendant Genuine Parts
Company. Hill alleges violations of the California Labor Code1 and
California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. Napa removed
this case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act from the Fresno
County Superior Court.

It is a fundamental precept that federal courts are courts of
limited jurisdiction, and the limits on jurisdiction must not be
disregarded or evaded Mootness is a jurisdictional issue. A case is
moot when the issues are no longer live or the parties lack a
legally cognizable interest in the outcome. That is, if events
subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute,
the court must dismiss the case as moot.  

Here, the Court requested additional briefing because the parties'
March 2019 stipulation shows that Hill resolved all of his claims
against Napa through a settlement.

Hill argues that the general rule of Employers-Teamsters does not
apply and that this case is not moot, because there is now a
pending motion to amend which would change the named
plaintiff/class representative.

However, conspicuously absent is any authority that has found that
a motion to amend is an exception to Employers-Teamsters.
Particularly in the procedural posture of this case, the pendency
of a motion to amend is not persuasive. The motion to amend was
filed after Hill had executed the Settlement and after Hill missed
a court ordered deadline. At the time the Settlement was executed,
there were no outstanding motions of any kind. The Settlement was
represented as one involving a general release and resolving all of
Hill's claims. As soon as the Settlement was signed, there was no
longer a live dispute or controversy between Hill and Napa; the
Court could not have given Hill.  

In sum, Hill has entered into a settlement and signed a general
release, which resolved all of his claims against Napa. Because no
certification efforts have been made, the Court must dismiss this
case as moot pursuant to Kuahulu and Employers-Teamsters.
Therefore, Napa's Rule 12(b)(6) motion will be denied, Hill's Rule
15 motion to dismiss will be denied, and this case will be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the case is dismissed as moot/lack of jurisdiction,
Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is denied.  Hill's Rule
15 motion to amend is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y5t9a8hb from Leagle.com.

Brandon Hill, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Evan Matthew Selik --
eselik@mccathernlaw.com -- McCathern LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, Doing business as NAPA AUTO PARTS,
Defendant, represented by Alexander Walter Simon --
asimon@martensonlaw.com -- Martenson Hasbrouck & Simon LLP, Jeremy
Taylor Naftel -- jnaftel@martensonlaw.com -- Martenson Hasbrouck &
Simon LLP, Lisa M. Szafranic -- lmszafranic@martensonlaw.com --
Martenson, Hasbrouck & Simon LLP, pro hac vice, Patricia Elizabeth
Simon -- pesimon@martensonlaw.com -- Martenson Hasbrouck and Simon
LLP, pro hac vice & Ian Blade Wieland -- ian@sw2law.com -- Sagaser,
Watkins & Wieland, PC.


GITHUB: Faces Class Action Over Role in Capital One Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Inquirer reports that developer portal GitHub has been slapped
with a lawsuit for its role in the Capital One data breach.

A lawsuit has been filed in a California court against GitHub and
Capital One over data breach that led to the theft of more than 100
million customers' information.

Law firm Tycko & Zavareei LLP filed the 28-page lawsuit in
California's federal district court on Aug. 1 on behalf of
plaintiffs Seth Zielicke and Aimee Aballo.

The plaintiffs claim Capital One and GitHub of failing to protect
customers' personal information and said that both companies need
to be held responsible for their role in the data breach. They also
accuse the source-code hosting website of being involved in
actively encouraging "(at least) friendly hacking".

The Capital One breach, which occurred in March/April this year,
led to the theft of personal information of about nearly 106
million customers.

The company disclosed the data breach late last month, admitting
that a hacker illegally accessed its systems and was able to steal
the personal information of a large number of customers.

The hacker supposedly exploited a firewall misconfiguration in an
Amazon Cloud storage service used by Capital One and went on to
post the stolen data on GitHub in April.

As per the lawsuit, the Capital One hack details were available on
GitHub from 21 April 2019 to mid-July before they were removed from
the site. Capital One only became aware of it on 17th July.

"GitHub knew or should have known that obviously hacked data had
been posted to GitHub.com," the lawsuit said.

It claimed that GitHub had violated the federal Wiretap Act by
allowing the hacker(s) to upload and store stolen details of
people, including their Social Security numbers (SSNs), on its
servers.

"GitHub had an obligation, under California law, to keep off (or to
remove from) its site Social Security numbers and other Personal
Information," the suit said.

The plaintiffs also provided a link to a GitHub repository named
"Awesome Hacking" in support of their claim that GitHub is involved
in "friendly hacking".

A GitHub spokesperson told Business Insider that the information
posted on GitHub didn't contain any bank account details, SSNs, or
any other reportedly stolen personal information.

The company said that the information related to Capital one data
hack was removed promptly after a request from Capital One to
remove such content was received.

The GitHub spokesperson also stated that it is the company's policy
to quickly remove any content that is found to be violating the
terms and services of the website. [GN]


GLOBAL PAYMENT: Certification of Class Sought in Maloney Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Maloney moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled DEBRA MALONEY, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GLOBAL PAYMENT CHECK
SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01135-LA (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff asserts.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Jesse Fruchter, Esq.
          Ben J. Slatky, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, 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
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


GODADDY INC: Settlement Reached in Bennett Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
GoDaddy 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 has entered into an agreement
in principle to settle the class action suit entitled, Jason
Bennett v. GoDaddy.com.

On June 13, 2019, the company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle the class action complaint, Jason Bennett v.
GoDaddy.com (Case No. 2:16-cv-03908-DLR)(U.S.D.C.)(D.AZ), filed on
June 20, 2016.

The complaint alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991. The settlement remains subject to both
parties' execution of a written settlement agreement and Court
approval of such settlement.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company would make
available a total of up to $35.0 million to pay: (i) class members,
at their election, either a cash settlement or a credit to be used
for future purchases of products from the company, (ii) an
incentive payment to the class representative, (iii) notice and
administration costs in connection with the settlement, and (iv)
attorneys' fees and expenses to legal counsel representing the
class.

If approved, the company would receive a full release from the
settlement class (other than from those class members who timely
elect to opt out of the settlement) concerning the claims asserted,
or that could have been asserted, with respect to the claims
released in the settlement agreement.

GoDaddy Inc., incorporated on May 28, 2014, is a technology
provider to small businesses, Web design professionals and
individuals. The Company delivers cloud-based products and
personalized customer care. The Company operates a domain
marketplace, where its customers can find the digital real estate
that matches their idea. The company is based in Scottsdale,
Arizona.


GRANTS PASS, OR: Judge OKs Class-Action Status For Homeless
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Morgan, writing for Mail Tribune, reports that a lawsuit
alleging that the city of Grants Pass is trying to "run homeless
people out of town" was granted class-action status.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke ruled that a lawsuit filed by a
trio of people living in Grants Pass without permanent addresses
meets the legal qualifications for a class-action status, allowing
the homeless petitioners to expand their suit against the city's
camping ordinances to include "all involuntarily homeless
individuals living in Grants Pass," according to documents filed
Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Medford.

The suit, filed Oct. 15, 2019 by homeless residents Debra Blake,
Gloria Johnson and John Logan, alleges that the city of Grants Pass
implemented a web of ordinances, policies and practices that worked
against homeless people sleeping or staying in the city.

Blake, Johnson and Logan's most recent complaint, filed March 8,
alleged that the ordinances forced homeless people to move outside
city limits.

"The city of Grants Pass is trying to run homeless people out of
town," the first line of the complaint says. "On any given day or
night, hundreds of individuals in Grants Pass ... are forced to
live outside due to the lack of emergency shelter and affordable
housing in their community."

The complaint goes on to allege that the city took "coordinated
steps" in its attempts to drive homeless people out, such as
refusing to allow warming stations in winter months and cooling
stations in the summer, as well as removing park benches from city
parks, according to the filing. The three individuals are
represented by lawyers based in Portland and Grants Pass with the
Oregon Law Center, a nonprofit that provides free legal help to
low-income Oregonians.

"The city has paid one-way bus fare for homeless people to leave
town," the complaint says. "The city has driven people to Jackson
County."

The city of Grants Pass denied those allegations in a March 11
filing.

In May, the city sought to discredit Blake, Johnson and Logan's
standing as homeless, arguing that Blake lives in transitional
housing, that Johnson elects to live in her van despite monthly
Social Security benefits of $1,600, and that Logan has never been
impacted by any of the ordinances their lawsuit challenges.

The judge's filing August 7 called the city's arguments
"insensitive."

"Not only are these personal attacks on plaintiffs' situations
insensitive, they reveal that defendant (the city of Grants Pass)
may misunderstand the nature of modern homelessness," Clarke wrote
in his ruling filed August 7.

In his ruling, Clarke used the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's definition of homelessness: an individual "who lacks
a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence."

At a point in time in January 2019, the United Community Action
Network counted 602 homeless people living in Grants Pass, and
another 1,045 "precariously housed" people sleeping in someone
else's home, Clarke noted, adding that the count "may be a
conservative estimate."

Clarke's ruling determined that the class is large enough to make
it impracticable for defendants to be added as individuals, that
everyone in the class has the same legal concern, that Blake,
Johnson and Logan's concerns are typical for the whole class of
homeless people, and that the three defendants will fairly
represent the interests of the entire class.

"Each member of the proposed class is at risk of having the
challenged ordinances enforced against him or her," Clarke wrote.
"Thus, defendant's alleged conduct -- punishing homeless
individuals for engaging in activities necessary to sustain life --
applies equally to all class members." [GN]


GUIDANT GLOBAL: Smith Seeks Overtime Pay for Coordinators
---------------------------------------------------------
CHADWICK SMITH, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. GUIDANT GLOBAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-12318-GAD-APP (E.D. Mich., Aug. 6, 2019), alleges that
Guidant has failed to pay Mr. Smith and other workers like him,
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Instead, Guidant pays Smith and other workers like him the same
hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40
in a workweek.

Mr. Smith worked for Guidant from approximately November 2015 until
November 2017. He performed work for Guidant in Owensville and
Edwards Point, Indiana as a Coordinator.

Guidant provides global workforce management solutions.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

HOMEJAB, LLC: Walli Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
ASHER O. WALLI, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. HOMEJAB, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited
Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 8:19-cv-01948 (M.D.
Fla., 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.

The Defendant violated the TCPA by using an automatic telephone
dialing system (ATDS) when it sent Plaintiff and the putative class
members text message advertisements without obtaining Prior Express
Written Consent, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Richard Bennett, Esq.
          Peter Bennett, Esq.
          BENNETT & BENNETT
          1200 Anastasia Ave., Ofc 360
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 444-5925
          E-mail: richardbennett27@gmail.com
                  peterbennettlaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Tampa Bay Area
          974 Howard Avenue
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com
                  josh@sjlawcollective.com

IDEANOMICS INC: Sept. 17 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Ideanomics, Inc. from May 15, 2017
through November 13, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the
important September 17, 2019 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Ideanomics investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Ideanomics class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1626.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) costs associated with building out Ideanomics' U.S.
infrastructure and hiring its new executive team were negatively
impacting the Company's bottom line performance; (2) as a result,
Ideanomics was highly unlikely to meet its 2018 EBITDA guidance;
(3) Ideanomics' margins in its oil trading and consumer electronics
businesses were too low for those businesses to remain viable; (4)
as a result, defendants' statements about Ideanomics' business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
17, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1626.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

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

Contact Information:

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


INDEPENDENCE COUNTY, AR: Baxter Suit Asserts Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Independence County.
The case is styled as Susan Baxter, Tye Baxter on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Independence County, Shawn Stephens, Sheriff, Sissy Wilson,
Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-00069-BSM (E.D. Ark., Aug. 9, 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Job
Discrimination.

Independence County is a county located in the U.S. state of
Arkansas. As of the 2010 census, the population was 36,647. The
county seat is Batesville.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lucien Ramseur Gillham, Esq.
     Sutter & Gillham, PLLC
     Post Office Box 2012
     Benton, AR 72018
     Phone: (501) 315-1910
     Fax: (501) 315-1916
     Email: lucien.gillham@gmail.com


INTEGRATED TECH: Class Certified Under FLSA in Monplaisir Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William Alsup grants the motion for conditional class
certification in the lawsuit entitled PAUL MONPLAISIR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTEGRATED TECH
GROUP, LLC and ITG COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-01484-WHA
(N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act
in March 2019, seeking overtime and minimum wages.  He moved under
Section 216(b) of the FLSA to conditionally certify a collective
action and to disseminate notice.  His proposed FLSA is defined
as:

     All current and former non-exempt hourly employees of
     Defendants Integrated Tech Group, LLC and ITG Communications
     LLC working as technicians throughout the United States
     during the time period three years prior to the filing of
     the complaint until resolution of this action ("Collective"
     or "Technicians").

As discussed during the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification, ITG's motion to compel arbitration is
held in abeyance pending the close of the opt-in period in order to
allow all potential plaintiffs the opportunity to join the instant
action, according to the Order.

The parties shall meet and confer and jointly file proposed forms
of the two notices (as discussed during the hearing) by August 12
at noon.  The proposed notice to be sent to potential plaintiffs
who signed an arbitration agreement should include the following
language: "If you received this form of notice, then ITG contends
that you are subject to a valid and enforceable arbitration
agreement."

And, by way of corollary, Judge Alsup notes, the proposed notice to
be sent to potential plaintiffs who did not sign an arbitration
agreement should include the following language: "If you received
this form of notice, then ITG does not contend that you are subject
to a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement."  The parties
shall also propose a date on which to hear ITG's motion to
compel.[CC]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Inc. The case is styled as Linda Slade individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. doing business as:
Neutrogena, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-07507 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 12,
2019).

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

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies Inc. engages in the research
and development of products. The Company provides products for
newborns, babies, toddlers, and mothers, including cleansers, skin
care, moisturizers, hair care, diaper care, sun protection, and
nursing products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dan Shaked, Esq.
     Shaked Law Group P.C.
     44 Court Street, Suite 1217
     Brooklyn, NY 11201
     Phone: (917) 373-9128
     Fax: (718) 504-7555
     Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com


JUST ENERGY: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Just Energy Group, Inc. (NYSE: JE) in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Just
Energy between November 9, 2017 and July 23, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Complaint alleges Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company experienced customer enrollment and
nonpayment issues; (2) that, as a result, the Company was
reasonably likely to incur an impairment charge to its accounts
receivable; (3) that, as a result, the Company lacked adequate
internal control over its financial reporting; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the September 30,
2019 lead plaintiff motion deadline.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com [GN]


JUST ENERGY: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Just Energy Group Inc. (NYSE: JE) from November 9,
2017 through July 23, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Just Energy investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the Just Energy class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1631.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Just Energy experienced customer enrollment and
nonpayment issues; (2) Just Energy was reasonably likely to incur
an impairment charge to its accounts receivable; (3) Just Energy
lacked adequate internal control over its financial reporting; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about Just Energy's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
30, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1631.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

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

Contact Information:

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


JUST ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who acquired Just Energy Group, Inc. (NYSE: JE) securities
during the period from November 9, 2017 to  July 23, 2019 (the
"Class Period"), inclusive.

Investors who purchased the shares of Just Energy Group, Inc., are
urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or
(800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the shares of Just Energy Group,
Inc. you may, no later than September 30, 2019, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in Just Energy Group, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that Just Energy failed to disclose that:

   -- the Company had experienced customer enrollment and
nonpayment issues;

   -- as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur an
impairment charge to its accounts receivable; and as a result, the
Company lacked adequate internal control over its financial
reporting.

On July 23, 2019, the Company disclosed that it had "identified
customer enrollment and non-payment issues, primarily in Texas,
over the past 12 months" and that, as a result, it expected an
impairment charge of CAD $45 to $50 million to its Texas
residential accounts receivable. On this news, the price of Just
Energy shares fell $0.66, or 15%, to close at $3.72 on July 23,
2019.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP has extensive experience
in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative
litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across
the country.  The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and
expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation
has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed
it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and
consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at
http://www.whafh.com/

Contact:

         Kevin Cooper, Esq.
         Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
         Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
         Email: gstone@whafh.com
                kcooper@whafh.com
                classmember@whafh.com [GN]


KANSAS CITY: Prince Seeks Overtime Wages for Laborers
-----------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM PRINCE, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. KANSAS CITY TREE CARE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
4:19-cv-00622-FJG (W.D. Mo., Aug. 7, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, Prince and the other laborers regularly
work more than 40 hours in a week. But KC Tree does not pay them
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week. Instead of
paying overtime, KC Tree paid Prince a daily rate with no overtime
compensation.

KC Tree is a tree and emergency disaster support company that
employs laborers like Prince to carry out its work.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: 816 945-7110
          Facsimile: 816 945-7118
          E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

KEMET CORP: AASI and Benchmark Class Suits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Kemet 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
complaint entitled AASI Beneficiaries' Trust v. AVX Corporation, et
al., filed on August 29, 2016 in the United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, and Benchmark Electronics, Inc., et
al. v. AVX Corporation, et al., have been dismissed.

KEMET, KEMET Electronics Corporation (KEMET), TOKIN, and TOKIN
America, along with more than 20 other capacitor manufacturers and
subsidiaries, had been named as defendants in two suits by
plaintiffs who had chosen not to participate in the U.S. Class
Action Complaint: AASI Beneficiaries' Trust v. AVX Corporation, et
al., filed on August 29, 2016 in the United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida, and Benchmark Electronics, Inc., et
al. v. AVX Corporation, et al., filed on April 18, 2017 in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas (the "AASI
and Benchmark Complaints").

The AASI and Benchmark complaints alleged generally the same
violations as the U.S. Class Action Complaint.

On May 24, 2019, TOKIN and TOKIN America Inc. entered into a
definitive settlement agreement with the plaintiffs of the AASI and
Benchmark Complaints, by which TOKIN agreed to pay $0.95 million in
consideration of the release of TOKIN and its direct and indirect
parents, subsidiaries and affiliates from any and all claims
asserted in the AASI and Benchmark Complaints.

TOKIN paid the settlement amount on June 20, 2019.

On July 18, 2019, the AASI and Benchmark Complaints against KEMET,
KEC, TOKIN, and TOKIN America were dismissed.

Kemet Corporation manufactures and sells passive electronic
components under the KEMET brand worldwide. The company operates in
three segments: Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and
Electro-Magnetic, Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded
in 1919 and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


KEMET CORP: Trial in Capacitors Antitrust Suit Set for Feb. 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kemet 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 trial in the class
action suit entitled, In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No.
3:14-cv-03264-JD, is currently scheduled to begin in February 2020.


KEMET and KEMET Electronics Corporation (KEC), along with more than
20 other capacitor manufacturers and subsidiaries (including
TOKIN), are defendants in a purported antitrust class action
complaint, In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No.
3:14-cv-03264-JD, filed on December 4, 2014 with the United States
District Court, Northern District of California (the "U.S. Class
Action Complaint").

The complaint alleges a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
for which it seeks injunctive and equitable relief and money
damages. The discovery phase has closed.

Briefing on dispositive motions will be completed in August 2019.

Kemet Corporation manufactures and sells passive electronic
components under the KEMET brand worldwide. The company operates in
three segments: Solid Capacitors, Film and Electrolytic; and
Electro-Magnetic, Sensors, and Actuators. The company was founded
in 1919 and is headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.


KWIK EQUIPMENT: Townsend Alleges Time-Shaving
---------------------------------------------
GARRETT TOWNSEND, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, vs. KWIK EQUIPMENT SALES, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 4:19-cv-02896 (S.D. Tex., Aug. 6, 2019),
seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages from Defendant
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

According to the complaint, the Defendant regularly and improperly
deducted time from Plaintiff's timesheet or clocked him out and
required him to continue working without being paid. This
time-shaving caused Townsend's regular rate to fall below the
minimum wage in violation of 29 U.S.C. section 206(a)(1).

The Defendant employed Townsend as a mechanic from approximately
May 2018 until July 2019. The Defendant paid Townsend on an hourly
basis and required Townsend to work off-the-clock.

Kwik is a trailer manufacturer for chemical, oil and gas,
agricultural industries and more.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

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

LABORATORY CORPORATION: Hayhurst Files Fraud Suit in S.D. W. Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings. The case is styled as Amanda
Hayhurst, Donnetta Huffman and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings doing
business as: LabCorp, Defendant, Case No. 5:19-cv-00590 (S.D. W.
Va., Aug. 12 2019).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, more commonly known as
LabCorp, is an American S&P 500 company headquartered in
Burlington, North Carolina. It operates one of the largest clinical
laboratory networks in the world, with a United States network of
36 primary laboratories.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ruperto Yongque Dumapit, Esq.
     Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
     HAMILTON BURGESS YOUNG & POLLARD
     P.O. Box 959
     Fayetteville, WV 25840-0959
     Phone: (304) 574-2727
     Email: rdumapit@hamiltonburgess.com
            sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com


LANSING TRADE: Budicak Suit Transferred to District of Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, BUDICAK, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. LANSING TRADE GROUP, LLC,
and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-6, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04966
(Filed July 20, 2018), was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas (Kansas City) on Aug. 7, 2019. The District
of Kansas Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-02449-JAR-ADM to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Julie A.
Robinson.

The action arises from Defendants' unlawful and intentional
manipulation of wheat futures and options contracts traded on the
Chicago Board of Trade from at least February 1, 2015 through March
31, 2015, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman
Antitrust Act, and the common law.

Lansing is a commodity merchandising company largely focused on the
purchase, handling, storage, and sale of physical commodities
including grains like wheat, feed ingredients, and energy products
within North America and internationally.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Anthony F. Fata, Esq.
          Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
          Brian P. O’Connell, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER &
            SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: 312 782-4880

               - and -

          Vincent Briganti, Esq.
          Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
          Raymond Girnys, Esq.
          Lee J. Lefkowitz, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C
          44 South Broadway
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: 914-997-0500

LANSING TRADE: Budicak's Action Transferred to Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Transfer the Action in the case
captioned BUDICAK, INC., on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LANSING TRADE GROUP, LLC and JOHN
DOES NOS. 1-6, Defendants. No. 18 C 4966. (N.D. Ill.).

Lansing moves to transfer the case to the District of Kansas, where
the company is based.

In this proposed class action, Budicak, Inc. sued Lansing Trade
Group, LLC and unknown individuals, alleging that Lansing
unlawfully manipulated wheat futures and options contracts traded
on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) in violation of the Commodity
Exchange Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and common law unjust
enrichment and restitution.

To begin, for the purposes of this motion, neither party contests
that venue is proper in this District and also would be proper in
the proposed transferee district, the District of Kansas. The Court
therefore turns to whether transfer would provide greater
convenience and serve the interests of justice. As detailed below,
both factors weigh in favor of transfer.

Convenience

In assessing convenience, courts generally consider the
availability of and access to witnesses, each party's access to and
distance from resources in each forum, the location of material
events, and the relative ease of access to sources of proof. On the
whole, the elements favor litigating this case in Kansas.

First, most of the relevant witnesses in this case are located in
Kansas. Lansing is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, where
most of the key witnesses and employees likely to have direct
knowledge of the alleged unlawful scheme live and work.   

In particular, Lansing Trader 3 and the Lansing Executive
identified in Budicak's complaint as being directly involved with
the alleged scheme continue to work in Lansing's Overland Park
office and live in the Kansas City area. In addition to the
individuals identified in Budicak's complaint, many current and
former employees who are likely to have knowledge about Budicak's
claims including Lansing's Vice President of Grains, Chief
Executive Officer, senior location managers, and trader's
assistants and accounting staff likewise work and live in the
Kansas City area.  

Second, most of the important events underlying Budicak's claims
took place in Kansas. Budicak alleges that Lansing unlawfully and
intentionally manipulated wheat futures and options contracts
traded on the CBOT. The acts central to these claims occurred in
Kansas: (1) the Lansing trader who allegedly purchased the 250
wheat shipping certificates was located in Kansas (2) the Lansing
trader who cancelled those certificates was also located in Kansas
and (3) the Lansing trader who communicated with third parties to
spread information about its plans to the market was likewise
located in Kansas.  

In response, Plaintiff argues that this case is central to Chicago,
pointing to the fact that Defendants intended their actions to have
an effect in Chicago and that the majority of the shipping
certificates and the wheat was stored in Chicago. But it is
unclear, and Budicak does not explain, how these facts bear on any
of the material issues underlying this lawsuit. Ultimately, the
material events underlying Budicak's claims occurred in Kansas, not
Chicago.

Interest of Justice

The interest of justice is a separate element of the transfer
analysis that relates to the efficient administration of the court
system. For this element, courts compare the transferor and
transferee districts for a variety of factors, including docket
congestion and likely speed to trial, each court's relative
familiarity with the relevant law, the respective desirability of
resolving controversies in each locale and the relationship of each
community to the controversy.

First, docket congestion weighs in favor of Kansas here. Defendants
argue that the District of Kansas is less congested, pointing out
that for the time period of June 30,2017 through June 30, 2018 the
median time from filing to trial in civil matters in the Northern
District of Illinois was 36.3 months versus 24.5 months in the
District of Kansas.  

But Budicak contends that these figures are not a particularly
meaningful comparison because only about two percent of all federal
civil cases go to trial, and these numbers cover all judges and all
types of cases. So those numbers, according to Plaintiff, are not
necessarily indicative of how long it will take to get to trial in
a particular case or in a case of the type at issue here. But
regardless of whether or not the case ultimately goes to trial,
there is almost a 12-month difference in the two districts'
time-to-trial, and that is at least somewhat indicative of how
quickly cases are handled in each district.

Second, aside from timing, each district court's relative
familiarity with the relevant law is a neutral consideration.
Budicak argues that this Court has more familiarity with
Commodities Exchange Act cases, contending that (1) both this
district generally and the presiding judge specifically have
experience in wheat-contracts manipulation and (2) the Northern
District of Illinois is the capital of commodity manipulation
cases.

These arguments are not compelling. Expertise with relevant law
might be a modestly important factor for cases in which federal
courts sit in diversity and are tasked with applying state law; the
district court that regularly interprets that particular state law
could hold an advantage. But the underlying laws here are federal,
and federal courts are presumed equally capable and experienced
with respect to matters of federal law.

Lastly, the District of Kansas has a greater interest in resolving
this controversy. This case concerns the alleged unlawful behavior
of a corporation with its principal place of business in Kansas,
and as already discussed, most of the material events underlying
this lawsuit occurred there. Although Illinois certainly has some
interest in resolving a case in which alleged misconduct injured
one of its citizens, Kansas has the stronger interest in addressing
misconduct that allegedly occurred, primarily, in Kansas. All in
all, the interest-of-justice factors weighs in favor of
transferring the case to the District of Kansas.

The Court grants Lansing's motion to transfer this case to the
District of Kansas.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yxrzdvdj from
Leagle.com.

Budicak Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Maider --
cmaider@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., pro hac vice, Brian P.
O'Connell -- boconnell@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Geoffrey M. Horn -- ghorn@lowey.com --
Lowey Dannenberg, P.C., Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, 150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606, Raymond P. Girnys -- rgirnys@lowey.com -- Lowey
Dannenberg, P.C., pro hac vice, Vincent Briganti --
vbriganti@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenbergt, P.C. & Anthony F. Fata ,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, 150 South Wacker Drive,
Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606

Prime Trading, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony F. Fata,
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP.

Lansing Trade Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by J. Kevin McCall
-- jmccall@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Kevin John Murphy --
kmurphy@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block Llp, Nicole Amie Allen --
nallen@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Thomas Edward Quinn --
tquinn@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP.

Cascade Commodity Consulting, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Matthew S. Ryan -- mryan@cotsiriloslaw.com -- Cotsirilos, Tighe,
Streicker, Poulos & Campbell, Ltd. & Emily Cohen Rossi Vermylen --
evermylen@cotsiriloslaw.com -- Cotsirilos, Tighe, Streicker, Poulos
& Campbell, Ltd.


LEE MEMORIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE O. BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM FOUNDATION, INC.
d/b/a HEALTHPARK MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-00546
(M.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2019) seeks to recover from the Defendant
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendant as non-exempt,
hourly paid employee.

Lee Memorial Health System is a public health care system. The
Company includes acute care hospitals as well as other healthcare
facilities and services. Lee Memorial Health System offers home
health services, nursing home services, out patient treatment,
diagnostic centers, children's hospital and rehabilitation services
to the community surrounding Fort Myers, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Defends Class Action by TVPX ARS
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Lincoln National
Life Insurance Company still defends itself against a putative
class action suit initiated by TVPX ARS INC.

TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth
Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that
was filed on July 17, 2018.  

Plaintiff 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 own policies issued by LNL or its
predecessors 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, "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: Vida Longevity Fund Suit Against Unit 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 Lincoln Life &
Annuity Company of New York continues to defend a class action suit
initiated by Vida Longevity Fund, LP.

Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New
York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was
filed on June 27, 2019.  

Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost
of insurance than was permitted by the policies.  

Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of
universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own
or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest
that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which
contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are
similar to those of Plaintiff's policies.  

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders
who own or owned "life insurance policies issued in the State of
New York."  

Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and
sub-class.  

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.


LOWE'S HOME: Weeks Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup
------------------------------------------------------
JAMES WEEKS, individually and on behalf of all others situated, the
Plaintiff, vs. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North Carolina limited
liability company, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-06828 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 6, 2019), seeks
to redress unlawful and deceptive practices employed by Lowe's in
connection with its sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), which
contains the active ingredient glyphosate. Glyphosate is known to
be a Class 2A herbicide, meaning it is probably carcinogenic to
humans.

Lowe's markets, advertises, distributes and sells various
formulations of Roundup (TM) which Plaintiff maintains are
defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be
marketed and sold in commerce without proper warnings and
directions as to the dangers associated with its use.

The Defendant's reckless, knowing, and/or willful omission of the
carcinogenic and/or otherwise harmful components to Roundup (TM)
products constitutes unlawful and deceptive business practices
violate California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair
Competition Law.

"Roundup" refers to all formulations of the Roundup (TM) products
sold by Defendant, including, but not limited to, Roundup Landscape
Weed Preventer, Roundup Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass Killer III with
Comfort Wand, Roundup Ready-to-Use Weed & Grass Killer III with
Pump 'N Go 2 Sprayer, Roundup Ready-To-Use Weed & Grass Killer III,
Roundup Precision Gel Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup for Lawns Bug
Destroyer, Roundup For Lawns Ready-to-Use, Roundup For Lawns 1
Ready-to-Spray, Roundup For Lawns 3 Ready-to-Spray, Roundup For
Lawns Concentrate, Roundup for Lawns Crabgrass Destroyer, Roundup
Ready-To-Use Max Control 365 with Comfort Wand, and Roundup
Concentrate MAX Control 365.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:

          Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
          Sara D. Avila, Esq.
          Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
          MILSTEIN JACKSON FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
          10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
                  savila@mjfwlaw.com
                  mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com

M&T BANK: Silveira Files FDCPA Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against M&T Bank. The case is
styled as Lisa Silveira on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M&T Bank, Defendant, Case No.
2:19-cv-06958 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2019).

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

M&T Bank Corporation is an American bank holding company
headquartered in Buffalo, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hassan A Zavareei, Esq.
     Tycko and Zavareei LLP
     1828 L Street NW Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20036
     Phone: (202) 973-0900
     Fax: (202) 973-0950
     Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Mallinckrodt plc (NYSE: MNK) from February 28, 2018
through July 16, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Mallinckrodt investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Mallinckrodt class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1632.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) H.P. Acthar Gel ("Acthar") posed significant safety
concerns that rendered it a non-viable treatment for ALS; (2)
accordingly, Mallinckrodt overstated the viability of Acthar as an
ALS treatment; and (3) as a result, Mallinckrodt's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
24, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1632.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

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

Contact:

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


MDL 1566: Court Renders Final Dismissal Judgment
------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
a Final Judgment of Dismissal in the case captioned IN RE WESTERN
STATES WHOLESALE NATURAL GAS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO: Arandell Corp., et al. v. Xcel Energy Inc., et al.
NewPage Wisconsin System Inc., et al. v. CMS Energy Resource
Management Company, et al. MDL 1566, No. CV-S-03-1431-RCJ-PAL, Case
No. 2:07-CV-01019-RCJ-PAL., 2:09-CV-00915-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev.).

This matter has come before the Court to determine whether there is
any cause why this Court should not approve the settlement between
Plaintiffs in the Actions on behalf of the Wisconsin Class, and
CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CenterPoint), as set forth in
the Settlement Agreement (Agreement).

The Court, after carefully considering all papers filed and
proceedings held herein and otherwise being fully informed in the
premises, has determined (1) that the settlement should be
approved, and (2) that there is no just reason for delay of the
entry of this Final Judgment approving the Agreement. Accordingly,
the Court directs entry of Judgment which shall constitute a final
adjudication of the above-captioned.

The Classes are defined as follows:

     A. Wisconsin Class means:All industrial and commercial
purchasers of natural gas for their own use or consumption during
the period from January 1, 2000 until October 31, 2002, and which
gas was used or consumed by them in Wisconsin. Excluded from the
Class are (a) entities that purchased natural gas for resale (to
the extent of such purchase for resale);
(b) entities that purchased natural gas for generation of
electricity for the purpose of sale (to the extent of such purchase
for generation); (c) entities that purchased natural gas from
entities that sold natural gas at rates approved by the Wisconsin
Public Service Commission (to the extent of such purchases at such
approved rates); (d) defendants and their predecessors, affiliates
and subsidiaries; and (e) the federal government and its agencies.

     B. Class Member means each member of the Wisconsin Class who
did not timely and properly elect to be excluded from the Wisconsin
Class in accordance with the Class Notice previously approved by
the Court.

     C. Class Period means the period from January 1, 2000 through
October 31, 2002.

The Court finally approves and confirms the settlement and finds
that the settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Wisconsin Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

In reaching this determination, the Court has, based upon the
evidence presented and its independent inquiry, analysis, and due
diligence, considered: (a) the serious questions of fact and law
raised by Plaintiffs' claims and CenterPoint's potential defenses
in the Actions; (b) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely
duration of further litigation; (c) the risk of obtaining, and
maintaining throughout trial and potential appeal, class action
status; (d) the benefits of the settlement; (e) the extent of
discovery completed and the stage of the proceedings; (f) the
experience and views of counsel that the settlement is fair and
reasonable; and (g) the reaction(s) of the Wisconsin Class members
to the settlement (both as to the number of requests for exclusion
from the Wisconsin Class and as to the number and nature of the
objections to the settlement).

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Judgment is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3tyxtwr from Leagle.com.

In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation,
Plaintiff, represented by Jay Kevin Wieser – jwieser@jw.com --
Jackson Walker L.L.P., Andrew Ennis -- aennis@polsinelli.com --
Polsinelli PC, Anna K. Milunas -- amilunas@mckoolsmith.com --
McKool Smith Hennigan PC, Bradley C. Weber -- bweber@lockelord.com
-- Locke Lord LLP, Brent Cohen -- bcohen@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca
Rothgerber Christie LLP, Brett D. Bissett --
bbissett@mckoolsmithhennigan.com -- McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C.,
Craig A. Fitzgerald – cfitzgerald@gablelaw.com -- Gable Gotwals,
D. Neal Tomlinson -- atomlinson@swlaw -- Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.,
Diane R. Hazel -- dhazel@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie
LLP, Eric I. Unrein, Cavanaugh, Biggs & Lemon, P.A., 2942a SW
Wanamaker Drive Suite 100. Topeka, KS 66614,.Gary D. McCallister,
Gary D. McCallister & Associates, LLC, 120 N LaSalle St #2800,
Chicago, IL 60602, Gregory M. Bentz -- gbentz@polsinelli.com --
Polsinelli Shughart, Jennifer Gille Bacon -- jbacon@polsinelli.com
-- Polsinelli PC, Joseph A. Fischer, III -- jfischer@jw.com --
Jackson Walker L.L.P., Joshua D. Lichtman --
joshua.lichtman@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, Kris Kostolansky -- kkosto@lrrc.com -- Lewis Roca Rothergerber
Christie LLP, Melinda Anne Bialzik -- mbialzik@kmksc.com -- Kohner,
Mann & Kailas, S.C.

Aquila, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles A. Moore, Dewey &
LeBoeuf LLP, 1301 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019- 6092,
Khai LeQuang -- klequang@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe, LLP, pro hac vice, Martin M. Loring --
martin.loring@huschblackwell.com -- Blackwell, Sanders, Peper,
Martin, William Molinski -- wmolinski@orrick.com -- Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Bradley C. Weber --
bweber@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III  --
oharrison@ghjhlaw.com -- Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.

Cantera Natural Gas, Inc. & Cantera Resources, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP, Orrin L. Harrison,
III, Gruber Hurst Johansen Hail Shank, Sean Commons, Sidley Austin
LLP & T. Robert Scarborough, Sidley Austin LLP.

CMS Enterprises Group, Inc., Encana Energy Services, Inc., EPNG
Mojave, Inc., Mojave Pipeline Company, Mojave Pipeline Operating
Company & WD Energy Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Bradley C. Weber, Locke Lord LLP & Orrin L. Harrison, III, Gruber
Hurst Johansen Hail Shank.


MDL 2555: Soler-Somohano Appeals Decision to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------
Movant Alberto Soler-Somohano filed an appeal from a Court ruling
in the multidistrict litigation styled In re: COCA-COLA PRODUCTS
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION (NO. II), Case No.
4:14-md-02555-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Oakland.

The appellate case is captioned as George Engurasoff, et al. v.
Coca-Cola Refreshments USA Inc., et al., Case No. 19-16542, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 14, 2019, Movant
Alberto Soler-Somohano previously filed an appeal from a Court
ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is titled GEORGE
ENGURASOFF; JOSHUA OGDEN; JULIA HUGHES; AYANNA NOBLES; PAUL
MERRITT; BRISTOL I. AUMILLER; YOCHEVED LAZAROFF; RACHEL DUBE;
RONALD SOWIZROL; MICHELLE MARINO; MARY RANKIN, Individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees v.
COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC.; COCA-COLA COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees v. ALBERTO SOLER-SOMOHANO, Movant-Appellant,
Case No. 19-16025.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of "all persons who purchased
Coca-Cola's Coke product that: (1) lists phosphoric acid on the
ingredients list but does not state that the product contains
artificial flavoring and/or chemical preservatives; (2) includes
the label statement "no artificial flavors. no preservatives added.
since 1886."; and/or (3) includes the label statement "original
formula."

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by September 4, 2019;

   -- Transcript is due on October 4, 2019;

   -- Appellant Alberto Soler-Somohano's opening brief is due on
      November 13, 2019;

   -- Appellees Bristol I. Aumiller, Coca-Cola Company, Coca-Cola
      Refreshments USA, Inc., Rachel Dube, George Engurasoff,
      Julia Hughes, Yocheved Lazaroff, Michelle Marino, Paul
      Merritt, Ayanna Nobles, Joshua Ogden, Mary Rankin and
      Ronald Sowizrol's answering brief is due on December 13,
      2019; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Movant-Appellant ALBERTO SOLER-SOMOHANO, of Miami, Florida, appears
pro se.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees GEORGE ENGURASOFF, et al., are represented
by:

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2376
          E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
          FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          565 Fifth Avenue, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 880-9567
          E-mail: keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ben (Pierce) F. Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 369-0800
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

               - and -

          Dewitt Marshall Lovelace, Esq.
          LOVELACE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          P.O. Box 6205
          Destin, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Gary McKay Yarborough, Jr., Esq.
          YARBOROUGH LAW FIRM, PLLC
          845-B Highway 90
          Bay St. Louis, MS 39520
          Telephone: (228) 467-5771
          E-mail: ylf.garyyarborough@att.net

Defendants-Appellee COCA-COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC. and COCA-COLA
COMPANY are represented by:

          Michelle Waller Cohen, Esq.
          Jane Metcalf, Esq.
          Steven A. Zalesin, Esq.
          PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          E-mail: mcohen@pbwt.com
                  jmetcalf@pbwt.com
                  sazalesin@pbwt.com

               - and -

          Tammy Beth Webb, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP
          One Montgomery Tower, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          E-mail: tbwebb@shb.com


MEDNAX INC: Bid to Nix Suit Over Anesthesiology Business Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mednax, 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 securities
class action suit related to the Company's anesthesiology business
remains pending.

On July 10, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the company and certain of its officers and a director in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case
No. 0:18-cv-61572-WPD) that purports to state a claim for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, based on statements made by the defendants
primarily concerning our anesthesiology business.

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

Mednax said, "We believe this lawsuit to be without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against it. The lawsuit is in the early
stages and, at this time, no assessment can be made as to its
likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to us. A
lead plaintiff has been chosen and has filed an amended complaint,
and we have filed a motion to dismiss, which is pending."

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

Mednax, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides newborn,
anesthesia, maternal-fetal, radiology and teleradiology, pediatric
cardiology, and other pediatric subspecialty physician services in
the United States and Puerto Rico. The company was founded in 1979
and is based in Sunrise, Florida.


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: "Cleven" Class Cert. Ruling under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA) 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
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has accepted the company's petition
to review the District Court's order granting class certification
in the class action suit initiated by Cathi Cleven and Tara Cleven.


In June 2016, plaintiffs Cathi Cleven and Tara Cleven, on behalf of
a purported class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against MAA and
the Operating Partnership in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

In January 2017, Areli Arellano and Joe L. Martinez joined the
lawsuit as additional plaintiffs. The lawsuit alleges that we (but
not Post Properties) charged late fees at the company's Texas
properties that violate Section 92.019 of the Texas Property Code,
or Section 92.019, which provides that a landlord may not charge a
tenant a late fee for failing to pay rent unless, among other
things, the fee is a reasonable estimate of uncertain damages to
the landlord that are incapable of precise calculation and result
from the late payment of rent.  

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiffs.  

Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court denied the
company's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs'
motion for partial summary judgment.

Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, the District
Court's ruling applies to the entire class.

In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification.  

Mid-America said, "We intend to appeal the District Court's order
granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to appeal is granted. We
will continue to vigorously defend the action and pursue such
appeals."

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

Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), incorporated on
September 22, 1993, is a multifamily focused, self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns,
operates, acquires and develops apartment communities primarily
located in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United
States. It operates through three segments: Large market same
store, Secondary market same store and Non-Same Store and Other.
The company is based in Germantown, Tennessee.


MID-AMERICA APARTMENT: Brown Class Cert. Ruling under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA) 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
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the company's petition to
review the District Court's order granting class certification in
the class action suit initiated by Nathaniel Brown.

In April 2017, plaintiff Nathaniel Brown, on behalf of a purported
class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint against the Operating
Partnership, as the successor by merger to Post Properties' primary
operating partnership, and MAA in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

The lawsuit alleges that Post Properties, Inc. (and, following the
Post Properties merger in December 2016, the Operating Partnership)
charged late fees at its Texas properties that violate Section
92.019.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

In September 2018, the District Court certified a class proposed by
the plaintiff.

Additionally, in September 2018, the District Court denied our
motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's motion for
partial summary judgment.

Because the District Court certified a class prior to granting the
plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, the District
Court's ruling applies to the entire class.

In October 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals accepted the
company's petition to review the District Court's order granting
class certification.  

Mid-America said, "We intend to appeal the District Court's order
granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals if permission to appeal is granted. We
will continue to vigorously defend the action and pursue such
appeals."

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

Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. (MAA), incorporated on
September 22, 1993, is a multifamily focused, self-administered and
self-managed real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company owns,
operates, acquires and develops apartment communities primarily
located in the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United
States. It operates through three segments: Large market same
store, Secondary market same store and Non-Same Store and Other.
The company is based in Germantown, Tennessee.


MIDLAND FUNDING: NJ App. Div. Affirms Woo-Padva Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued an
Opinion affirming in part and vacating in part Law Division's Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned
JENNIFER WOO-PADVA, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC,
Defendant-Respondent. No. A-3575-17T3. (N.J. Super. Ct. App.).

Plaintiff Jennifer Woo-Padva appeals from the Law Division's order
granting defendant Midland Funding, LLC's (Midland) Rule 4:6-2(e)
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.

Plaintiff's class action complaint sought the vacating of judgments
filed against her and other class members and the return of monies
paid toward satisfying debts acquired by Midland from credit card
companies based upon Midland not having the license required by the
New Jersey Consumer Finance Licensing Act (NJCFLA). She also sought
relief under the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to-210,
and under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, basing those claims
also upon Midland not being licensed under the NJCFLA.

The motion judge granted Midland's application after he found that
a prior action between the same parties that resulted in a consent
judgment against plaintiff barred plaintiff's claims here under the
doctrine of res judicata and the Entire Controversy Doctrine.

The facts derived from the motion record are generally undisputed
and summarized as follows. Plaintiff had a Chase credit card
account used for personal, family, and household purchases, on
which she defaulted. The Chase account was purchased by Midland as
part of a pool of defaulted consumer accounts.After purchasing the
Chase debt, on March 29, 2011, Midland filed a collection action
against plaintiff in the Law Division's Special Civil Part in an
attempt to collect only the Chase debt.   

In that action, the court entered a consent judgment against
plaintiff in the sum of $2,925.62 on June 3, 2011. The judgment
outlined a repayment plan, and plaintiff ultimately paid in full.

In her complaint, plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief, requesting that the judgment against her and the
class members be declared void on the grounds that Midland lacked
the legal right to file collection lawsuits when it did not hold a
license required under the NJCFLA. Plaintiff also alleged violation
of the CFA on the grounds that defendants engaged in unconscionable
commercial and business practices by filing collection complaints
against the class members while not properly licensed. Finally,
plaintiff contended that Midland would be unjustly enriched if
permitted to retain the funds that they had collected from
plaintiff and class members.

Midland initially responded by filing a Rule 4:6-2 motion in lieu
of an answer. After the motion judge denied the application because
discovery had not been completed, on October 9, 2017, Midland filed
an answer, denying plaintiff's allegations and asserting
affirmative defenses, including the Entire Controversy Doctrine and
res judicata.

After considering the parties' oral arguments, the motion judge
issued an order granting Midland's motion, explaining his reasons
in an accompanying written decision. In his factual findings, the
judge stated that plaintiff paid both the Chase and HSBC debts
pursuant to the consent judgment.

The judge then considered first whether res judicata applied.
Applying those elements, he found that the prior consent judgment
in the Chase debt collection action was valid, final, and on the
merits and at the time of that litigation, there was no contention
that the judgment was invalid.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the motion judge should not have
dismissed her complaint because she alleged a viable claim based
upon Midland not being licensed under NJCFLA. She also argues the
motion judge erred by applying the doctrine of res judicata.

The Court review de novo the trial court's determination of the
motion to dismiss under Rule 4:6-2(e).  Like the trial court, the
Court examines the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the
face of the complaint. Although the Court limits its review to the
pleadings themselves and examine the legal sufficiency of the facts
alleged on the face of the complaint, if the complaint states no
claim that supports relief, the action should be dismissed.

The Court concludes from our de novo review that the motion judge
correctly determined that both res judicata and the Entire
Controversy Doctrine applied to plaintiff's claim to the extent it
related to the Chase debt because that matter resulted in a final
judgment. The Court reaches a different conclusion as to the HSBC
debt because that debt was not the subject of any action and
involved a totally different claim.

Under the Entire Controversy Doctrine, plaintiff was required to
assert all claims relating to the Chase debt in the prior action
between her and Midland. The doctrine requires that all claims
arising from the same transactional facts be raised in a single
lawsuit, including defenses, counterclaims, and cross-claims, or
the plaintiff will be barred from later asserting them in a
successive action.  

Although the Court concludes the motion judge correctly determined
plaintiff should have asserted her NJCFLA claims in response to the
Chase debt action, the Court finds no basis for relying upon either
the Entire Controversy Doctrine or res judicata to bar her claim as
it relates to the HSBC account. First, we discern no support in the
record for the motion judge's finding that the Chase debt action's
consent judgment included the satisfaction of the HSBC credit card
debt.

Importantly, the assumed relationship of the HSBC debt in the Chase
judgment is contrary to the allegations in the complaint.

Second, the underlying transaction involving the HSBC account was
totally unrelated to the Chase debt that was assigned to Midland
and did not arise from the same transaction. The fact that Midland
acquired both debts did not merge the two. Although Midland
apparently had already acquired the HSBC debt when it filed suit to
collect the Chase debt, it never asserted a claim in that action,
or any other action, to collect the HSBC debt. If one had been
filed, it would not involve the same proofs as the Chase debt
action.  

Because the Court concludes the motion judge erred by dismissing
plaintiff's complaint as it related to the HSBC credit card debt
based only upon the Entire Controversy Doctrine and res judicata,
the Court is constrained to remand this matter to the motion judge
to address the remaining issues raised by Midland's motion and the
pleadings about Midland being required to comply with the NJCFLA
and its efforts to collect the HSBC account balance from
plaintiff.

Accordingly, the lower court's decision is Affirmed in part;
vacated and remanded in part for further proceedings consistent
with our opinion.

A full-text copy of the N.J. App. Div.'s August 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yyz9wehu from Leagle.com.

Scott C. Borison -- Borison@legglaw.com -- (Legg Law Firm, LLP), of
the Maryland bar, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for
appellant (Kim Law Firm, LLC and Scott C. Borison, attorneys;
Yongmoon Kim, 411 Hackensack Ave Ste 701, Hackensack, NJ,
07601-6328 and Scott C. Borison, of counsel and on the briefs).

David M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- (Hinshaw &
Culbertson, LLP), of the New York bar, admitted pro hac vice,
argued the cause for respondent (Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, and
David M. Schultz, attorneys;Han Sheng Beh -- hbeh@hinshawlaw.com --
on the brief).


MRS BPO: Court Stays Proceedings in Rozani Suit
-----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay in the case
captioned JULIAN ROZANI, Plaintiff, v. MRS BPO LLC, ET AL.,
Defendant. Case No. 19-CV-1115. (E.D. Wis.).

In this motion the plaintiff moved to certify the class described
in the complaint but also moved the court to stay further
proceedings on that motion.

In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011),
the court suggested that class-action plaintiffs move to certify
the class at the same time that they file their complaint. The
pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to
buy off the named plaintiffs.

However, because parties are generally unprepared to proceed with a
motion for class certification at the beginning of a case, the
Damasco court suggested that the parties ask the district court to
delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery or
investigation.

The plaintiff's motion to stay further proceedings on the motion
for class certification is granted.  

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y4c7bs9z from Leagle.com.

Julian Rozani, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse Fruchter --
jfruchter@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, John D. Blythin --
jblythin@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & Mark A. Eldridge --
meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP.


MU HEALTH: Patients File Class-Action Following Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mackenzie Garrity, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports
that ten patients who were affected by a data breach at
Columbia-based University of Missouri Health Care filed a
class-action lawsuit Aug. 6 against the university, according to
local ABC affiliate KMIZ.

MU Health Care discovered May 1 that two employees had fallen
victim to a phishing attack that gave an unauthorized third-party
access to the email accounts. Since the breach, MU Health Care
secured the accounts and began an investigation to determine the
scope of the incident.

Patient information that may have been compromised included names,
dates of birth, medical record numbers, health insurance
information and limited treatment or clinical information.

The lawsuit claims MU Health Care failed to keep patients'
sensitive information safe. Patients are seeking damages and
requesting MU Health Care improve its security system.

No hearings have been scheduled. [GN]


MY PILLOW INC: Court Denies Wuest's Bid for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William Alsup denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit captioned RICHARD WUEST, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated individuals v. MY PILLOW,
INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-03658-WHA
(N.D. Cal.).

The lawsuit is a putative class action asserting a single claim for
violation of California Penal Code Section 632.7 based on My
Pillow's alleged unwarned and unconsented recording and monitoring
of inbound calls.  The Plaintiff seeks an order certifying a class
(the "Class") of:

     all persons who, at any time during the period from
     December 27, 2017 through February 19, 2018, inclusive,
     called one or more of My Pillow, Inc.'s ("Defendant")
     toll-free telephone numbers using a cellular or cordless
     telephone with a California area code while located within
     the State of California and who was connected to a My Pillow
     representative.

Mr. Wuest also seeks in the alternative to certify certain
subclasses.

The order finds that Mr. Wuest is an inadequate class
representative and an atypical plaintiff so as to preclude class
certification under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Judge Alsup opines that Mr. Wuest's litigation history is more than
unusual and the Order finds that it shows a pattern of using the
threat of class actions to extract an undeserved premium on an
individual claim.  "This pattern is further evidenced by the fact
that in several of the cases, both Wuest and his counsel received
settlement amounts disproportionate to maximum recovery allowed
under the statute," Judge Alsup states.

My Pillow's motion to file under seal is granted in part and denied
in part.  My Pillow seeks to file under seal in connection with the
motion for class certification certain portions of its opposition
and certain exhibits designated as confidential by Mr. Wuest.

Mr. Wuest has filed a supporting declaration stating that the
information he seeks to seal relates to confidential settlement
information from other lawsuits in which he was a party and which
potentially contains attorney-client privileged communications.
For the reasons stated during the hearing on Mr. Wuest's motion for
class certification, the request to file under seal information
relating to his prior litigation history is denied, Judge Alsup
ruled.

Mr. Wuest's request to seal Exhibit 4, which is the retainer
agreement between him and his counsel, is granted to the extent
supported by his supporting declaration.

My Pillow shall publicly refile the documents at issue in comport
with this order by August 13 at noon.[CC]


NATIONAL CREDIT: Bailey Sues over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
TERRELL BAILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS L.L.C.; and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01462-UNA (D. Del., Aug. 5,
2019) seeks to stop the Defendants' unfair and unconscionable means
to collect a debt.

National Credit Adjusters, L.L.C. (NCA) provides financial
services. The Company offers account receivables services and helps
creditors liquidate these receivables through extensive training,
innovation, automation, and analytics. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Antranig Garibian, Esq.
          GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy, Suite 22
          Wilmington, DE 19805
          Telephone: (302) 722-6885
          E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com


NATIONAL GENERAL: Sept. 23 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP reminds investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against National General
Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: NGHC) ("National General") on behalf of all
purchasers of common stock during the period between August 6, 2015
and August 9, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff you must move the Court no
later than September 23, 2019. If you wish to discuss this action,
have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights or
interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please
include your phone number.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company was perpetrating a massive forced-placed collateral
protection insurance ("CPI") scheme to fraudulently saddle its own
customers with unwanted and unneeded automobile insurance policies
that it had underwritten; (2) that the Company's illicit conduct in
foisting unwanted and unneeded automobile insurance on its
customers had resulted in some of the victims being declared
delinquent, suffering adverse impacts to their creditworthiness,
and having their cars improperly repossessed; (3) that the Company
was exposed to an extreme risk of regulatory scrutiny, legal risks,
and reputational harm as a result of its participation in the
forced-placed CPI scheme; (4) that the Company had failed to
maintain effective internal controls over its financial reporting,
including by failing to maintain formal documentation sufficient to
reasonably ensure the accuracy of internal reporting and accounting
procedures across much of its business, including with respect to
insurance policy premiums; (5) that the Company's reported
quarterly revenues and policy premiums were in part the product of
a fraudulent forced-placed insurance scheme and were therefore
artificially inflated and unsustainable; and (6) that the Company
had in fact lost substantial business with Wells Fargo because
Wells Fargo had terminated the forced-placed CPI scheme after
concluding it posed excessive reputational risk and legal
exposure.

If you are a long-term shareholder of National General continuously
holding shares before August 6, 2015, you may have standing to hold
National General 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.

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

Contact:

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


NAVIENT CORP: Consolidated Class Suit in New Jersey Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation 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 consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Two putative class actions have been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Eli Pope v. Navient
Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak Chivavibul and Christian Lown,
and Melvin Gross v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi, Somsak
Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, both of which allege violations
of the federal securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

These cases were consolidated by the Court in February 2018, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in April 2018 and
the Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2018.

The Company has denied the allegations and intends to vigorously
defend itself.

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

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: Still Faces Suit by Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation 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 consolidated class action suit entitled, Lord Abbett
Affiliated Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al.

During the first quarter of 2016, Navient Corporation, certain
Navient officers and directors, and the underwriters of certain
Navient securities offerings were sued in three putative securities
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain investors in
Navient stock or Navient unsecured debt.

These three cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, were consolidated by the District Court,
with Lord Abbett Funds appointed as Lead Plaintiff.

The caption of the consolidated case is Lord Abbett Affiliated
Fund, Inc., et al. v. Navient Corporation, et al.

The plaintiffs filed their amended and consolidated complaint in
September 2016. In September 2017, the Court granted the Navient
defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety with
leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
with the court in November 2017 and the Navient defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in January 2018.

In January 2019, the Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the
Navient defendants' motion to dismiss.

The Navient defendants deny the allegations and intend to
vigorously defend against the allegation in this lawsuit.

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NAVIENT CORP: Suits over Breach of Consumer Protection Laws Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation 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 class action suits over alleged violations of consumer
protection laws.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases alleging violations of various state and federal
consumer protection laws including the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Consumer Financial Protection Act of
2010 ("CFPA"), the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and various other state
consumer protection laws.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in putative class
actions alleging violations of various state and federal consumer
protection laws related to borrowers and the Public Service Loan
Forgiveness program.

The Company denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend
against the allegations.

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

Navient Corporation, incorporated on November 7, 2013, provides
asset management and business processing services to education,
healthcare and government clients at the federal, state and local
levels. The Company holds the portfolio of education loans insured
or federally guaranteed under the Federal Family Education Loan
Program (FFELP). The Company operates through four segments: FFELP
Loans, Private Education Loans, Business Services and Other. It
also holds the portfolio of Private Education Loans. The company is
based in Wilmington, Delaware.


NCAA: Faces Bates Suit over UA Athletes' Football Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY BATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-03275-TWP-DML (S.D. Ind., Aug. 5, 2019)
is an action against the Defendant to obtain redress for injuries
sustained a result of the Defendant's reckless disregard for the
health and safety of generations of University of Alabama
student-athletes.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that despite knowing for
decades of a vast body of scientific research describing the danger
of traumatic brain injuries ("TBIs") like the Plaintiff
experienced, the Defendant failed to implement adequate procedures
to protect the Plaintiff and other Alabama football players from
the long-term dangers associated with them. They did so knowingly
and for profit.

As a direct result of the Defendant's acts and omissions, the
Plaintiff and countless former Alabama football players suffered
brain and other neurocognitive injuries from playing NCAA
football.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206. NCAA is not organized under the laws of any State,
but is registered as a tax-exempt organization with the Internal
Revenue Service. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff Raizner, Esq.
          RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
          2402 Dunlavy Street
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 554-9099
          Facsimile: (713) 554-9098
          E-mail: efile@raiznerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  brichman@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 212-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 373-9435
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NETFLIX INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Netflix, Inc. (NFLX) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court, for the Northern
District of California, and indexed under 19-cv-04395, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Netflix
between April 17, 2019 and July 17, 2019, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable 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.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Netflix securities during
the class period, you have until, September 20, 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.

Netflix provides Internet entertainment services, primarily
streaming services.

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) Netflix would not be able to
gain its expected target number of new subscribers in the second
quarter of 2019; (ii) Netflix would also lose subscribers from the
United States in the second quarter of 2019; and (iii) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On July 17, 2019, post-market, Netflix released a letter to
shareholders which revealed that Netflix missed its expected target
for number of new subscribers and lost 126,000 subscribers in the
United States during the second quarter of 2019. Also on July 17,
2019, Netflix held an earnings call to discuss its financial and
operating results for the quarter. During the earnings call, the
Company's Chief Financial Officer attributed the missed
subscription target to the "timing of [Netflix's] content slate"
and price increases.

On this news, Netflix's stock price fell $47.34 per share, or over
13%, over the following two trading sessions, closing at $315.10
per share on July 19, 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.
[GN]


NETFLIX INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Netflix, Inc. (NFLX) from April 17, 2019 through July
17, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Netflix investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Netflix class action, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1625.html or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Netflix would not be able to gain its expected target
number of new subscribers in the second quarter of 2019; (2)
Netflix would also lose subscribers from the United States in the
second quarter of 2019; and (3) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
20, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1625.html or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com

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

Contact:

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


NEW BALANCE: Carrillo Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
----------------------------------------------------
JOSE CARRILLO, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS, INC., a
Massachusetts corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 19CV352469 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.,
Aug. 8, 2019) is a complaint challenging the systemic illegal
employment practices resulting in violations of the California
Labor Code and the California Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL")
against individuals who worked for Defendants.

The Defendants, jointly and severally, have acted intentionally and
with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights
of all employees in receiving overtime wages for all hours worked
and accurate wage statements. Plaintiff is informed and believes
that the Defendants have engaged in, among other things a system of
willful violations of the California Labor Code by creating and
maintaining policies, practices, and customs that knowingly deny
employees the above stated rights and benefits. The policies,
practices, and customs of Defendants described above and below have
resulted in unjust enrichment of Defendants and an unfair business
advantage over businesses that routinely adhere to the strictures
of the California Labor Code and the UCL, says the complaint.

Plaintiff Jose Carrillo began working for Defendant as an hourly
non-exempt employee in or about February 2003. Plaintiff works at
Defendant's outlet store in Gilroy, California.

New Balance Athletics, Inc. is a Massachusetts corporation, with
retail and outlet store locations throughout the United States,
including in the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry W. Lee, Esq.
     Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
     Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
     515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 488-6555
     Facsimile: (213) 488-6554

          - and -

     William L. Marder, Esq.
     Polaris Law Group LLP
     501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
     Hollister, CA 95023
     Phone: (831) 531-4214
     Fax: (831) 634-0333


NOVAVIVE USA: Fauley Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SHAUN FAULEY, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
NOVAVIVE USA, INC., a Georgia corporation, NOVAVIVE INC., a
Canadian business corporation, and NOVAVIVE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a
Canadian limited partnership, Case No. 1:19-cv-05301 (N.D. Ill.),
files a Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011).

The Plaintiff proposes this class definition:

     All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendant, (3) from whom Defendant did not obtain
     "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax
     advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendant did not have an
     established business relationship, and (5) where the fax
     advertisements did not include an opt-out notice compliant
     with 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii).

The Defendants sent Plaintiff and others a standardized form
advertisement.  The Plaintiff anticipates that the proposed class
definition will change after discovery defines the precise contours
of the class and the advertisements that were sent.  Hence, the
Plaintiff requests leave to submit a brief and other evidence in
support of this motion after discovery about the class elements has
been completed.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Galestan Settlement Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judge Victor Marrero has granted final approval to the
parties' settlement in the case, Galestan v. Onemain Holdings, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01016 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 10, 2017).

Immediately following a final fairness hearing on Aug. 9, Judge
Marrero entered:

     -- a final judgment and order of dismissal.  Pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for purposes of
settlement only, the Court affirms its determinations in the Order
and finally appoints Plaintiff Afshin Galestan as Class
Representative for the Class and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
and Holzer & Holzer, LLC as Class Counsel for the Class. Pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court
affirms its determinations in the Order, fully and finally approves
the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects;

     -- awarding attorney's fees and expenses as well as awarding
$3,500 to Lead Plaintiff Afshin Galestan for the time he spent
directly related to his representation of the Class; and

     -- approving a plan of allocation, concluding that the formula
for the calculation of the claims of Authorized Claimants which is
set forth in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action sent to Class Members provides a fair and reasonable
basis upon which to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement
Fund established by the Stipulation among the Class Members, with
due consideration having been given to administrative convenience
and necessity.

OneMain 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 on February 10, 2017, a
putative class action lawsuit, Galestan v. OneMain Holdings, Inc.,
et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming as defendants the Company and two of
its officers.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Exchange Act for allegedly
making materially misleading statements and/or omitting material
information concerning alleged integration issues after the OneMain
Acquisition in November 2015, and was filed on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 25, 2016 and November 7, 2016.

The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
an award of interest, reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees and
other costs, and equitable relief as the court may deem just and
proper.

On April 23, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement,
which is subject to Court approval. On May 1, 2019, the Court
entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and
scheduling a final approval hearing on August 9, 2019.

The settlement agreement provides for the dismissal of the action
with prejudice. The settlement contains no admission of liability
by the Company and the other defendants.

OneMain Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides consumer
finance and insurance products and services. The company operates
in two segments, Consumer and Insurance, and Acquisitions and
Servicing. OneMain Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1920 and is based
in Evansville, Indiana.


OPTIMUM OUTCOMES: Class Certification Sought in Zurakov Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Zurakov moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit entitled CINDY ZURAKOV, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. OPTIMUM OUTCOMES
INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01132-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that
the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant
the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

While the Seventh Circuit has held that the specific procedure
described in Campbell-Ewald cannot force the individual settlement
of a class representative's claims, the same decision cautions that
other methods may prevent a plaintiff from representing a class,
the Plaintiff tells the Court, citing Fulton Dental, LLC v. Bisco,
Inc., No. 16-3574, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10839 *9-10 (7th Cir. June
20, 2017).  The Plaintiff asserts that one defendant has attempted
a similar tactic by sending a certified check to the proposed class
representative. Bonin v. CBS Radio, Inc., No. 16-cv-674-CNC (E.D.
Wis.); see also Severns v. Eastern Account Systems of Connecticut,
Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis.
Feb. 24, 2016).

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.[CC]

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


OTTOMAN RESTAURANT: Perez Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
YOSDEL PEREZ and other similarly situated individuals v. OTTOMAN
RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a SULTAN MEDITERRANEAN EST. 1988 a/k/a SULTAN
MIAMI BEACH, and GURSEL SEZGIN, individually, Case No.
1:19-cv-23243-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Aug. 5, 2019), seeks to recover
money damages for retaliation and unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ottoman Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a SULTAN MEDITERRANEAN EST. 1988,
a/k/a SULTAN MIAMI BEACH, is a Florida corporation, having place of
business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.  Gursel Sezgin is an
owner/officer and manager of Sultan Restaurant.

Sultan Restaurant is a Mediterranean restaurant located at 1903
Collins Avenue, in Miami Beach, Florida, where the Plaintiff
worked.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PFIZER INC: Al Haj's Bid to Certify Cont'd; Sept. 17 Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on August 6, 2019, in the case
entitled Karmel Al Haj, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., Case No.
1:17-cv-06730 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Motion to certify class is entered and continued;

   -- Defendant shall respond to the motion by August 27, 2019;

   -- Plaintiff shall reply by September 11, 2019;

   -- Motion hearing set for August 7, 2019, is stricken;

   -- The status hearing set for August 7, 2019, is stricken and
      re−set for September 17, 2019, at 9:15 a.m.[CC]


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Allen's FDCPA Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned MIA ALLEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 190700262 was removed
from the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 12,
2019, and assigned Case No. 2:19-cv-03643-NIQA.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, also known as Anchor
Receivables Management, manages past-due accounts. It serves
customers through account representatives. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio
Recovery Associates, LLC operates as a subsidiary of PRA Group,
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     CARY L. FLITTER, ESQ.
     FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
     450 N. NARBERTH AVE, SUITE 101
     NARBERTH, PA 19072
     Phone: (610) 822-0782
     Fax: (610) 667-0552
     Email: cflitter@consumerslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     LAUREN M. BURNETTE, ESQ.
     MESSER STRICKLER LTD
     12276 SAN JOSE BLVD SUITE 720
     JACKSONVILLE, FL 32223
     Phone: (904) 527-1172
     Email: lburnette@messerstrickler.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Cal. App Affirms Arbitration Denial in Serrano
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One,
issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment denying
Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captione
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and
Appellant, v. JUDITH SERRANO, Defendant, Cross-complainant and
Respondent. No. D073719. (Cal. App.).

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA) appeals an order denying
its petition to compel arbitration, in which the trial court ruled
PRA had waived its right to arbitrate the dispute by engaging in
litigation.PRA purchased Serrano's delinquent credit card account
from Serrano's original creditor, Synchrony Bank, formerly GE
Capital Retail Bank (Synchrony Bank). PRA sued Serrano for account
stated, and sought to collect on her unpaid credit card balance.
Serrano cross-complained against PRA, alleging individual and
class-wide causes of action. PRA answered Serrano's
cross-complaint, asserting as an affirmative defense that an
arbitration agreement governed their dispute.

PRA's counsel told the court during that hearing: Presumably the
court has determined there is a binding valid arbitration agreement
and that Ms. Serrano's claim falls within the scope of that given a
finding that. The court interjected, "I don't think we found that.
I don't think we did find it. We actually looked at the [case
management conference report and saw that your report requested a
jury trial and your report asked that you get involved in
discovery, identified depositions that you wanted to take, and a
year and a half later now you want to go to arbitration."

The court denied the petition without addressing Serrano's claim
that PRA had failed to acquire the right to compel arbitration. It
instead found PRA had waived arbitration based on the litigation
that has taken place to this point in this case.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2, a court will grant a
petition to compel contractual arbitration if the court determines
that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists. The statute
establishes an exception, however, where the court determines the
petitioner has waived the right to arbitration. Waiver claims
receive close judicial scrutiny and the party seeking to establish
a waiver bears a heavy burden with all ambiguities decided in favor
of supporting the arbitration agreement.

On appeal, the issue of whether a party has waived the right to
arbitration is a factual question we review for substantial
evidence.  The Court affirm the trial court's determination if it
is supported by substantial evidence.

As the party seeking arbitration, PRA had the responsibility to
timely seek relief either to compel arbitration or dispose of the
lawsuit, before the parties and the court wasted valuable resources
on ordinary litigation. A party who does not demand arbitration
within a reasonable time is deemed to have waived the right to
arbitration.

PRA delayed approximately 18 months after filing its complaint
before it petitioned to compel arbitration. During that delay, it
participated in discovery, which Serrano detailed in her attorney's
declaration. Among other discovery, Serrano propounded special
interrogatories, obtained the court's ruling to compel PRA to
produce certain documents, and participated in several meetings
with opposing counsel regarding transferring this case to federal
court. The court even had to become involved to resolve the
parties' discovery disputes. Because of the discovery, PRA managed
to learn of Serrano's strategy for defending herself in this
litigation.

The Court concludes Serrano made an adequate showing that she was
prejudiced as she was deprived of the advantages of arbitration,
including a speedy and inexpensive resolution of this matter.

Therefore, this sufficed to support a finding of waiver.

This conclusion is bolstered by case law finding prejudice in
instances involving much less time between the filing of a
complaint and the petition to compel arbitration.  

PRA argues that because it was not the one that propounded
discovery on Serrano, she did not have to spend time responding to
its discovery. That distinction is immaterial here because what
matters is PRA's response to the discovery. PRA never once
suggested that discovery should be barred because this dispute had
to be arbitrated By continuing to engage in the discovery process,
PRA acted in a manner inconsistent with its present claim of a
right to arbitrate.

Lastly, the Court rejects PRA's claim that the trial court, by
finding PRA waived its right to arbitrate, necessarily found the
existence of an agreement to arbitrate encompassing Serrano's
claims against PRA. That claim is unsupported by the record, as the
court specifically declined to reach that conclusion. The court's
ruling never mentioned the arbitration clause, much less did it
attempt to explain its scope. The court simply concluded that PRA
had waived whatever arbitration rights, if any, by engaging in
sufficient litigation. The Court declines PRA's invitation to read
anything further into the court's ruling.

The order is affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' August 5, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y37x5kmw from Leagle.com.

Simmonds & Narita and Tomio B. Narita -- tnarita@snllp.com --
Jeffrey A. Topor -- jtopor@snllp.com -- Jennifer L. Yazdi --
JYazdi@hansonbridgett.com -- for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and
Appellant.

Law Offices of Roberto Robledo and Roberto Robledo --
roberto@robertorobledo.com -- Kazerouni Law Group and Matthew
Michael Loker -- ml@kazlg.com -- for Defendant, Cross-complainant
and Respondent.


POWER SOLUTIONS: Court Denies Remand of Treadwell BIPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying
Defendant's Motion to Remand in the case captioned JEROME
TREADWELL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. POWER SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant. Case No. 18 C 8212. (N.D. Ill.) to the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).  

Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against Power
Solutions International Inc. and NOVAtime Technology, Inc.,
alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA) and common law negligence. Plaintiff is a citizen of
Illinois. Power Solutions is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Illinois. NOVAtime is a California
corporation with its principal place of business in California.

Plaintiff argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) 28 U.S.C. Section
1441(a). Section 1447(c) provides that if at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded. A district court's first
duty in every lawsuit is to establish the existence of subject
matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff argues that this action must be remanded to the Circuit
Court of Cook County because this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction under CAFA. Plaintiff says that there is no minimal
jurisdiction between the remaining parties and, alternatively, the
home-state controversy exception to diversity jurisdiction under
CAFA requires remand.

Plaintiff says that because he is a citizen of Illinois and
defendant Power Solutions has its principal place of business in
Illinois and therefore is a citizen of Illinois, minimal diversity
does not exist under CAFA and this action must be remanded.

Defendant responds that jurisdiction was properly established at
the time of removal and that any subsequent events in this case,
the stipulation between plaintiff and NOVAtime Technology have no
effect on jurisdiction.

The Court agrees.

A federal court's jurisdiction under CAFA is determined at the time
of removal.  Section 1332(d)(2) provides that federal courts have
original jurisdiction in class actions when (1) the aggregate
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000  (2) any member of the
plaintiff class is a citizen of a state different from any
defendant minimal diversity (3) the primary defendants are not
states, state officials, or other government entities against whom
the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief; and the
number of members of the plaintiff class is 100 or more.

Here, the parties agree that federal jurisdiction existed under
CAFA at the time of removal.

Accordingly, this Court retains jurisdiction over this matter.
While plaintiff urges this Court to exercise its discretion and
remand this matter to state court, the Court declines to do so.

Alternatively, plaintiff argues that remand is necessary based on
the home-state controversy exception to diversity jurisdiction
under CAFA. Plaintiff's attempts to attack jurisdiction in his
first amended complaint, filed after this action had already been
removed to federal court, is improper. Accordingly, plaintiff's
request to remand under this exception is denied.

Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5dos7gs from
Leagle.com.

Jerome Treadwell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew C. Ficzko --
aficzko@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, Llp, James B. Zouras
-- jzouras@stephanzouras.com -- Stephan Zouras, LLP &Ryan F.
Stephan  rstephan@stephanzouras.com, Stephan, Zouras, LLP.

Power Solutions International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Colleen Grace DeRosa -- colleen.deroza@ogletree.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Anne E. Larson --
anne.larson@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart & Michael Vincent Furlong – michael.furlong@ogletree.com
--  Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


PROGRESSIVE SELECT: Lopez Wins Leave to File an Un-redacted Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William P. Dimitrouleas grants the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to file an un-redacted version of his class certification
motion and un-redacted versions of certain accompanying exhibits
under seal in the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL A. LOPEZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE SELECT
INSURANCE CO., Case No. 0:18-cv-61844-WPD (S.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff is granted leave to file an un-redacted version of
his class certification motion and un-redacted versions of certain
accompanying exhibits under seal.  The seal will last until further
order from the Court.[CC]


RED LION HOTELS: Mullen Files ADA Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RED LION HOTELS
CORPORATION. The case is styled as BARTLEY M. MULLEN, JR.
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RED LION HOTELS CORPORATION, RED LION HOTELS
FRANCHISING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:19-cv-00987-CB (W.D. Pa.,
Aug. 12, 2019).

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

Red Lion Hotels Corporation, doing business as RLH Corporation, is
an American hospitality corporation that primarily engages in the
franchising, management and ownership of upscale, midscale and
economy hotels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
     Carlson Lynch, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue
     5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 322-9243
     Email: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


REDDING, CA: Judge Selection and Court Proceedings Commence
-----------------------------------------------------------
On August 2, 2019, lawyers met at the Shasta County Superior Court
to select a judge for the class action lawsuit against the city of
Redding, in California for damages from the Carr Fire.

Barr & Mudford, the law-firm handling the plaintiffs in the case,
says the nature of the lawsuit has made it hard to find a judge for
the case.

They say the Shasta County Courthouse has to find a judge from
outside the area, after all the eligible judges in the county
recused themselves from the case.

In the meantime, a Butte County judge presided over the August 2
court date, as they discussed the best person for the job.

In the courtroom, Mark Hazelwood and Barry Dewalt represented the
City of Redding.

While Jack Halpin and Brandon Storment, from Barr & Mudford,
represented the plaintiffs; namely hundreds of Carr Fire
survivors.

Hazelwood says their team plans to fight hard for the city of
Redding.

"We believe that the fire crews did a tremendous job limiting the
damage and we're going to vigorously defend this suit because we
don't believe that the city bares any responsibility," Attorney and
Outside Council for the City of Redding Mark Hazelwood, Esq.

In court he also said he expects the case to get more complicated
as time goes on, because there have been 17 other subrogation
claims filed by insurance companies, which means those companies
are hoping to get paid back for the insurance money they've paid
out to their clients for damage from the fire.

Representatives from Barr & Mudford also says they currently have
400 people in the class action lawsuit but since then approximately
300 more have joined. Meaning sometime soon they plan to amend the
complaint to add everyone who has joined since the initial
complaint was filed.

This was the first court session in the entire lawsuit. So they
plan to have a judge selected by October 4. No time was specified
for the next court date yet. However, Hazelwood says it will likely
be at 1:30 pm. [GN]



RESTAURANTS BRANDS: C$6-Mil. Class Action Settlement Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership 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 Ontario Superior Court of Justice has approved the
settlement of two class action suits against The TDL Group Corp., a
subsidiary of the company.

In March 2019, Partnership settled the two class action lawsuits
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against The TDL
Group Corp., a subsidiary of Partnership ("TDL"), and certain other
defendants. The court approved the settlement on April 29, 2019.

Under the terms of the settlement, TDL is contributing C$6 million
to the Tim Hortons Advertising Fund in Canada over two years, such
amount to be spent on marketing activities.

In addition, TDL has paid C$6 million for legal, administrative and
other third-party expenses. These amounts were accrued by TDL
during 2018.

Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and
changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited
Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and
is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands
International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant
Brands International Inc.


RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Suits over Non-Compete Policy Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership 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 four class action suits
alleging violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by incorporating
an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring clause in the standard
form franchise agreement all Burger King franchisees.

In October 5, 2018, a class action complaint was filed against
Burger King Worldwide, Inc. ("BKW") and Burger King Corporation
("BKC") in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida by Jarvis Arrington, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated.

On October 18, 2018, a second class action complaint was filed
against the Company, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Monique Michel, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

On October 31, 2018, a third class action complaint was filed
against BKC and BKW in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by Geneva Blanchard and Tiffany Miller,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated.

On November 2, 2018, a fourth class action complaint was filed
against the Company, BKW and BKC in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida by Sandra Muster, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated.

These complaints allege that the defendants violated Section 1 of
the Sherman Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and
no-hiring clause in the standard form franchise agreement all
Burger King franchisees are required to sign. Each plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief and damages for himself or herself and other
members of the class.

Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and
changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited
Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and
is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands
International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant
Brands International Inc.


RESTAURANTS BRANDS: Unit Faces Class Suit over Non-Compete Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership 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 TDL Group Corp., a subsidiary of the company, has been
named as a defendant in a class action suit over the company's
hiring policies.

In July 2019, a class action complaint was filed against The TDL
Group Corp., a subsidiary of Partnership (TDL) in the Supreme Court
of British Columbia by Samir Latifi, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.

The complaint alleges that TDL violated the Canadian Competition
Act by incorporating an employee no-solicitation and no-hiring
clause in the standard form franchise agreement all Tim Hortons
franchisees are required to sign.

The plaintiff seeks damages and restitution, on behalf of himself
and other members of the class.

Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership operates and
franchises quick service restaurants. The company operates through
three segments: Tim Hortons, Burger King, and Popeyes. The company
was formerly known as New Red Canada Limited Partnership and
changed its name to Restaurant Brands International Limited
Partnership in December 2014. The company was founded in 1954 and
is headquartered in Toronto, Canada. Restaurant Brands
International Limited Partnership is a subsidiary of Restaurant
Brands International Inc.


RIDGEWOOD, NJ: Remand of Water Utility Rates Suit to Council Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court’s Order remanding the Matter
to the Ridgewood Council in the case captioned TOWNSHIP OF WYCKOFF,
BOROUGH OF GLEN ROCK, and BOROUGH OF MIDLAND PARK, all on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Respondents, v. VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD,
Defendant-Respondent/Cross-Appellant. No. A-0363-17T2. (N.J. Super.
Ct. App.).

Defendant Village of Ridgewood (Ridgewood or defendant) owns and
operates the Utility, which supplies water to the residents of
Ridgewood and three other municipalities. Plaintiffs, the Township
of Wyckoff, Borough of Glen Rock, and Borough of Midland Park,
challenged three ordinances passed by Ridgewood that authorized the
Utility to increase rates by approximately thirty-seven percent
over five years.

The trial court held that the ordinances were arbitrary,
capricious, and unreasonable, and, thus, invalid. The court then
remanded the matter to the Ridgewood Council to establish
appropriate rates for the years in question. The trial court also
ordered that plaintiffs be refunded the difference between the
rates actually charged and the rates to be established on remand.

On appeal, plaintiffs make three primary arguments, with numerous
related sub-arguments.

Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred by (1) remanding the
issue of setting appropriate water usage rates and not making a
ruling and award of damages to the class (2) failing to award just
over $3.6 million in damages to plaintiffs for the improper
transfer of surpluses from the Utility to Ridgewood and (3) not
awarding plaintiffs attorney's fees.

The party seeking to challenge an ordinance has the burden to
establish that the ordinance is either invalid, or that it is
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Nevertheless, when a
municipal utility supplies water to non-residents, a court should
strictly construe the enabling legislation to protect non-resident
customers.
  
Whether Plaintiffs' Complaint Was Time-Barred

Plaintiffs brought an action in lieu of prerogative writs. Rule
4:69-6(a) states: No action in lieu of prerogative writs shall be
commenced later than 45 days after the accrual of the right to the
review, hearing or relief claimed. This rule is aimed at those who
slumber on their rights.

Rule 4:69-6(a) does not define when actions in lieu of prerogative
writs accrue, therefore, questions of accrual are left to
substantive law.   Substantive law establishes that a cause of
action pursuant to Rule 4:69-6 challenging the actions of a
municipal government accrues on the date that the actions are
adopted.  

Here, plaintiffs challenge the water usage rate increases
implemented in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Ordinances. The 2010
Ordinance was adopted on December 14, 2009, and became effective on
January 1, 2010. Plaintiffs filed their initial action on February
1, 2010. Thus, that action was timely.

Thereafter, plaintiffs amended the complaint to challenge the 2011
and 2012 Ordinances after those ordinances were adopted.
Furthermore, a fair and plain reading of plaintiffs' original
complaint establishes that plaintiffs would be challenging any
future rate increases. Accordingly, the amended complaint was also
timely.

Whether the Three Ordinances Were Invalid

As previously noted, Ridgewood owns and operates the Utility under
the authority granted to it in the Water Supply Act. The Water
Supply Act allows municipalities, such as Ridgewood, to prescribe
and, from time to time, alter rates or rentals to be charged to
users of water supply services.

The rates must be uniform and equitable for the same type and class
of use or service of the facilities.

The Water Supply Act requires that the rate increases are to be
based on reliable financial information.

Here, the trial court found that Ridgewood did not have a reliable
factual basis for the rate increases it implemented in the 2010,
2011, and 2012 Ordinances. The court made that finding based on the
extensive evidence presented during the trial. The court also
supported that overall finding by making a number of specific
factual findings. Moreover, those factual findings were based on
credibility determinations that the trial court made regarding the
testimony provided by the nine witnesses who appeared at trial.

The principal factual findings by the trial court included findings
that (1) Ridgewood did not establish whether and in what amount the
Utility had operating deficits and (2) Ridgewood used unreliable
revenue projections.

To support the rate increases in the 2010 Ordinance, Ridgewood
relied on testimony from Moritz and Mai. The trial court found that
neither Moritz nor Mai properly accounted for the substantial
indirect costs that were allocated to the Utility. The court also
found that Ridgewood had not conducted a reliable examination of
the Utility's deficits and indirect costs. Thus, the court found
that the method by which the Utility's deficits were determined was
not credibly established and the financial information provided to
the Ridgewood Council was questionable. The trial court also found
that the information provided to the Ridgewood Council included
unreliable revenue projections because there was no rate study
conducted to support the rate increases.

The trial court made similar findings with regard to the rate
increases implemented in the 2011 and 2012 Ordinances. Again, the
court found that those increases were not supported by reliable
financial information or studies. Moreover, the court found that in
2011 and thereafter, the Ridgewood Council had been advised that
there were significant concerns about the reliability of the cost
allocations, the Utility's deficits, and whether any rate increase
was warranted.

All of the trial court's factual findings are amply supported by
the evidence presented at the trial. Those findings are also
supported by the court's credibility determinations. We discern no
basis to reject any of the principal factual findings made by the
trial court.

Applying the trial court's factual findings to the law, we also
agree with the legal conclusions the trial court reached.
Specifically, the Court agrees that the rate increases implemented
in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Ordinances were arbitrary, capricious,
and unreasonable because they lacked an adequate factual basis. As
previously noted, the Water Supply Act requires rates to be based
on specific costs. Here, the evidence established that Ridgewood
did not have accurate or reliable financial reports or data
establishing the costs of the Utility and whether and in what
amount the Utility had deficits.

Defendant makes three primary arguments in challenging the trial
court's findings that the three ordinances were invalid.

First, defendant contends that no one, including plaintiffs,
objected to the 2010 Ordinance. Defendant then goes on to argue
that the Council relied on information provided by the Utility and
senior Ridgewood officials and that reliance was reasonable.

The Court rejects that argument given the factual findings made by
the trial court. The Ridgewood Council was told that indirect costs
allocated from Ridgewood comprised part of the Utility's operating
expenses. The Council was also told that those allocations were
based on a study conducted in 2003, and no new study or
reconciliation had ever been performed. Given those facts, the
Council had an obligation to question the financial information
provided to it to ensure that the information was reliable. The
trial court found the Council did not conduct that due diligence
and that finding is supported by credible evidence.

Second, defendant contends that the trial court did not give
appropriate consideration to the water rate comparisons information
that had been provided to the Council. The Council had been told
that rates from other communities had been reviewed and that the
proposed increase in 2010 would be in the middle range of those
other rates. The trial court correctly found that the comparisons,
in and of themselves, could not be the basis for a rate increase.
The Water Supply Act requires that rate increases be based on the
actual costs of the Utility.  The comparisons, however, do not
focus on the actual costs incurred by the Utility.

Finally, defendant takes issue with four specific factual findings
made by the trial court. Defendant argues that the trial court
erred in finding that (1) there was no support for the allocation
of time and expenses of Utility employees doing work for Ridgewood
(2) Ridgewood failed to establish that the Utility had deficits (3)
there was no factual support for the allocation of the entire
salary of Moritz to the Utility and (4) Mai had no reliable basis
for his projections of revenue and water consumption.

The Remand to the Ridgewood Council

Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in remanding the matter
to the Ridgewood Council to establish appropriate rates. They
contend that they were entitled to a refund of the difference
between what the rates were in 2009 and the invalid rate increases
in the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Ordinances. Thus, plaintiffs seek a
refund of the approximately thirty-seven percent increase in rates
put into effect beginning January 1, 2010. That is, an
approximately twenty-one percent increase in 2010, a five percent
increase in 2011, a five percent increase in 2012, a three percent
increase in 2013, and a three percent increase in 2014. Plaintiffs
assert that they submitted evidence, through their expert Higgins,
to show that their damages as of July 31, 2016, were $13,834,324.

The Court disagrees.

Ridgewood was authorized by the Water Supply Act to set appropriate
rates for the Utility. The trial court found that Ridgewood did not
have reliable financial information to properly set the increased
rates that it implemented under the three ordinances. In that
regard, the trial court found that much of the information provided
to the Ridgewood Council was unreliable, out of date, and not
verified. Critically, the trial court also found that since the
last rate increase in 2004, the Utility had increased expenses and
had undertaken significant capital improvements.

Therefore, the trial court found that Ridgewood may well have the
right to increase the rates, but it needed to do it based on a
proper factual record.

Consequently, the trial court remanded the matter to the Ridgewood
Council to set appropriate rates for the periods after January 1,
2010. The trial court also ruled that plaintiffs will be entitled
to receive the difference between what they paid for their water
under the invalid ordinances and the appropriate rates established
on remand. Furthermore, the trial court retained jurisdiction to
review the proceedings on remand and the award of a refund.

The trial court had the legal authority and acted appropriately in
remanding the matter to the Ridgewood Council. It is well
established that claimants are entitled to a refund of excessive
fees if those fees are determined to be improper.  In other words,
where a municipal action is authorized by statute, but the
municipality acts improperly, it can thereafter properly exercise
its authority under the statute to calculate a refund to those
harmed by the improper action.  

The Surpluses

The parties make two arguments concerning the surpluses the Utility
transferred to Ridgewood. First, plaintiffs argue the trial court
erred in failing to award them just over $3.6 million as damages
for the alleged improper transfer of surpluses from 2011 to 2016.
Second, defendant contends that not only were surplus transfers
permitted, but the trial court erred in capping future annual
surplus transfers at five percent of the Utility's cost of
operation.

Whether Ridgewood is permitted to transfer surpluses from the
Utility involves the interpretation of several statutory
provisions, specifically, N.J.S.A. 40A:31-10, N.J.S.A. 40A:31-23,
and N.J.S.A. 40A:4-35. When interpreting a statute, the primary
goal is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature.  

The Water Supply Act permits municipalities to establish surpluses
for a water utility for anticipated contingencies. N.J.S.A.
40A:31-10(c)(2). It also allows, in certain circumstances,
municipalities to transfer some of that surplus to its local
budget. Ibid. Specifically, the Water Supply Act states:

In fixing rates the local unit can establish a surplus in an amount
sufficient to provide for the reasonable anticipation of any
contingency that may affect the operation of the utility, and, at
the discretion of the local unit or units, allow for the transfer
of moneys from the budget for the water supply facilities to the
local budget in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40A:4-35.1  N.J.S.A.
40A:31-10(c)(2).

The Attorney's Fees

Finally, plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to an award of
attorney's fees as the prevailing representatives of a class. In
that regard, they contend that the litigation resulted in a
tangible benefit to all ratepayers because the rate increases in
the 2010, 2011, and 2012 Ordinances were invalidated. Accordingly,
plaintiffs requested the trial court to order defendant to pay
their attorney's fees through a fund in court in accordance with
Rules 4:32-2(h) and 4:42-9(a)(2).

The prevailing party in litigation generally is not entitled to an
award of attorneys' fees. There are, however, exceptions to that
general rule. One exception to that rule is that attorneys' fees
may be awarded from a 'fund in court.' Rule 4:32-2(h) states that
in an action certified as a class action, an application for
attorney's fees may be made in accordance with Rule 4:42-9. Rule
4:42-9, in turn, authorizes attorney's fees in eight instances,
including out of a fund in court.  

Here, the trial court denied plaintiffs an award of attorney's
fees. In making that ruling, the trial court found that the
circumstances of this matter did not dictate the equitable
allowance of attorney's fees. The trial court explained that all
ratepayers had an interest in correctly delineating water usage
rates and the circumstances of this case did not warrant an award
of attorney's fees to the plaintiffs.

The Court discerns no error in the trial court's decision not to
award attorney's fees. The trial court correctly recognized that
plaintiffs had a legal basis for an award of attorney's fees under
the fund-in-court exception in Rule 4:42-9(a)(2). The trial court,
however, exercised its discretion and denied an award of attorney's
fees given the circumstances of this case. In particular, we note
that the ratepayers in Wyckoff, Glen Rock, and Midland Park
effectively did participate in the litigation through their
municipalities because those municipalities used public funds to
pay their attorney's fees.

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's August 5, 2019 Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y47ohdpv from Leagle.com.

Joseph B. Fiorenzo -- jfiorenzo@sillscummis.com -- argued the cause
for appellants/cross-respondents (Sills Cummis & Gross, PC,
attorneys; Joseph B. Fiorenzo, of counsel and on the briefs;
Gregory Edward Reid -- greid@sillscummis.com -- on the briefs).

William W. Northgrave  -- wnorthgrave@msbnj.com -- argued the cause
for respondent/cross-appellant (McManimon Scotland & Baumann, LLC,
attorneys; William W. Northgrave and Thaddeus John Del Guercio, 75
Livingston Ave Fl 2, Mcmanimon Scotland & Baumann, Roseland, NJ,
07068-3737 on the briefs).


SHANGHAI ORIGINAL: Second Circuit Appeal Filed in Jian FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jian Ying Lin and Chunyou Xie filed an appeal from a
Court ruling in their lawsuit styled Jin, et al. v. Shanghai
Original, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-5633, in the  U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the two named
plaintiffs, along with nine opt-in plaintiffs, bring claims under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL)
for violations of state and federal minimum wage and overtime laws
by Joe's Shanghai restaurant, which has locations in Midtown
Manhattan, Chinatown, and Flushing, Queens.  The named plaintiffs
both worked at the Flushing location, while the opt-in plaintiffs,
with one exception, worked in Midtown or Chinatown.

The appellate case is captioned as Jin, et al. v. Shanghai
Original, Inc., et al., Case No. 19-2301, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Petitioners-Plaintiffs Jian Ying Lin and Chunyou Xie, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          JOHN TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762-1324
          Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
          E-mail: johntroy@pllc.com

Defendants-Respondents Shanghai Original, Inc., DBA Joe's Shanghai;
East Brother Corp., DBA Joe's Shanghai; Shanghai Duplicate Corp,
DBA Joe's Shanghai; Kiu Sang Si, AKA Joseph Si; Yiu Fai Fong; and
Tun Yee Lam are represented by:

          David B. Horowitz, Esq.
          FONG & WONG, P.C.
          254 Canal Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 966-6668


SI-BONE INC: Court Refuses to Dismisses Fromer TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order denying
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned ERIC B.
FROMER CHIROPRACTIC, INC., Plaintiff, v. SI-BONE, INC., Defendant.
Case No. 19-CV-00633-LHK. (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc., brings this putative
class action against Defendant Si-Bone, Inc. for alleged violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiff alleges
that the Fax was a pretext to recommend a treatment option, namely,
a minimally invasive sacroiliac surgery treatment option that uses
Si-Bone's iFuse titanium implants across the sacroiliac joint.
Plaintiff did not give Defendant prior express invitation or
permission to send the Fax and the Fax did not include an opt-out
notice. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sent the Fax to at least
forty other recipients and that Defendant is continuing to send
unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission.

Defendant raises two arguments in support of its motion to dismiss.


First, Defendant contends that Plaintiff lacks Article III
standing. Second, Defendant contends that the Fax was not an
advertisement under the TCPA, and thus was not unlawful.  

Plaintiff Has Plausibly Alleged Facts to Support Article III
Standing

Standing is an essential and unchanging part of the
case-or-controversy requirement of Article III. Article III
standing requires that (1) the plaintiffs suffered an injury in
fact, i.e., an invasion of a legally protected interest which is
(a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not
conjectural or hypothetical (2) the injury is fairly traceable to
the challenged conduct and (3) the injury islikely to be redressed
by a favorable decision.

Plaintiff brings its claim under the TCPA, which prohibits any
person from using any telephone facsimile machine, computer or
other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an
unsolicited advertisement. The TCPA defines unsolicited
advertisement as any material advertising the commercial
availability or quality of any property, goods or services which is
transmitted to any person without that person's prior express
invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the TCPA because
Defendant sent the Fax without Plaintiff's consent, and the Fax was
part of an overall campaign for Defendants' goods and services,
including iFuse implants.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff's injury is de minimis and
therefore not particularized. However, Van Patten explicitly held
that a violation of the TCPA, without more, is sufficient to
establish standing because Congress sought to protect consumers
from unwanted phone calls and fax advertisements.

Defendant focuses on the allegation that the unsolicited Fax did
not contain an opt-out notice, and contends that Plaintiff's injury
is not traceable to Defendant's actions because Plaintiff would
have received the Fax whether or not the Fax contained a compliant
opt-out notice.

However, Plaintiff's alleged injury is that the Fax itself was an
unsolicited advertisement, and that injury is traceable to
Defendant's transmission of the Fax. That a fax contained a
compliant opt-out notice is a defense to a TCPA claim. Thus, the
presence of an opt-out notice is irrelevant to whether the Fax
itself was an unsolicited advertisement that led to Plaintiff's
injury.

Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has plausibly alleged
facts sufficient for Article III standing.

Plaintiff Has Plausibly Alleged that the Fax Violated the TCPA

Defendant's argument that Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a
claim for violation of the TCPA.   

The TCPA prohibits any person from using any telephone facsimile
machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone
facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement. The TCPA defines
unsolicited advertisement as any material advertising the
commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or
services which is transmitted to any person without that person's
prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.

In the instant motion, Defendant concedes that the Fax was
unsolicited, but contends that Plaintiff has not pled facts
sufficient to allege that the Fax was an advertisement under the
TCPA. The Court first summarizes Plaintiff's allegations about the
Fax and then addresses Defendant's arguments.

The Fax is a one-page sheet that informs recipients of an
educational dinner presentation about the sacroiliac (SI]) joint as
a cause of low back pain. Defendant's logo is prominently displayed
at the top of the Fax and is in larger font than any other text on
the Fax. The Fax states that Defendant is sponsoring the
presentation and that the presentation will address SI joint
treatment options:

First, Defendant argues that the Fax is not an advertisement
because the Fax does not make any good or service available for
sale. However, the definition of commercially available under the
TCPA is not so narrow. The Ninth Circuit has held that to be
commercially available under the TCPA, a good or service must be
available to be bought or sold or must be a pretext for advertising
a product that is so available.  

In the instant case, Plaintiff alleges that the Fax's educational
dinner invitation was merely a pretext for Defendant to recommend a
treatment option, namely a minimally invasive sacroiliac surgery
treatment option that uses Si-Bone's `iFuse titanium implants
across the sacroiliac joint.'

Accordingly, Plaintiff's allegations fit squarely within the Ninth
Circuit's definition of an unsolicited advertisement as a fax that
is a pretext for advertising a product that is so available to be
bought or sold.

In this case, too, Plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to allege
that the educational dinner was a pretext for Defendant to
advertise its SI joint treatment options, such as the iFuse
implant. Not only has Plaintiff alleged that Defendant sponsored
the free dinner and that the dinner presentation would concern a
topic related to Defendant's products, but the Fax also prominently
displays Defendant's logo, states that the dinner will review
treatment options for patents with SI joint problems, and is signed
by a Territory Manager for Defendant.
  
Accordingly, the Court rejects Defendant's argument that simply
because the Fax did not directly advertise the sale of goods or
services, the Fax was not an unsolicited advertisement.  

Second, Defendant contends that the Fax is not an advertisement
because Plaintiff cannot in fact purchase any of Defendant's
products. Defendant relies heavily on documents outside the
complaint, which Defendant contends show that Defendant's iFuse
surgical implants are not commercially available to Plaintiff
because Plaintiff provides chiropractic services, not surgery.
However, even assuming that Plaintiff cannot personally purchase
any of Defendant's products, whether an unsolicited fax is an
advertisement depends not on the recipient's identity, but on the
nature of the fax itself.

The Court agrees.

The TCPA defines an unsolicited advertisement by reference to the
advertisement's content alone: The term unsolicited advertisement'
means any material advertising the commercial availability or
quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to
any person without that person's prior express invitation or
permission, in writing or otherwise.

Third, Defendant contends that the Fax is an informational
communication and that any reference on the Fax to Defendant is so
de minimis that the Fax cannot constitute an advertisement.
However, Defendant's logo is the first and largest item displayed
on the Fax. Moreover, the de minimis inquiry applies only when a
plaintiff contends that incidental advertising transforms an
otherwise legitimate fax into an illegal unsolicited
advertisement.

Plaintiff does not proceed on an incidental advertising theory.
Rather, Plaintiff alleges that the Fax invited Plaintiff to an
educational dinner as a pretext for Defendant to sell its products
as "part of an overall marketing campaign for Defendants' goods and
services." The Plaintiff's complaint plausibly alleges that the Fax
had the commercial purpose of advertising Defendant's products and
services. Defendant's de minimis argument is thus not relevant to
Plaintiff's allegations. In sum, Defendant's arguments are without
merit, and Plaintiff's complaint adequately pleads that the Fax was
an unsolicited advertisement.
The Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yxcnhsub from Leagle.com.

Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ryan
Michael Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro
hac vice & S. Chandler Visher  -- chandler@visherlaw.com -- Law
Offices of S. Chandler Visher.

Si-Bone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph A. Escarez --
jescarez@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Angela Marie S. Machala
-- amachala@scheperkim.com -- Daniel Joshua Salinas --
jsalinas@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Robert Brian Milligan
-- rmilligan@seyfarth.com -- Attorney at Law.


SIGNATURE FLIGHT: Court Won't Strike Class Allegations in Boddie
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Defendants' Motion to Strike of
Modify Class Allegations in the case captioned MIKKI BODDIE,
Plaintiff, v. SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants. Case No. 19-cv-03044-DMR. (N.D. Cal.).

Defendants Signature Flight Support Corporation (SFSC) and BBA
Aviation USA, Inc. (BBA) move pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D) to strike and/or modify the class
allegations in Plaintiff Mikki Boddie's first amended complaint.  

In this putative class action, Plaintiff Mikki Boddie sues her
former employers SFSC and BBA alleging numerous wage and hour
violations under California law. Plaintiff asserts the following
claims in the FAC, inter alia: 1) failure to provide required meal
periods in violation of California Labor Code sections 226.7 and
512; 2) failure to provide required rest periods in violation of
California Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; 3) failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code sections 510
and 1194; 4) failure to pay minimum wages in violation of
California Labor Code sections 1194 and 1197.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all current and former
non-exempt employees of Defendants in the State of California at
any time within the period beginning four (4) years prior to the
filing of this action and ending at the time this action settles or
proceeds to final judgment.

Defendants now move pursuant to Rules 12(f) and 23(d)(1)(D) to
strike the class allegations in the FAC for failure to satisfy Rule
23 requirements for a class action, including Rule 23(a)(3)'s
requirement that the claims or defenses of the representative
parties be typical of the claims or defenses of the class.

The Defendants argue that the court should strike the class
allegations from the FAC or modify the proposed class definition
because Plaintiff cannot satisfy Rule 23(a)(3)'s requirement that
the claims or defense of the representative parties be typical of
the claims or defenses of the class.

The Defendants assert that the majority of the putative class
members Plaintiff seeks to represent are bound by SFSC's
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program, which includes an
agreement to arbitrate the disputes at issue and waives the right
to pursue such claims in class proceedings.

According to Defendants, Plaintiff opted out of the ADR program.
Therefore, they argue, Plaintiff is atypical and unable to
represent those putative class members who did not opt out of the
ADR program. They also argue that the existence of the arbitration
agreements destroy commonality and render Plaintiff an inadequate
representative of the putative class.

The Defendants' argument clearly relies on facts regarding SFSC's
ADR program, but the FAC is silent as to that program, or any
agreement to arbitrate wage and hour claims, or class action
waivers. Defendants attempt to cure this problem by asking the
court to take judicial notice of two versions of SFSC's ADR program
that they contend were in effect during the relevant time period
covered by this lawsuit.  

Sleeth states that of the 945 individuals whom Defendants
identified as working at some point between April 10, 2015, to the
present for SFSC in California as an hourly employee, all but 43 of
them are subject to and remain bound by an ADR Program which SFSC
implemented several years prior to the present lawsuit. According
to Sleeth, both versions of the ADR program require the parties to
arbitrate their disputes and contain a class action waiver.  

Here, in contrast, Plaintiff objects to judicial notice of
Defendants' ADR program documents, noting that Defendants have not
submitted a single arbitration agreement purportedly signed by a
putative class member that they claim should be excluded from the
class. As Defendants do not explain how the ADR program documents
satisfy the requirements of Rule 201(b)(2), their request for
judicial notice is denied.

Defendants' motion also relies heavily on Sleeth's statement about
how many putative class members agreed to arbitrate their claims
and waived the right to participate in a class action. However,
Defendants offer no authority to support the propriety of
considering Sleeth's statements for purposes of determining the
merits of this motion. The court declines to consider Sleeth's
declaration. In sum, Defendants' motion is based on asserted facts
that do not appear on the face of the FAC, and which the court
cannot otherwise consider. This is sufficient reason to deny
Defendants' motion.

Defendants also move to strike and/or modify the class allegations
pursuant to Rule 23(d)(1)(D), which provides that a court may
require that the pleadings be amended to eliminate allegations
about representation of absent persons and that the action proceed
accordingly. While some courts have recognized the authority to
strike class allegations under Rule 23 and Rule 12(f) prior to
discovery if the complaint demonstrates that a class action cannot
be maintained, in general, class allegations are not tested at the
pleading stage and are instead scrutinized after a party has filed
a motion for class certification.

Here, Defendants have not answered the FAC, discovery has not yet
commenced, and no motion for class certification has been filed.
Discovery is integral to developing the shape and form of a class
action. It is premature to determine whether class treatment is
appropriate here.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion to strike and/or modify the class
allegations is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y3bkbkg8 from Leagle.com.

Mikki Boddie, indicidually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented byMatthew John Matern --
MMatern@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group, PC & Mikael Hans
Stahle -- MStahle@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC.

Signature Flight Support Corporation, a Delaware corporation & BBA
Aviation USA, Inc., a Delaware coporation, Defendants, represented
by David Lishian Cheng  -- dcheng@fordharrison.com -- Ford &
Harrison LLP.


SMGC CONSTRUCTION: Camacho Seeks Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------
Steven Camacho, the Plaintiff, vs. Siatista Maintenance & Gen.
Construction Corp.; SMGC Corp.; SMGC Construction Corp.; Alexander
A. Antzoulatos; Ilias Panagiotis Stefou, the Defendants, Case No.
713498/2019 (N.Y. Sup., Aug. 6, 2019), alleges that Defendants
knowingly and willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated their lawfully earned overtime compensation in
direct contravention of the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Defendant informed Plaintiff that
compensation was $120 per day. Throughout the employment, the
Plaintiff worked a regular schedule of Monday through Friday,
typically from 8 am to 5 pm, and every other week, also working a
Saturday shift covering the same hours as weekdays.

The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of ten hours per day. The
Defendants never paid an overtime premium, and instead a day-rate
that failed to account for any overtime premium.[BN]

Attorneys for the Plaintiff are:

          Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
          675 3rd Avenue, Suite 1810
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (718) 669-0714
          E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com

SOUTH CAROLINA: Court OKs Partial Settlement in Geissler Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RUSSELL GEISSLER, BERNARD BAGLEY, AND WILLIE
JAMES JACKSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of the South
Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC), in his official
capacity; and JOHN B. McREE, M.D., Division Director of Health and
Professional Services for SCDC, in his individual capacity,
Defendants. Case No. 4:17-cv-01746-MBS. (D.S.C.), the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina, Florence
Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting the Joint Motion to
Substitute Filing and the Partial Settlement Agreement is
substituted for the Revised Partial Consent Decree.  The Court also
granted the Joint Motion for Final Approval and the Partial
Settlement Agreement is approved.

Plaintiffs Russell Geissler, Bernard Bagley, and Willie James
Jackson individually and as class representatives for all those
similarly situated bring this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
against Defendants Bryan P. Stirling and John B. McRee, M.D.,
alleging that the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC)
has failed to screen and adequately treat inmates for chronic
Hepatitis C (HCV). Plaintiffs, who are in SCDC custody, assert
violations of the Eighth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended,
and the Rehabilitation Act.

Rule 23(a) states that one or more members of a class may sue as
representative parties on behalf of all members only if the
following criteria are satisfied: (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.  

With respect to the type of class certification Plaintiffs seek,
Rule 23(b)(2) certification is reserved for cases where broad,
class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief is necessary to redress
a group-wide injury. A class action is properly certified under
Rule 23(b)(2) where the claims seek to define the relationship
between the defendant and a group uniformly situated in relation to
the defendant, such as where litigants seek institutional reform in
the form of injunctive relief.  

The Parties seek approval of the Partial Settlement Agreement as
settlement of the Testing Claims. The claims asserted by a
certified class may be settled only with the court's approval.
Where the proposal would bind class members, the court may approve
it only after a hearing and only on finding that the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. To determine whether
the proposal is fair, the court must consider (i) the posture of
the case at the time of settlement (ii) the extent of discovery
that has been conducted, (iii) the circumstances surrounding the
negotiations and (iv) the experience of counsel.   

In evaluating the adequacy of a class settlement, the court should
consider the following: (i) the relative strength of the
plaintiffs' case on the merits (ii) the existence of any
difficulties of proof or strong defenses the plaintiffs are likely
to encounter if the case goes to trial (iii) the anticipated
duration and expense of additional litigation (iv) the solvency of
the defendants and the likelihood of recovery of a litigated
judgment and (v) the degree of opposition to the settlement.  

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), the court
grants final certification of the within action as a class action
for purposes of settlement of the Testing Claims only and defines
theTesting Class as:

     All current and future inmates in SCDC custody, with the
exception of inmates who have already been diagnosed with chronic
HCV.

Pursuant to Rule 23(g), the court grants final certification of
Plaintiffs Russell Geissler and Bernard Bagley as the Class
Representatives and further certifies Yarborough Applegate LLC and
Guttman, Buschner & Brooks PLLC as Class Counsel.

Proper notice is an elementary and fundamental requirement of due
process. Notice satisfies due process where it either (1) is in
itself reasonably certain to inform those affected or (2) where
conditions do not reasonably permit such notice, the form chosen is
not substantially less likely to bring home notice than other of
the feasible and customary substitutes. The form and method for
notifying class members of the Revised Partial Consent Decree and
its terms and conditions was in conformity with this court's order
of preliminary approval. The court is satisfied that the form and
method for notifying class members of the Revised Partial Consent
Decree meets the requirements of due process and constitutes the
best notice practicable under the circumstances. The court agrees
that the Partial Settlement Agreement is substantively identical to
the Revised Partial Consent Decree and therefore no further notice
period is necessary.

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3626(a), the court finds that the
Partial Settlement Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further
than is necessary to correct the alleged constitutional violations,
and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the alleged
constitutional violations.

The court finds that settlement of the Testing Claims, on the terms
and conditions set forth in the Partial Settlement Agreement, is in
all respects fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the
best interest of the class members. In so finding, the court has
considered the specific public interest at stake and the strength
of Plaintiffs' case, along with the posture of the litigation, the
complexity, expense, and probable duration of further litigation,
the circumstances surrounding the Parties' negotiations, the
experience of counsel, and SCDC's solvency.

The Partial Settlement Agreement is granted final approval and
shall be consummated in accordance with the terms and provisions
thereof, except as may be amended by any order issued by this
court. The Parties are hereby directed to perform the terms of the
Partial Settlement Agreement. All class members who were provided
notice of the Partial Settlement Agreement are bound by the terms
of it.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2rqou2a from
Leagle.com.

Russell Geissler, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher James Bryant --
chris@yarboroughapplegate.com -- Yarborough Applegate, David B.
Yarborough, Jr. -- david@yarboroughapplegate.com -- Yarborough
Applegate, Elizabeth H. Shofner -- lshofner@gbblegal.com -- Guttman
Buschner and Brooks PLLC, pro hac vice, Justin Silver Brooks
-jbrooks@gbblegal.com -- Guttman Buschner and Brooks PLLC, pro hac
vice, Paul John Zwier, Guttman Buschner and Brooks PLLC, pro hac
vice & Reuben A. Guttman -- rguttman@gbblegal.com -- Guttman
Buschner and Brooks PLLC, pro hac vice.

Bernard Bagley, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated & Willie James Jackson, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher
James Bryant, Yarborough Applegate, David B. Yarborough, Jr.,
Yarborough Applegate & Paul John Zwier, Guttman Buschner and Brooks
PLLC, pro hac vice.

Bryan P. Stirling, Director of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections (SCDC), in his official capacity & John B. McRee, MD,
Division Director of Health and Professional Services for SCDC, in
his individual capacity, Defendants, represented by James Rufus
Bratton, III, Aiken Bridges Nunn Elliott and Tyler & Samuel F.
Arthur, III, Aiken Bridges Nunn Elliott and Tyler, PO Drawer 1931.
Florence, SC 29503


SOUTH TEXAS PIZZA: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Cooper Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTH TEXAS PIZZA, INC. D/B/A TEAM MURPH
D/B/A DOMINIO’S PIZZA; TEAM MURPH MANAGEMENT, LLC; and ALAN
MURPH, Defendants, Case No. 5:19-cv-00926 (W.D. Tex., Aug. 1, 2019)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff Cooper was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.

South Texas Pizza, Inc. operates a chain of restaurants. The
Company offers pizzas, sandwiches, desserts, burgers, nuggets, and
beverages, as well as takes party and corporate orders. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jay Forester, Esq.
         FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
         1701 N. Market Street, Suite 210
         Dallas, TX 75202
         Telephone: (214) 210-2100
         Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
         E-mail: jay@foresterhaynie.com


SPARK ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Bank Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
TODD C. BANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPARK ENERGY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:19-cv-04478 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 5, 2019) seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Spark Energy, LLC offers utility services in the United States. The
Company generates, transmits, and distributes electricity and
natural gas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd C. Bank, Esq.
          TODD C. BANK, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
          119-40 Union Turnpike, Fourth Floor
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 520-7125


SPECIALIST STAFFING: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Lundy Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN LUNDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPECIALIST STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a PROGRESSIVE
GLOBAL ENERGY, Case No. 5:19-cv-01451 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 5, 2019),
accuses the Defendant of failing to pay overtime compensation,
among other things, under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specialist Staffing Solutions, Inc., doing business as Progressive
Global Energy, is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and
principal place of business outside of California.

Progressive is a global recruitment company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228
          Walnut, CA 91789
          Telephone: (713) 999-5228
          Facsimile: (713) 999-1187
          E-mail: matt@parmet.law


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Timothy L. Miles Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles, who has been leading the fight
to protect shareholder rights for over 18 years, reminds investors
that there have been class action lawsuits filed against Spectrum
Brands Holdings Inc. (NYSE:SPB) and certain of its officers
accusing the Company of inflating the stock price and asserting
alleged violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
between June 14, 2016 and November 16, 2018. Spectrum is a consumer
products company manufacturing, marketing, and distributing a
variety of products in approximately 160 countries.

Spectrum's Officers Accused of Misleading Shareholders and
Inflating Stock Price

According to the complaint, between 2016 and 2018, Spectrum had
been falsely reassuring investors of its progress with its
improvement initiatives, which included the development of its Ohio
and Kansas distribution centers. While telling investors that the
distribution centers were on track to help reduce expenses and
inventory, Spectrum failed to mention the self-inflicting,
recurring operational issues in those facilities. Former CEO
Andreas Rouve repeatedly downplayed the glitches regarding the
construction and operation of the distribution. However, the truth
was revealed in an April 2018 conference call when new CEO David
Maura admitted to long term problems with the facilities and the
prolonged recovery period. On this news, Spectrum's stock fell
approximately 20, to close at $75.01 per share on April 26, 2018.
Then, in November 2018, Spectrum announced a $92.5 million goodwill
write down stemming from the inadequately performed consolidation
projects. On this news, Spectrum's stock fell another 19%. Since
then, the stock has continued to fall and trades significantly
below the stock's class period high.

The Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles Encourages Spectrum
Shareholders to Contact the Firm

If you purchased Spectrum securities, have information, or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions fe
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Timothy L. Miles Esquire, at 615-587-7384,
Toll-Free at 855-846-6529, or by email to tmiles@timmileslaw.com.
If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number, and the number shares owned.

About Timothy L. Miles

Timothy L. Miles is a nationally recognized shareholder rights
attorney born and raised in Nashville, Tennessee. Mr. Miles
maintains the AV Preeminent Rating by Martindale-Hubbell, their
highest rating for both legal ability and ethics, and is a is a
member of the prestigious Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers:
The National Trial Lawyers Association, is also a superb rated
attorney by Avvo, and the only class action lawyer in Nashville
with an Avvo rating of 10, their highest rating available. Awards:
Member of the Top 100 Civil Plaintiff Trial Lawyers: The National
Trial Lawyers Association (2017-2019); AV(R) Preeminent(TM) Rating
by Martindale-Hubble(R) (2014-2019); PRR AV Preeminent Rating on
Lawyers.com (2017 & 2019); The Top-Rated Lawyer in Litigation(TM)
for Ethical Standards and Legal Ability (Martindale-Hubble(R)
2015); Superb Rated Attorney (Avvo); Avvo Top Rated Lawyer for 2017
& 2018 (Avvo); America's Most Honored Professionals 2018 - Top 1%
(The American Registry 2016-2018).

Contact:

         Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
         Law Offices of Timothy L. Miles
         124 Shiloh Ridge
         Hendersonville, TN 37075
         Telephone: (855-846-6529)
         Website: www.timmileslaw.com
         Email: tmiles@timmileslaw.com [GN]


STERICYCLE INC: Settlement of Illinois Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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 court has granted
final approval of the Illinois Securities Class Action Settlement.

On July 11, 2016, two purported stockholders filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  

The plaintiffs purported to sue for themselves and on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities between
February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016, inclusive, and all those who
purchased securities in the Company's public offering of depositary
shares, each representing a 1/10th interest in a share of the
Company's mandatory convertible preferred stock, on or around
September 15, 2015.  

The complaint named as defendants the Company, its directors and
certain of its current and former officers, and certain of the
underwriters in the public offering.  

The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder.  

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on its
customers in breach of its contracts, and that defendants failed to
disclose those alleged practices in public filings and other
statements issued during the proposed class period beginning
February 7, 2013 and ending April 28, 2016. Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint on August 4, 2016 and a Corrected Amended
Complaint on October 21, 2016.

On November 1, 2016, the Court appointed the Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi and the Arkansas Teacher
Retirement System as Lead Plaintiffs and their counsel as Lead
Counsel. On February 1, 2017, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint with additional purported factual material
supporting the same legal claims from the prior complaints for a
class period from February 7, 2013 through September 18, 2016.  

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on April 1, 2017. On May 19, 2017, plaintiffs filed a
response in opposition to the motion to dismiss and on June 19,
2017, Defendants filed a reply brief in support of their motion.

On March 31, 2018, plaintiffs filed a further Amended Complaint,
alleging additional corrective disclosures and extending the
purported class period through February 21, 2018.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaint on May 25, 2018. The Motion was fully briefed on July 13,
2018, and awaited a ruling by the Court.

The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a
mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached
an agreement in principle for settlement in December 2018 (the
"Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement").

As the Company disclosed on December 20, 2018, the terms of the
Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement provided that the
Company would establish a common fund of $45.0 million, from which
would be paid all compensation to members of the settlement class,
attorneys' fees to class counsel, incentive awards to the named
class representatives and all costs of notice and administration.


In the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement, the Company
admitted no fault or wrongdoing whatsoever. The Company entered
into the Proposed Securities Class Action Settlement in order to
avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation.

On February 14, 2019, the Company executed a definitive written
settlement agreement (the "Settlement"), which incorporated the
terms of the agreement in principle announced in December 2018. The
Settlement incorporated the terms of the Proposed Securities Class
Action Settlement, described above.  

Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or
wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid
the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The Settlement provided
that, upon final approval by the Court following a fairness
hearing, it would fully and finally resolve all claims against the
Company alleged in the Securities Class Action.

On February 25, 2019, plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action
filed Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Order Preliminarily
Approving Class Settlement and Authorizing Dissemination of Notice
of Settlement (the "Preliminary Approval Motion").  

The Preliminary Approval Motion asked the Court to preliminarily
approve the Settlement, to approve the manner and content of the
notice to be given to potential class members, and to set a
schedule for, among other things, deadlines for potential class
members to file claims, object to the Settlement, or seek exclusion
from the Settlement class.  

The Court approved the Preliminary Approval Motion on March 12,
2019, and the Company funded the settlement on March 25, 2019.  

The large majority of the $45.0 million common fund has been funded
by the Company's insurers.  

The Court held a fairness hearing on July 22, 2019, at which it
granted final approval of the Settlement.

At the hearing, the Court took under advisement the amount of
attorneys' fees to be awarded to plaintiffs' counsel from the $45.0
million settlement.

Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and
commercial businesses in the United States and internationally.
Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest,
Illinois.


STERICYCLE INC: Settlement Opt-Outs File Own Complaints
-------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, 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 certain class members
have opted out of the Final Settlement in the Contract Class Action
Lawsuits and have filed lawsuits against the Company.

Beginning on March 12, 2013, the Company was served with several
class action complaints filed in federal and state courts in
several jurisdictions.  

These complaints asserted, among other things, that the Company had
imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges
on its customers in breach of its contracts and in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.  

The complaints sought certification of the lawsuit as a class
action and the award to class members of appropriate damages and
injunctive relief.  

These related actions were ultimately transferred to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
centralized pretrial proceedings (the "MDL Action').

On February 16, 2017, the Court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court certified a
class of "all persons and entities that, between March 8, 2003
through the date of trial resided in the United States (except
Washington and Alaska), were identified by Stericycle as 'Small
Quantity' or 'SQ' customer, and were charged and paid more than
their contractually-agreed price for Stericycle's medical waste
disposal goods and services pursuant to Stericycle's automated
price increase policy. Governmental entities whose claims were
asserted in United States ex rel. Perez v. Stericycle Inc. shall be
excluded from the class."

The parties engaged in discussions through and overseen by a
mediator regarding a potential resolution of the matter and reached
an agreement in principle for settlement in July 2017, which was
subsequently documented in a definitive settlement agreement (the
"Settlement") on October 17, 2017.  

The Settlement provided a global resolution of all cases and claims
against the Company in the MDL Action. It also provided that the
Company would establish a common fund of $295.0 million from which
would be paid all compensation to members of the settlement class,
attorneys' fees to class counsel, incentive awards to the named
class representatives and all costs of notice and administration.


It also provided that the Company's existing contracts with
customers would remain in force, while it would also establish as
part of the Settlement guidelines for future price increases and
provide customers additional transparency regarding such increases.


Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company admitted no fault or
wrongdoing whatsoever, and it entered into the Settlement to avoid
the cost and uncertainty of litigation.  

The Settlement provided that, upon final approval by the Court
following a fairness hearing, it would fully and finally resolve
all claims against the Company alleged in the MDL Action.

The court held a fairness hearing on March 8, 2018 and granted
approval of the Proposed MDL Settlement that same day. The Proposed
MDL Settlement became finally effective on June 7, 2018 (the "Final
Settlement"), and the Company funded the Final Settlement on July
6, 2018.

Certain class members who have opted out of the Final Settlement
have filed lawsuits against the Company, and the Company will
defend and resolve those actions.  

The Company has accrued its estimate of the probable loss for these
collective matters, which is not material.

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

Stericycle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides
regulated and compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and
commercial businesses in the United States and internationally.
Stericycle, Inc. was founded in 1989 and is based in Lake Forest,
Illinois.


STYLESEAT INC: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Styleseat, Inc. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Styleseat, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04618 (E.D. N.Y.,
Aug. 12, 2019).

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

StyleSeat, Inc. operates an online destination for beauty and
wellness professionals and clients.[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


SUN-MAID GROWERS: D. Diaz Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
Amend in the case captioned DAVID DIAZ, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all members of the putative class, Plaintiff, v.
SUN-MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; and DOES
1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.
1:19-cv-00149-LJO-SKO. (E.D. Cal.), and remanded the entire action
back to Fresno County Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/y2otnlac from Leagle.com.

David Diaz, an individual, on behalf of himself and all members of
the putative class, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Daniel Rouen --
rouenlaw@att.net -- Law Office of Eric D. Rouen, John M. Bickford
-- jbickford@parrislawyers.com -- Parris Law Firm, Kitty Kit Yee
Szeto -- jbickford@parrislawyers.com -- Parris Law Firm, R. Rex
Parris -- rrparris@rrexparris.com -- Parris Law Firm & Ryan Crist
-- rcrist@parrislawyers.com --  Parris Law Firm.

Sun-Maid Growers of California, a California Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Molly L. Kaban --
mkaban@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP, Jennifer Marie
Martinez -- jmartinez@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP &
Sandra L. Rappaport -- srappaport@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson
Bridgett LLP.


TAMMY WOLOSKI: Court Narrows Counterclaims in CFRA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee, Nashville Division, issued a Memorandum granting in part
and denying in part Counterclaim Defendants' Partial Motion to
Dismiss Counterclaims in the case captioned SERVPRO INDUSTRIES,
INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. TAMMY WOLOSKI, PAUL
WOLOSKI, and DELTA DAWGS CONSTRUCTION CORP. d/b/a SERVPRO OF
ROSEMEAD/SOUTH EL MONTE, Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs, v.
RICHARD CONNOR, Counterclaim Defendant. No. 3:17-cv-01433. (M.D.
Tenn.).

Servpro Industries, Inc., a franchisor of cleaning and damage
restoration services, initially brought this action against Tammy
Woloski, Paul Woloski, and Delta Dawgs Construction Company d/b/a
Servpro of Rosemead/South El Monte, alleged to be a former
franchisee, for federal statutory trademark infringement; federal
common law trademark infringement and unfair competition; and
breach of contract as to the Franchise License Agreement (Franchise
Agreement), a Guaranty, and a Secured Promissory Note.

In turn, Delta Dawgs' latest pleading brings the following
counterclaims: violations of the California Franchise Relations Act
(CFRA), a class action claim for violations of the California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200, breach of contract;
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing;
violations of the California Penal Code Section 496; violations of
42 U.S.C. Section 1981; and violations of California Civil Code
Section 51.8.

Through the first counterclaim, Delta Dawgs seeks to enforce CFRA
Sections 20020 (Grounds for Termination), 20035 (Termination or
Failure to Renew), and 20040.5 (Venue) against Servpro. Servpro
argues this counterclaim should be dismissed because the parties
agreed to a Tennessee choice-of-law provision in their agreements,
and there is no prevailing California public policy that overrides
the agreements.

The choice-of-law provision, in Section 13.10 of the Franchise
Agreement, states:
"This Agreement, the rights granted and the relationship created
hereunder shall be governed, interpreted and construed in all
respects in accordance with the internal laws of the State of
Tennessee without regard to its conflicts of laws provisions,
except to the extent governed by the United States Trademark Act of
1946 (Lanham Act)."

The Addendum to the Franchise License Agreement for the State of
California provides in Paragraph 6:

"Governing Law, is amended by adding: The Agreement requires
application of the law of the State of Tennessee. This provision
may not be enforceable under California law."

A federal court sitting in diversity must apply the forum state's
choice-of-law rules to determine which state's laws govern the
dispute. Under Tennessee law, a contract is presumed to be governed
by the law of the jurisdiction in which it was executed, absent a
contrary intent.

To the extent Delta Dawgs can establish CFRA Sections 20020, 20035,
and 20040.5 were incorporated into the Franchise Agreement through
Paragraph 1 of the Addendum (presumably by showing the agreement is
inconsistent with those provisions), however, any failure to comply
with those provisions would be considered as part of a breach of
contract claim. Servpro has not moved to dismiss Delta Dawgs'
breach of contract counterclaim, and therefore, whether these CFRA
Sections have been incorporated into the Agreement is not before
the Court at this time.

Through the second counterclaim, brought as a class action, Delta
Dawgs alleged the Franchise Agreement's forum selection clause is
void. In response to Servpro's Motion, Delta Dawgs withdrew the
class action counterclaim and subsequently agreed to dismiss the
counterclaim. Thus, the Court need not address Servpro's arguments
regarding the counterclaim.

Servpro next seeks to dismiss Delta Dawgs' fourth counterclaim,
alleging Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
Dealing. Servpro argues Tennessee law does not recognize a
stand-alone cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. Delta Dawgs argues the counterclaim is
a tort brought under California law, but also states it is implied
in every contract in California and is derivative of the breach of
contract claim.  

The Court has determined the Tennessee choice-of-law clause is
enforceable, and therefore, applies Tennessee law to the issue of
whether Delta Dawgs may maintain a stand-alone claim for breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Under
Tennessee law, a claim based on the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing is not a stand-alone claim, rather it is part of
an overall breach of contract claim.  

Accordingly, Delta Dawgs' counterclaim for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing is dismissed as a
stand-alone claim.

Servpro argues Delta Dawgs' fifth counterclaim, for violation of
Section 496 of the California Penal Code (Receiving Stolen
Property), should be dismissed based on the Tennessee choice-of-law
clause. Delta Dawgs incorporates its arguments outlined above as to
why Tennessee law should not apply. The choice-of-law clause of the
Franchise Agreement purports to govern the rights granted and the
relationship created hereunder. Delta Dawgs does not argue that
this language is limited to claims for breach of the Agreement
itself.  

Therefore, because the Court has determined the Tennessee
choice-of-law clause to be enforceable, the counterclaim based on
the California Penal Code is not cognizable and is dismissed.

In the sixth counterclaim, Tammy Woloski, individually, alleges
Servpro and Conner violated 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 by intentionally
discriminating against Delta Dawgs during the parties' business
relationship. Servpro argues this counterclaim should be dismissed
because Ms. Woloski has failed to allege she was treated
differently than similarly-situated persons outside the protected
class. Ms. Woloski argues she sufficiently alleged the elements of
a  
Servpro does not address whether these allegations are sufficient
to state a claim under the markedly hostile clause. Therefore, the
motion to dismiss the Section 1981 claim is denied.

Servpro argues the seventh counterclaim, alleging violation of
California Civil Code Section 51.8 (Discrimination; Franchisees),
should be dismissed based on the Tennessee choice-of-law clause.
Delta Dawgs incorporates its arguments outlined above as to why
Tennessee law should not apply, but does not argue the clause is
limited to claims for breach of the Agreement itself.

Therefore, because the Court has determined the Tennessee
choice-of-law clause to be enforceable, the counterclaim for
violation of the California Civil Code is not cognizable and is
dismissed.

Servpro next seeks dismissal of one of the remedies requested in
Delta Dawgs' prayer for relief:  treble damages pursuant to RICO.
Servpro points out that the pleading does not include a
counterclaim based on RICO, and that Delta Dawgs has already agreed
to dismissal of the RICO claims alleged in a previous
pleading.Delta Dawgs has not responded to this argument.

As Delta Dawgs has not asserted a RICO counterclaim, the prayer for
relief based on RICO is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2rqou2a from Leagle.com.

Servpro Industries, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin T. Elkins
-- kevin.elkins@wallerlaw.com -- Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis,
LLP & Robb S. Harvey -- robb.harvey@wallerlaw.com -- Waller,
Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Tammy Woloski, Paul Woloski & Delta Dawgs Construction Corp., doing
business as Servpro of Rosemead/South El Monte, Defendants,
represented by Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr. -- ejf@franceschilaw.com
-- Franceschi Law Corporation & Gregory H. Oakley, Oakley Rieger
PLLC,104 Woodmont Blvd. Suite 201. Nashville, TN 37205.

Richard Connor, Counter Defendant, represented by Robb S. Harvey,
Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP.

Delta Dawgs Construction Corp., Tammy Woloski & Paul Woloski,
Counter Plaintiffs, represented by Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr.,
Franceschi Law Corporation & Gregory H. Oakley, Oakley Rieger
PLLC.

Servpro Industries, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Kevin
T. Elkins, Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP & Robb S. Harvey,
Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP.


TDL GROUP: Class Suit Claims Tim Hortons Suppressed Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
BIV reports that a former baker at a Surrey Tim Hortons is suing
the company's corporate parent, claiming in a class action that The
TDL Group Corp. unlawfully forces franchisees to sign so-called
"no-hire" agreements to prevent employee poaching between
restaurants, allegedly suppressing workers' wages for years.

Lead plaintiff Samir Latifi filed a notice of civil claim under the
Class Proceedings Act in BC Supreme Court on July 18. According to
the claim, the TDL Group Corp. and its franchises employ more than
100,000 people in Canada, with approximately 3,860 locations across
the country.

"In addition to being the franchisor of Tim Hortons restaurants,
TDL operates Tim Hortons restaurants in the same markets as its
franchisees," the claim states. "Thus, TDL has dual roles: it is
the franchisor and also a competitor of its own franchisees -- TDL
competes with franchisees as a vendor of food and as a purchaser of
labour."

The company's franchise agreement contains a clause banning
"franchisees from soliciting or hiring existing employees of other
Tim Hortons brand restaurants." Latifi claims the no-hire clause
was a deliberate form of wage suppression to "increase profits for
TDL and its franchisees at the expense of employees.

"It is in the independent interest of Tim Hortons restaurant owners
to compete for the most conscientious, talented and experienced
employees," the claim states. "The No-Hire Clause artificially
restricts the ability of Tim Hortons restaurant owners to compete
to hire employees in a manner consistent with their individual
economic interests. But by acting in concert, they protect
themselves from having their own employees poached by other Tim
Hortons restaurants that may place higher value on those employees
for their training, experience or work ethic."

Meanwhile, the practice has seen fast food companies ensnared in
anti-trust enforcement measures taken in the United States,
including Tim Hortons USA Inc., which culminated in substantially
similar clauses being removed from U.S. franchise agreements.

"To date, the harm caused by No-Hire Clauses continues in Canada,"
the claim states.            

Latifi seeks class certification and damages for Competition Act
violations, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment. The allegations have
not been tested in court and the TDL Group Corp. had not filed a
response to the claim by press time. [GN]


TESLA INC: Class Suit Cites 19 Issues With Model S & X Updates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Henrique Ruffo, writing for Inside EVs, reports that
plaintiff David Rasmussen puts 19 counts as causes for action
linked to Model S & X updates.

Tesla's Master Plan Part 1 jokingly ended with "don't tell anyone".
What was intended to be a gag became the thread for the lawsuit
David Rasmussen filed last Wednesday against the EV manufacturer.
His lawyer, Edward Chen, states in it that Tesla has made "not
telling anyone" a bad habit. Even when it should tell, such as with
its software updates 2019.16.1 or 2019.16.2 for the Model S and X.

We managed to get a copy of the lawsuit -- which intends to have
class action state, or else, to represent all people affected --
and can tell you all its details. Regarding Tesla's alleged lack of
transparency, it goes even further and states the following:

"Tesla's ability to issue over-the-air software updates is unique
and, for the right reasons, may be used as a tool to benefit Tesla
owners. However, the problem here is that when this ability is
unchecked, unregulated, and conducted in a manner to avoid legal
duties and obligations as Tesla does with its warranties, customers
like Plaintiff and other members of the putative class are at the
short end of the stick and are left helpless and will continue to
be harmed by companies like Tesla that operate on the belief that
‘not telling anyone' is good company policy."

In other words, it is nice that Tesla can update its cars, but are
the updates always in the best interests of the customers or in the
best interests of the company? This should raise a very interesting
discussion on the limits of the updates, especially because
Rasmussen is suing Tesla for these limits. And for 18 other
counts.

The so-called "causes of action" are violations of the following
laws, according to the document:

1 - Consumer Fraud and Abuse Act for "knowingly access a computer
without authorization or exceeding authorized access."

2 - Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, since Tesla does not want to repair
the Model S and X to their prior conditions before the update.

3 - California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty, for the same
reason.

4 - California's Unfair Competition Law based on this:

"By offering software updates 2019.16.1 and 2019.16.2 to Plaintiff
and the other putative class members, Tesla disrupted or caused the
disruption of vehicle capabilities when it improperly and
unlawfully throttled the batteries of the vehicles and manipulated
the calculations and coding for the BMS of the Class Vehicles.
Plaintiff and the putative class members did not consent to having
their battery capacities and charging capabilities throttled, and
had they known that the software updates would result in the
significant decrease in rated mileage range and usable battery
capacity in their vehicles, they would not have installed the
software updates."

5 - California's Unfair Competition Law, again, based on 20
arguments (really).

6 - California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, also related to
unfair competition.

7 - California's False Advertisement Law, because the update would
not have anything to do with safety, but rather with not paying new
battery packs.

8 - Trespass to chattels, based on Californian laws, as are the
following ones.

9 - Common law fraud.

10 - Constructive fraud.

11 - Fraudulent inducement.

12 - Breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

13 - Money had and received, meaning that Tesla received for the
warranty it offers.

14 - Breach of express warranty.

15 - Breach of implied warranties.

16 - Intentional misrepresentation.

17 - Negligent misrepresentation.

18 - Fraud by concealment.

19 - Quasi contract/restitution/unjust enrichment.

Among all the arguments presented in 100 pages, Chen also
highlights all spontaneous fires involving a Model S -- linking
that possibility with the update -- and how much Rasmussen tried to
get things amicably settled with Tesla. He bought his 2014 Model S
85 from another owner and has since put more than 100,000 mi on the
clock.

All the trouble started on May 16, 2019, after Rasmussen allowed
the car to perform the  2019.16.1.1 update. Ever since, he claims
to have lost 29 mi of range and 8 kWh of battery capacity. "I am a
Tesla supporter. I truly believe that Tesla will do the right thing
and make us whole again. I just can't sit by patiently for more
time for them to fix things. It has been 12 weeks since 2019.16.1.1
and 7 software updates have been installed on my car with no
apparent effect to this issue," Rasmussen told InsideEVs.

"I regret that it took this action to get them to do anything.
Tesla's communication has been horrible and insulting when it
wasn't just complete silence. I believe this action might make
Tesla take another look at their policies and make positive
changes."

And Rasmussen has given it a try. He has asked Tesla for assistance
on June 10, June 17, June 20, and July 2. He asked that his car's
battery pack was tested but claims never to have received the
results of the tests. Tesla would have informed them just orally.

Rasmussen would even have given up a paid test, a Charge Amperage
Capacity (CAC) test, at the cost of $253.50, because he was told
the results "would only be shared verbally and no printed copy of
the results or otherwise recording on the results would not be
allowed."

On July 12, following "instructions provided by Tesla's written
warranty", Rasmussen "filed a claim with the National Center for
Dispute Settlement (NCDS) to seek a warranty battery replacement".

This was the result, according to the lawsuit:

"On July 15, 2019, NCDS refused to adjudicate Plaintiff's claims
with the reasons being that Plaintiff's claim for the battery were
not covered by the warranty provided by Tesla."

Still, according to the lawsuit, Tesla would have said the losses
the car suffered were insignificant in value. Chen points Tesla
charges up to $10,000 to offer 10 kWh more of battery capacity at
the moment of car purchasing. Clearly contradictory approaches to
the same subject.

Rasmussen claims he takes now more time to recharge his car and
that, due to his long commutes, he is no longer able to use it
properly.

Before asking that the case is decided by a jury, Chen details the
purpose of the lawsuit: the request for relief:

"Plaintiff seeks, at his election and for that of the putative
class members: replacement batteries for the Class Vehicles, return
of the money premiums that were paid for cars that were supposedly
capable of achieving the rated miles as Tesla represented,
calculated at a certain dollar per kilowatt-hour (kWh), refunds to
consumers that paid extra for what they should have received, to
begin with, and any other relief available to Plaintiff and the
proposed classes. Plaintiff also seeks punitive and exemplary
damages for Tesla's knowing fraud and unfair business practices,
including illicit use of software updates to avoid the legal
obligations and duties owed to Plaintiff, the proposed classes, and
consumers nationwide."

Just like we assumed before, Rasmussen believes this could have
been dealt with in a totally different way. "Tesla could have been
open with those of us affected. I believe they know exactly how
many and exactly who has been so affected. Had they sent a message
to us that our cars are affected and they are working on a solution
while identifying what the problem is (especially if it is related
to spontaneous combustion of our cars)."

While he has no idea how many people will be represented if his
lawsuit gets class action state, Rasmussen has some estimates. "I
believe there are about 40 affected in the US based on that thread
(at the TMC forum) and I have seen data from Germany identifying an
addition of around 20. I assume not everyone affected is on the
forum and others are just not aware that they have been so
affected. If you display your range by percent rather than miles
(or km) it is much more difficult to detect. You just see you have
to charge more frequently."

Rasmussen would even accept if the problem was treated as a service
bulletin. "Even if they had waited for those of us to come into a
service center and informed us at that time that this is a known
issue that they are working on would be acceptable. I and all of us
others would have been ecstatic about how Tesla would be treating
us and we would have been touting them even more strongly than
before."

The now unhappy Tesla owner says he had no other option but to sue.
"Personally, I was the first Tesla owner at my company of about 85
employees. Since my ownership and praise of my car, four more have
been purchased (one certified pre-owned Model S P85 and three Model
3 units). Now, with this lawsuit, they are all supportive of me and
cautiously optimistic for my positive outcome. Or they will be
questioning their decision."

Tesla's and Rasmussen's replies
We asked Tesla to manifest on the lawsuit and here is the company's
reply:

"Delivering the best possible customer experience with the highest
regard for safety has always been our priority, and we do not
disregard either of these things as this complaint suggests. A very
small percentage of owners of older Model S and Model X vehicles
may have noticed a small reduction in range when charging to a
maximum state of charge following a software update designed to
improve battery longevity. As previously noted, we have been
working to mitigate the impact on range for these owners and have
been rolling out over-the-air updates to address this issue since
last week."

We have submitted it to Rasmussen for comment. Here's what he has
to say about it:

"They are being vague in the number of cars affected (I would like
to know: how many are very few?).
My 12% reduction in range is not small (to me).
The reduction is linear reduction at ALL state of charge.
So, my old 88% is new 100% (217 miles), old 80% is new 90% (196
miles).
I can't even get to my old 90% where I regularly charged 223
miles.

In kWh, I used to have 68.2 kWh usable prior to the update and now
I have 60.2 kWh.
With the way they have limited the max voltage my charging now
takes longer.
I typically charge to 90%. Before, it would take about 50 minutes.
Now, it takes an hour.
I tried to charge to 100% last night and it stopped at 98% (213
miles) after 2.5 hours.

They say this will improve longevity and that may be true.

But they now have reduced my range 3x more than I have after nearly
5 years in a matter of a few weeks and my battery is only charging
to 80% of its old capacity, typically. Yeah, that might extend its
life... but I now have essentially 15 years of degradation due to
software (assuming a linear degradation slope).

Also, the in reference to the recent software releases:
1) They haven't said what happened before.
2) They haven't said what this mitigation means (Do I get all my
range back? Do I get 50% of my range back?).
3) Is the battery pack safe from spontaneous combustion?"

It seems we'll have a long way until the judge -- or the jury --
has something to say about all this... [GN]


TESLA, INC: Rasmussen Sues over Vehicles' Defective Batteries
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DAVID RASMUSSEN, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. TESLA, INC.
d/b/a/ TESLA MOTORS, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 5:19-cv-04596 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 7, 2019), targets Tesla's
false statements and representations that software updates would
enhance Model S or X vehicles. Rasmussen claims he was deceived by
Tesla's fraudulent denial of warranty battery replacements, in
violation of the California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access
and Fraud Act.

The case is brought by Mr Rasmussen on behalf of himself and all
persons worldwide who purchased, owned, used, or leased one or more
of Tesla's Model S or X vehicles.

In reliance on Tesla's misrepresentations and concealment,
Plaintiff and 18 putative class members believed that Tesla's
vehicles contained safe and effective batteries that were not
severely degraded or defective, and that they would be repaired or
replaced under warranty as legally obligated to do so by Tesla.
Plaintiff and the putative class members relied upon Tesla's false
statements and representations that the software updates, including
2019.16.1 and 2019.16.2 issued to its vehicles were for safety and
to increase the battery health and longevity.

The Plaintiff and the putative class members are entitled to
restitution based on the contract and the quasi contract between
Plaintiff and the putative class members and Tesla, and each of
them, to be determined at trial. Furthermore, Tesla's conduct was
willful, intentionally deceptive, and intended to cause economic
injury to Plaintiff and the putative class members. Tesla is
therefore liable to pay punitive damages as allowable and to the
full extent permitted, the lawsuit says.

Tesla, Inc. is an American automotive and energy company based in
Palo Alto, California. The company specializes in electric car
manufacturing and, through its SolarCity subsidiary, solar panel
manufacturing.[BN]

Attorney for David Rasmussen and the Proposed Classes are:

          Edward C. Chen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD C. CHEN
          1 Park Plaza, Suite 600
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 287-4278
          Facsimile: (626) 385-6060
          E-mail: Edward.Chen@edchenlaw.com

TIXE REALTY: Grigorian Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
HENRY GRIGORIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TIXE REALTY SERVICES INC. d/b/a EXIT
REALTY PREMIER ELITE, the Defendant, Case No. 9:19-cv-81106-RLR
(S.D. Fla., 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.

The Defendant is a real estate brokerage based in Lake Worth,
Florida. To solicit new agents for its brokerage, Defendant engages
in unsolicited text messaging with no regard for privacy rights of
the recipients of those messages, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be
sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members,
causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion.

The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of
himself and Class Members, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendant.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class are:

          Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq.
          IJH LAW
          1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 1950
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: 786 496 4469
          E-mail: IJHiraldo@IJHlaw.com

               - and -

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: 954 400 4713
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

TOP SHIPS: Court Dismisses C. Brady's Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned  CHRISTOPHER BRADY,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. TOP SHIPS INC.; EVANGELOS J. PISTIOLIS; ALEXANDROS
TSIRIKOS; KALANI INVESTMENTS LIMITED; MURCHINSON LTD.; MARC
BISTRICER; and XANTHE HOLDINGS LTD., Defendants. No. 17-cv-4987
(BMC). (E.D.N.Y.).

Lead plaintiffs bring this consolidated putative securities class
action on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
acquired Top Ships, Inc. common stock between November 23, 2016 and
April 3, 2018. Plaintiffs allege that defendants participated in a
so-called death spiral financing scheme to manipulate the price of
defendant Top Ship's common stock, which they facilitated by making
a number of allegedly misleading statements and omissions.

Market Manipulation

The Plaintiffs claim that defendants violated Section10(b) and Rule
10b-5(a) and (c) by engaging in a scheme to manipulate the price of
Top Ships common stock.

Market manipulation requires a plaintiff to allege (1) manipulative
acts (2) damage (3) caused by reliance on an assumption of an
efficient market free of manipulation (4) scienter (5) in
connection with the purchase or sale of securities (6) furthered by
the defendant's use of the mails or any facility of a national
securities exchange.

Defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) focus on the
first element, the existence or non-existence of manipulative acts.
Manipulation connotes intentional or willful conduct designed to
deceive or defraud investors by controlling or artificially
affecting the price of securities. The critical question is whether
the alleged manipulative act artificially' affects a security's
price in a deceptive manner.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in the following general
pattern of manipulative acts during the class period: Kalani and
Xanthe promised to pay Top Ships a significant amount of money in
exchange for a significant amount of Top Ships securities, Top
Ships promised to repeatedly induce artificial increases to the
price of Top Ships' common stock by effecting the reverse stock
splits, which would allow Kalani and Xanthe to sell at a profit
their common stock and Kalani and Xanthe responded to the reverse
stock splits by selling their securities, thereby injecting capital
into Top Ships and depressing the price of Top Ships' common stock.
This alleged manipulative scheme, drawn out over several
installments, resulted in the intentional decimation of the value
of Top Ships' securities.

Plaintiffs also allege that defendants were able to conceal this
scheme for so long by using the proceeds from the promissory notes
that Top Ships issued to Kalani, Xanthe, and Crede to pay
Pistiolis-related entities and by using the proceeds from the share
issuances to Kalani, Xanthe, and Crede to repay Top Ships'
obligations under the promissory notes.

Defendants' main argument and it is a good one is that this conduct
was not manipulative because it was fully disclosed to the market,
including Top Ships' shareholders. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the
market is not misled when a transaction's terms are fully
disclosed. But plaintiffs argue that the transactions were not
fully disclosed in this case.

All plaintiffs say in support of that argument, however, is that
the transactions were manipulative because defendants did not
disclose to the market their true purpose, namely, that they formed
part of Defendants' manipulative scheme. But this is a classic
example of circular reasoning and conclusory pleading. Plaintiffs
have only alleged that defendants' conduct was manipulative because
they did not tell shareholders that their conduct was
manipulative.

Here, plaintiffs do not allege that they were duped by
sophisticated nature of the transactions or even because defendants
had some self-serving reason other than paying salaries or
fulfilling contract obligations to enrich themselves. Plaintiffs
were not in the dark about Top Ships' corporate relationships with
Pistiolis-related entities, and the 2016 Annual Report  which was
issued before any vote was held on the reverse stock splits
clearly stated that Pistiolis was able to control the company's
decisions and that his interests may be adverse to the rest of the
shareholders. Plaintiffs simply allege that they were duped because
they were not told there was an ongoing scheme to dupe them.
Plaintiffs might not have been aware of the potential effect of
these transactions on the value of their Top Ships stock, but that
lack of awareness cannot be attributed to defendants.

Because plaintiffs rely only on mere legal conclusions and
speculation, and because the facts in the complaint suggest that
they were fully aware of the alleged manipulative scheme they
challenge here, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for market
manipulation.

Misstatements and Omissions

Plaintiffs also claim that defendants made misrepresentations or
omissions in violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b), thus
alleging another avenue of securities fraud.

The November 23, 2106 and January 17, 2017 Registration Statements

Plaintiffs allege that November 23, 2016 and January 17, 2017
registration statements were false or misleading because they did
not disclose that, inter alia:

   1. the true purpose of these offering materials, subsequent
transaction documents, and/or anticipated securities sales and
issuances was to provide Top Ships with financing that benefitted
Defendant Pistiolis and his related companies and to otherwise
funnel money to the Top Ships and Kalani Defendants, all at the
expense of Top Ships' common shareholders.

   2. at the time of these statements, the Top Ships and Kalani
Defendants already knew and intended that Kalani would be sold
common stock and issued convertible securities at below-market
prices to the fullest extent allowed under their agreements
(including agreements that were not yet disclosed) that they would
then resell to investors.

   3. the Top Ships and Kalani Defendants were already engaged in a
fraudulent scheme whereby repeated, deliberately-timed, dilutive
reverse stock splits followed by the dumping of newly-issue common
shares would be utilized to manipulate the price of Top Ships
common stock.

These allegations simply do not play out in the facts. There is
nothing to suggest that any of these purported omissions are
something that defendants knew or should have known at the time the
registration statements were filed. Plaintiffs' allegations suffer
from the same deficiencies identified above they simply conclude
that something nefarious occurred. They do not give rise to a
plausible inference of fraud.

As an initial matter, as alleged, the registration statements
merely disclosed the terms of the agreements to issue stocks and
that defendants may act accordingly under those agreements.

Plaintiffs repeatedly challenge defendants' use of the word may as
misleading in this case, but as the Second Circuit has already
explained, an investor could more easily understand the word as
disclosing merely that [defendants were permitted, but not required
to act in accordance with the disclosure. Plaintiffs argue that
notwithstanding the general acceptance of this standard
interpretation, where, as here, defendants knew with certainty that
they would act accordingly with the permissive disclosure, then
defendants' use of may is inappropriate under the securities laws.
But the complaint includes no facts to suggest that defendants knew
with any amount of certainty that this was the case. The
disclosures simply put plaintiffs on notice that defendants might
do what they ended up doing. That is not securities fraud.

As relevant to plaintiffs' allegations, defendants fully disclosed
the facts about the transactions and their potential consequences.
Although plaintiffs allege that at the time they entered into the
agreements, Top Ships and Kalani knew they would engage in the
subsequent conduct at issue in this case, plaintiffs plead nothing
other than the fact that they did engage in the subsequent conduct
to support that allegation. Without more, this inference is not
plausible under the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b) and
the PSLRA.

Thus, plaintiffs have not shown that there was a misstatement or
omission in the registration statements, so they have not stated a
claim for securities fraud based on those disclosures.

The February 2, 2017 Prospectus Supplement

Plaintiffs allege that defendants' February 2, 2017 prospectus
supplement was false or misleading for the same seven reasons
listed above with respect to omissions in the registration
statements. Those reasons are equally unpersuasive here.

Plaintiffs further challenge defendants' alleged misstatement in
the prospectus supplement that Top Ships intended to use the
proceeds of the CSPA with Kalani for general corporate purposes.

Plaintiffs argue that this was misleading because defendants
intended to and actually used the proceeds for the benefit of
Defendant Pistiolis and his related companies, family members, and
other Top Ships insiders. But the complaint understandably does not
claim that paying executive salaries or fulfilling contractual
obligations to the Pistiolis-related entities were anything but
legitimate business practices.

Plaintiffs have thus failed to adequately allege that the
prospectus statement was false or misleading.

The February 2, 2017 Kalani CSPA

Plaintiffs allege that the CSPA between Top Ships and Kalani
attached to the Form 6-K that defendants filed on February 2, 2017
was false or materially misleading for the same seven reasons
listed above with respect to the registration statements. Those
reasons remain unpersuasive. There is simply no fact in the
complaint that allows for an inference that defendants knew or
should have known what plaintiffs assert they did with respect to
future conduct.

Thus, nothing was misleading in or omitted from the Kalani CSPA.

The February 21, 2017 Form 6-K, Xanthe SPA, and Statement of
Designations
Plaintiffs allege that the February 21, 2017 Form 6-K, which
attached the SPA with Xanthe, was false or materially misleading
for the same seven reasons listed above with respect to the
registration statements. Once again, those reasons are not
persuasive or borne out in the record.

Plaintiffs challenge the statement in the SPA that Top Ships
understands and acknowledges that the number of Conversion Shares
will increase in certain circumstances. Their issue seems to be
with the latter qualification that this will happen in certain
circumstances as opposed to consistently. But plaintiffs do not
explain how this is misleading. Assuming that this is a parallel
argument to the may vs. will argument plaintiffs make above, it is
not persuasive for the same reasons. This disclosure alerted
plaintiffs to the fact that the number of shares would increase,
and it by no means suggests that the number of shares increased in
a way that plaintiffs were not or should not have been expecting.

The SPA also made various warrants and representations, including
that no party has taken any action designed to manipulate Top
Ships' stock price, that Top Ships does not have any agreement with
the purchaser other than the agreement contained in the documents,
and that the purchaser is purchasing the shares for its own account
and not with an eye towards resale in violation of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1933. But for the same reason as above,
plaintiffs can show nothing other than subsequent conduct to
suggest in hindsight that defendants knew they would engage in that
subsequent conduct when they entered into the SPA and filed it
publicly.

Plaintiffs have therefore failed to state a claim for securities
fraud based on the Xanthe SPA and its related filings.

Reverse Stock Splits

Plaintiffs allege that defendants made several false or materially
misleading statements related to the reverse stock splits. For
example, the Form 6-K that Top Ships filed on March 6, 2017
announcing the March 24, 2017 special meeting of the shareholders
to vote on the proposal attached the notice to shareholders of that
meeting.  

Plaintiffs argue that these statements were false or misleading
because defendants knew and failed to disclose that the reverse
stock splits were not in the shareholders' best interests and
further failed to disclose that they intended to continue using
repeated, deliberately-timed, dilutive reverse stock splits to prop
up the price of Top Ships' common stock to facilitate the dumping
of additional shares into the market, thereby destroying
shareholder value. Rather, according to plaintiffs, the reverse
stock splits were intended to facilitate defendants' allegedly
fraudulent pricing scheme.

This assumes the truth of plaintiffs' legal conclusion, however:
that defendants manipulated the Top Ships market. Without
supporting facts, this claim is not actionable.

Plaintiffs simply construe what happened after the fact as
suggesting that defendants intended that result all along. Contrary
to plaintiffs' assertion, the complaint does not adequately allege
that defendants knew in advance that they would use the offerings
to allow the Kalani Defendants to facilitate sales at a profit and
then issue reverse stock splits and ultimately depress the price of
the stock, causing shareholders tremendous losses. That is not
enough to show that the reverse stock splits were false or
misleading for the purpose of securities fraud: it concludes
foreknowledge, it neither demonstrates nor suggests it.

2016 Annual Report

Plaintiffs allege that statements contained in defendants' 2016
Annual Report, which was filed on March 14, 2107, were false or
misleading. Specifically, plaintiffs challenge the statements that
qualify the effect of defendants' stock issuances with the word
may. For the same reasons discussed above, these permissive but not
mandatory disclosures are not misleading, since defendants later
acted in accordance with those disclosures and plaintiffs do not
plead any facts to suggest that defendants knew with certainty that
they would.

Plaintiffs challenge the disclosures in the Annual Report about the
company's working capital deficit, anticipated cash flow in 2017,
and the anticipated sources of that cashflow. But plaintiffs do not
explain why these statements were wrong or misleading, so they
cannot serve as the basis for a securities fraud claim.

Consequently, there was nothing false or misleading in the 2016
Annual Report.

The Crede Form 6-Ks, CSPAs, and Prospectus Supplements

Plaintiffs challenge these filings and the statements they contain
for the same reasons they challenge the Kalani filings: the
prospectus supplements stated that the proceeds would be used for
general corporate purposes, and disclosed that the company may sell
shares under the agreement and that Crede may resell some or all of
those shares. Once again, just because defendants acted in a way in
which they were permitted according to this disclosure does not
mean that at the time the disclosure was made defendants knew with
absolute certainty that the would act in that manner and, for good
measure, that also does not mean that the disclosure is
misleading.

Note Purchase Agreements

Plaintiffs also challenge statements made related to Top Ships'
note purchase agreements with Kalani, Xanthe, and Crede, which Top
Ships announced in Forms 6-K filed throughout 2017 and early 2018.
Plaintiffs claim that these statements were misleading because they
announced that the proceeds of the notes would be used for general
corporate purposes. This, of course, is not actionable for the
reasons provided above.

Business Updates During Class Period

Plaintiffs also challenge the disclosure that the company's
financial statements could be prepared on a going concern basis
because the undrawn balance under the CSPA could be used to fund
its short term capital commitments, its commitments under operating
leases and its working capital requirements. These latter purposes,
of course, are included in the broader statement that the proceeds
would be used for general corporate purposes, so there is nothing
misleading about this disclosure.

Thus, plaintiffs have failed to identify any misstatements or
omissions that give rise to a claim for securities fraud. Because
plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) against
all defendants for a failure to plead any manipulative acts or
misstatements or omissions, the Court need not address defendants'
other arguments or their motions to dismiss based on a lack of
personal jurisdiction or insufficient service of process.

Material Nonpublic Information

Plaintiffs also claim that defendants violated Section 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act, which makes individuals who violate
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 liable to contemporaneous purchasers
when they purchase or sell a security while in possession of
material, nonpublic information.

Because this claim is contingent upon the underlying alleged
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, plaintiffs Section 20A
claim must also be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5grmw5e from
Leagle.com.

Tomy Lukose, Movant, represented by Frederic S. Fox --
ffox@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Anthony Nguyen, Movant, represented by Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C.

Carla Byrd & Todd Loccisano, Movants, represented by Lesley Frank
Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com --  Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Joseph M. Petite & Martine-Vivianne Petite, Movants, represented by
Kim Elaine Miller -- kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Gauthier
Swick, LLC.

Top Ships Inc., Evangelos J. Pistiolis & Alexandros Tsirikos,
Defendants, represented by Jenny R.A. Pelaez, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Jeremy Adler, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP, Michael G. Bongiorno, Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr LLP & Peter Kolovos, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, New
York 10007, pro hac vice.

Kalani Investments Limited & Xanthe Holdings Ltd., Defendants,
represented by Peter H. White -- pete.white@srz.com -- Schulte Roth
& Zabel LLP, Jeremy Siegfried -- jeremy.siegfried@srz.com --
Schulte, Roth & Zabel LLP & Noah Nehemiah Gillespie --
noah.gillespie@srz.com -- Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP.

Murchinson Ltd. & Marc Bistricer, Defendants, represented by Noah
Nehemiah Gillespie, Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP & Peter H. White,
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, pro hac vice.


TRIA BEAUTY: Bunting Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tria Beauty, Inc. The
case is styled as Rasheta Bunting individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff
v. Tria Beauty, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-04619 (E.D. N.Y.,
Aug. 12, 2019).

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

Tria Beauty, Inc. develops light-based skincare products designed
for at-home use. The Company offers products for hair removal, acne
treatment, and skin rejuvenation.[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


ULTA SALON: Rowe Moves for Certification of Brand Partners Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify that their action titled
VICTORIA ROWE, PAULA SCARPINO, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS, AND
FRAGRANCE, INC. and DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:19-cv-01074-PA-JC
(C.D. Cal.), is maintainable as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to certify the class of persons
described in their complaint as the plaintiff class under Rule
23(a), and to certify them as representatives of the plaintiff
class and their counsel of record as counsel for the plaintiff
class pursuant to Rule 23(g).

The action arises out of Ulta's unlawful practice of misclassifying
its "Brand Partners" as independent contractors.  Ulta is a
nationwide beauty supply company that boasts 150 stores in
California.  The Plaintiffs and the class members are individuals,
who are placed in Ulta stores by cosmetic companies in order to
promote the cosmetic company's products.  As a result of their
misclassification, the Plaintiffs have alleged that Ulta has
engaged in several violations of the California Labor Code,
including non-payment of wages and failure to reimburse the
workers' business expenses.

The Court will commence a hearing on September 3, 2019, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam Rose, Esq.
          Manny Starr, Esq.
          FRONTIER LAW CENTER
          23901 Calabasas Rd., #2074
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 914-3433
          Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
          E-mail: adam@frontierlawcenter.com
                  manny@frontierlawcenter.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Anne Kramer, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston St., #2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  akramer@llrlaw.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Strickland Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
United Healthcare Services removes case styled Bonnie Strickland,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
United Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 19-CA-6673 (Filed June
26, 2019), was removed from the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
Aug. 6, 2019. The Middle District of Florida Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 8:19-cv-01933 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985.

Attorneys for the Defendant are:

          Irene A. Bassel Frick, Esq.
          Jason L. Margolin, Esq.
          Gera R. Peoples, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          401 E. Jackson Street, Suite 1700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-7333
          Facsimile: (813) 223-2837
          E-mail: irene.basselfrick@akerman.com
                  nicole.emmett@akerman.com
                  jason.margolin@akerman.com
                  judy.barton@akerman.com
                  gera.peoples@akerman.com
                  magda.cabra@akerman.com

UNITED STATES: Two Classes of Detainees Certified in Brito Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Patti B. Saris allowed the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit titled GILBERTO PEREIRA BRITO,
FLORENTIN, AVILA LUCAS, and JACKY CELICOURT, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. WILLIAM BARR, Attorney
General, U.S. Department of Justice, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-11314-PBS (D. Mass.).

The Court certifies two classes for the due process claim:

   (1) Pre-Hearing Class:

       All individuals who 1) are or will be detained pursuant to
       8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a), 2) are held in immigration
       detention in Massachusetts or are otherwise subject to the
       jurisdiction of the Boston Immigration Court, and 3) have
       not received a bond hearing before an immigration judge;
       and

   (2) Post-Hearing Class:

       All individuals who 1) are or will be detained pursuant to
       8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a), 2) are held in immigration
       detention in Massachusetts or are otherwise subject to the
       jurisdiction of the Boston Immigration Court, and 3) have
       received a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

The Court appoints Mintz Levin, the American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of Massachusetts, the American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of New Hampshire, and the ACLU Foundation Immigrants'
Rights Project as class counsel under Rule 23(g) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs Gilberto Pereira Brito, Florentin Avila Lucas, and Jacky
Celicourt challenge the procedures at immigration court bond
hearings for aliens detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(a).
They allege that the allocation of the burden of proof to the alien
and failure to consider alternative conditions of release and the
alien's ability to pay violate the Fifth Amendment Due Process
Clause, Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), and Administrative
Procedure Act ("APA").[CC]


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Students Sue Over Title IX Protocol
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Watanabe, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that he was
a University of California graduate student who said he dated
another student twice -- and was shocked when she accused him of
stalking and sexual harassment in a Title IX complaint in 2017.

The UC system substantiated her allegations, he said, and suspended
him for two years in June 2017, reducing the sanction to three
months on appeal.

But the accused student is fighting back -- not only for himself
but for potentially hundreds of others, predominantly men, in
similar straits.

He filed a class-action lawsuit in Alameda County against the
10-campus UC system, arguing that the procedures used to find him
and other students responsible for sexual misconduct are unfair and
failed to provide them due process. A male Cal State Fullerton
student filed a similar class-action lawsuit last month against the
23-campus California State University system.

"This class action seeks to clear the records of those who've been
wrongfully punished by this deeply flawed disciplinary system,"
said Mark Hathaway, a Los Angeles attorney representing the UC and
Cal State Fullerton students, identified as John Does in court
filings.

UC and Cal State officials say they believe their Title IX
processes are fair, respectful to all parties and comply with state
and federal law. Both systems recently issued new policies and
procedures to strengthen due process protections for accused
students, as courts have ordered and U.S. Education Secretary Betsy
DeVos has proposed in new Title IX rules.

The lawsuits mark an emerging strategy by students accused of
sexual misconduct to use class-action lawsuits to force
universities to set aside, en masse, findings and sanctions that
led to their suspension or expulsion. The nation's first class
action was filed July 5 against Michigan State University, followed
by Cal State on July 16 and UC this week. The Cal State and UC
lawsuits cover all students who were suspended or expelled since
June 2015, when both systems issued new Title IX policies that
sought to be more sensitive to victims.

Brett Sokolow, president of the Assn. of Title IX Administrators,
called class action a "clever approach" that would make legal
action accessible to potentially thousands of students unable to
afford personal lawsuits. He said more than 300 students across the
nation have filed lawsuits challenging their Title IX outcomes, but
he estimated that as many as 20,000 students at the nation's 4,500
colleges may have been disciplined for sexual misconduct.

UC and Cal State data on the number of students who have been
suspended or expelled for sexual misconduct were not immediately
available. Attorneys estimate that more than 500 UC students could
potentially be affected, with even more at the larger Cal State
system.

"If one case succeeds," Sokolow said, "it opens the floodgates for
others."

The class-action strategy relies on recent appellate court rulings
in California and Ohio that ordered universities to provide
students the opportunity for cross-examination at hearings before a
neutral adjudicator.

The California court, in a January ruling in a USC case, held that
"fundamental fairness" required colleges and universities statewide
to provide those due process protections to students who are
subject to severe disciplinary sanctions in cases that turned on
questions of credibility — he-said, she-said situations, for
instance.

In the Cal State Fullerton case, the university notified John Doe
that a female student had filed a sexual misconduct complaint
against him about one month after their alleged encounter. He
denied any misconduct.

The university investigated and substantiated the allegation,
expelled him and denied his appeal in a June 2017 decision by the
systemwide Title IX coordinator, the lawsuit said. The university
said it complied with Cal State policy and state law in place at
the time.

However, for the class-action lawsuits to proceed, the courts must
first agree that the proposed class of students can be clearly
defined, have suffered the same alleged injuries and share a common
legal interest. Courts have yet to certify the class in any of the
lawsuits, and a Cal State spokeswoman said university officials
don't believe they should.

"The CSU is still analyzing the lawsuit, but upon initial review,
it does not appear that a class action is appropriate or legally
justifiable," said Toni Molle, Cal State spokeswoman. "Each Title
IX case is distinctive with individualized facts and has unique
interests for the individual parties."

The UC system has not yet been served with the lawsuit and has no
comment, spokeswoman Claire Doan said August 2.

Both Cal State and UC have recently issued new Title IX policies
and procedures to comply with the appellate court ruling to allow
cross-examination at hearings and end the practice of allowing a
single investigator to interview witnesses, gather evidence and
determine facts and findings about whether the allegations are
true.

In response to the ruling, all students are now entitled to a
hearing before a neutral decision maker on Title IX complaints.

UC and Cal State handle the process slightly differently.

Under UC's new policies issued this week, any student dissatisfied
with preliminary determinations and proposed sanctions can request
a hearing. Previously, hearings were in granted only in limited
circumstances.

Cal State will provide hearings in all cases before determining
whether sexual misconduct occurred. Previously, hearings were held
only after sanctions had been proposed.

Both systems will offer videoconferencing or other means of
physical or visual separation to reduce the potential for trauma at
the hearing. They also will allow only indirect cross-examination
through questions submitted by both sides to the hearing officer,
who may choose not to ask any deemed irrelevant or harassing.

In addition, Cal State has curtailed the role of investigators so
they only will gather testimony and evidence, but no longer decide
if allegations are true. A hearing officer will make that
decision.

UC investigators will offer preliminary determinations of whether
sexual misconduct allegations are true, and student conduct
officers will then propose sanctions if warranted. But the accused
and accuser have the right to contest those proposed decisions and
ask for a hearing.

Suzanne Taylor, UC's systemwide Title IX coordinator, said a
university working group consulted widely and took several months
to carefully craft a revised model.

"We had to provide a process that was fair, that treats parties
with respect and compassion and that results in just and reliable
outcomes," she said. "We also knew we had to minimize the burden on
our students as well as the vulnerability of our decisions being
overturned by the courts. We really have to hold the values of
fairness and compassion equally close as we move forward, and
that's what we will do."

Hathaway, the attorney representing the two students, said the
revised policies still fall short. He said they continue to prevent
accused students from presenting a "full defense" by barring, for
instance, direct cross-examination by their representatives, as
DeVos' proposed rules would allow.

Taylor, however, said UC had no intention of allowing that practice
at the moment.

"It really does create an adversarial process, and it would make
our process much more like a criminal proceeding," she said, "and
so that's something that we absolutely will not do unless we have
to."

She said that university disciplinary procedures are very different
from criminal charges and trials, where consequences can be far
more severe. It is not clear how many students report sexual
misconduct allegations to police; Taylor said many choose not to
because it can be an "arduous process" that may not result in a
prosecutorial decision to file charges. [GN]


VENATOR MATERIALS: Rosen Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Venator Materials PLC (NYSE: VNTR): (a) from August
2, 2017 through October 29, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period").;
(b) in or traceable to Venator's initial public offering of
ordinary shares conducted on or around August 3, 2017; and (c) in
or traceable to Venator's secondary public offering of ordinary
shares conducted on or around December 4, 2017. The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for Venator investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Venator class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1641.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the fire damage at Venator's Pori facility was far more
extensive than disclosed to investors, rendering the facility
beyond repair; (2) the true cost of the Pori facility fire exceeded
$1 billion, hundreds of millions of dollars beyond the limits of
the Company's insurance policy; (3) the Company was paying
rebuilding premiums, and thereby incurring tens of millions of
dollars in additional costs, in a futile attempt to expedite the
rehabilitation process; (4) Venator had lost, essentially without
prospect of rehabilitation, 80% of the production capacity of the
Pori facility, and thus lost a substantial portion of one of its
largest revenue producing assets; (5) the Company's reported annual
Titanium Dioxide production capacity had been inflated by
approximately 104,000 metric tons, or 15%; (6) as a result, Venator
would incur over $600 million in restructuring expense and
additional charges associated with the closure and replacement of
the Pori facility; and (7) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' positive statements about Venator's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
30, 2019. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1641.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com

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

Contact:

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


VERB TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Law Files Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Verb Technology Company, Inc. (NASDAQ:  VERB) and certain
of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District
Court, for the Central District of California, and indexed under
19-cv-06944, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise Verb
securities between January 3, 2018, and May 2, 2018, both days
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 Verb securities during the
class period, you have until September 9, 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.

Verb purportedly operates as an applications services provider with
cloud-based software products for businesses. As part of its
business, Verb utilizes interactive videos as part of its customer
relationship management application. Verb has formerly operated
under the names of nFusz, Inc., bBooth, Inc., bBooth (USA), Inc.,
and Cutaia Media Group, LLC.

On January 3, 2018, the Company announced a purported agreement
with Oracle America, Inc. ("Oracle"), and (herein, the "Oracle
Agreement") which received widespread attention.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the
defendants failed to disclose to investors that: defendants made
false and/or misleading statements as to the scope of the Oracle
Agreement as the Company did not have a contract with Oracle to
jointly develop and market the Company's product and that as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

After the revealing the actual terms of the agreement. the stock
began a precipitous decline, closing on April 30, 2018, at $1.54
per share, a decrease of 43% from the high a week prior. The market
continued to digest this information and by the market close on May
2, 2018, the Company's stock was trading at $1.08 per share, a
decrease of 60% from the high a week prior.

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. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com

Contact:

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


VRL CONTRACTING: Siles Seeks OT Pay for Home Health Aides
---------------------------------------------------------
MARIA SILES, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. VRL CONTRACTING AGENCY, LLC, and
VARDYING R. LOPEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01026 (E.D.
Va., Aug. 7, 2019), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff
and those similarly situated home health aides and/or personal care
assistants 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.

VRL is a home health care agency that provides in-home health care
services and related personal care assistant services for children
and adults primarily in the Commonwealth of Virginia.[BN]

Counsel for the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective are:

          Claudia Lopez-Knapp, Esq.
          Robert Powers, Esq.
          Andrea Harris, Esq.
          Dirk McClanahan, Esq.
          Zach Miller, Esq.
          MCCLANAHAN POWERS, PLLC
          8133 Leesburg Pike, Suite 130
          Vienna, VA 22182
          Telephone: (703) 520-1326
          Facsimile: (703) 828-0205
          E-mail: aharris@mcplegal.com
                  rpowers@mcplegal.com
                 dmcclanahan@mcplegal.com
                 zmiller@mcplegal.com
                 clopezknapp@mcplegal.com
                 pghale@mcplegal.com

WHEATFIELD, NY: Court Dismisses Landfill Toxic Exposure Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned ALICIA BELLAFAIRE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TOWN OF WHEATFIELD, OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON, INC., CROWN BEVERAGE PACKAGING, LLC,
GREIF, INC., REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., and HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL
INC., Defendants. Case No. 1:18-cv-00560. (W.D.N.Y.)

The Plaintiffs seek to bring a class action suit against the Town
of Wheatfield, Occidental Chemical Corporation, Bell Helicopter
Textron, Inc., Crown Beverage Packaging, LLC, Greif, Inc., Republic
Services, Inc., and Honeywell International Inc., arising out of
Plaintiffs' alleged exposure to toxic and hazardous substances
emanating from the Town's Nash Road landfill.

In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert the following claims:
Count One: response costs incurred or to be incurred by Plaintiffs
in connection with the Site pursuant to Section 107(a) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), Count Two: contribution for response costs under
Section 113(f) of CERCLA, Count Three: declaratory relief as to
future costs under Section 113(g)(2), (4) of CERCLA,  Count Four:
the Town's violation of Plaintiffs' substantive due process rights
for a state-created danger pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983;
Count Five: the Town's violation of Plaintiffs' substantive due
process rights to bodily integrity pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, Count Six: state law negligence; Count Seven: state law
strict liability, and Count Eight: state law trespass.

Whether the Amended Complaint Fails to Plausibly Allege Causation

Defendants contend that the allegations in the Amended Complaint
are nearly identical to those made in the Complaint and remain
vague and conclusory with regard to Plaintiffs' alleged injuries,
which hazardous substances caused their alleged injuries, and a
plausible migration pathway between Plaintiffs' properties and the
Site. The court agrees that Plaintiffs' allegations remain vague
and conclusory as they identify a list of contaminants and their
possible health effects without alleging a plausible connection
between the contaminant and a condition suffered by a Plaintiff.

For example, the Amended Complaint states that benzotrichlorides
may have effects on the lungs, liver, kidneys, and thyroid.
Individual Plaintiffs, however, are not identified as having one or
more of their injuries caused by benzotrichlorides. As Defendants
point out, of the 188 injuries Plaintiffs allege, 118 of them are
not even alleged to be associated with any of the chemicals
identified in the Amended Complaint.

Defendants further point out that there is no signature injury
which would be circumstantial evidence of Plaintiffs' theory of
causation. Instead, in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs identify
conditions for each Plaintiff and attribute those conditions
generally to alleged exposure to toxic and hazardous chemicals.

Without knowing which substance is alleged to be the causation
agent, there is no means of determining whether a claim has been
stated against a particular Defendant. Plaintiffs, as the parties
most familiar with their medical conditions and injuries, are most
likely to have relevant information in their possession, custody,
or control.

These allegations are identical for each Plaintiff who owns or
rents real property near the Site. Although Plaintiffs contend they
have incurred response costs in the form of substantial
investigation and sampling costs necessary to determine the nature
and extent of the releases, threatened releases, and contamination
around the Site 186, the results of their investigation are not
reflected in the Amended Complaint.

Because the Amended Complaint fails to give the defendant fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests and
does not allege sufficient factual matter to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face, Defendants' motions to
dismiss must be GRANTED.

Whether Plaintiffs Adequately Plead a CERCLA Costs Recovery Claim

In Count One, Plaintiffs seek to recover response costs under
CERCLA. In order to plead a prima facie cost-recovery claim under
Section 107(a) of CERCLA, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that:
(1) the defendant is an owner or is otherwise liable under 42
U.S.C. Sectdion 9607(a)(1)-(4), (2) the site is a facility as
defined by 42 U.S.C. Section 9601(9), (3) there has been a release
or threatened release of hazardous substances at the facility, (4)
the plaintiff incurred costs responding to the release or the
threat and (5) the costs and response conform to the National
Contingency Plan [NCP].

Plaintiffs allege they have incurred response costs in the form of
substantial investigation and sampling costs necessary to determine
the nature and extent of the releases, threatened releases, and
contamination around the Site" and that their response costs exceed
$80,000 and additional response costs will be incurred by
Plaintiffs in the near future. They state that their response was
consistent with the NCP. An award of preliminary' investigative
costs may be recovered from covered persons, even when there has
not been compliance with the NCP and response costs are otherwise
not recoverable.

With regard to the fourth element of their prima facie claim,
Defendants assert that Plaintiffs do not specify which Plaintiffs
incurred the costs of the alleged sampling and investigation. As
they point out, Plaintiffs are in possession of this information
and could therefore specify which remedial costs were incurred by
whom.  As Defendants further point out, Plaintiffs do not allege
the testing was "necessary to monitor, assess, and evaluate the
releases.

As to the fifth element of Plaintiffs' prima facie case, Defendants
contend the Amended Complaint provides insufficient detail
regarding the nature and timing of the investigation and testing. A
statement that a plaintiff has undertaken some form of remedial
action is conclusory because there are no details from which to
infer  compliance with CERCLA.  

At the pleading stage, Plaintiffs' assertion that their sampling
and investigation were NCP-compliant is sufficient. Their
allegation that they collectively incurred $80,000 in response
costs, however, is not. On this basis, the court would dismiss
Count One for failure to allege the essential elements of a Section
107(a) CERCLA response costs recovery claim.

Whether Plaintiffs Adequately Plead a CERCLA Contribution Claim

In Count Two, Plaintiffs seek contribution from Defendants for
their response costs. Section 113(f) of CERCLA provides that any
person may seek contribution from any other person who is liable or
potentially liable under CERCLA Section 107, during or following
any civil action under Section 106 or under Section 107. Because
Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege a cost-recovery claim and the
existence of a prior civil enforcement action, their contribution
claim must also fail.

Whether Plaintiffs Adequately Plead Their Trespass Claims

In Count Eight of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants' negligent, willful, and/or wanton actions and/or
intentional failures to act caused an uncontrolled quantity of
contaminants to be spilled, disposed of, or otherwise released into
the ground, soil, groundwater, and aquifer at the Site, which
contaminants then entered and trespassed upon the land and realty
of the Plaintiffs, thus interfering with the condition of
Plaintiffs' properties and the neighboring properties, causing an
injury to their possession and/or right of possession.

To prevail on a trespass claim under New York law, a plaintiff must
show an interference with its right to possession of real property
either by an unlawful act or a lawful act performed in an unlawful
manner.

In Count Eight of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs fail to allege
which chemicals intruded upon their properties or how or when the
alleged intrusion occurred. Because some Plaintiffs acquired their
property recently, without alleging a timeframe when the alleged
trespasses occurred, the nature of the trespasses, and the damages
they inflicted, the Amended Complaint fails to provide adequate
notice of the claims against Defendants.

In effect, Plaintiffs allege that an unspecified Defendant
deposited or caused to be deposited an unspecified substance on,
in, or underneath Plaintiffs' properties at an unspecified time
which caused unspecified damage. Plaintiffs make no distinction
between migration methods; allege conflicting and conclusory paths
of migration; allege that Plaintiffs, as opposed to Defendants, may
have inadvertently brought some of the hazardous substances from
the Site to their own properties through their own apparent
trespass; and fail to plausibly allege that Defendants
intentionally caused the entry of foreign matter onto their
properties.  

Conclusory allegations in support of an intentional tort claim will
not suffice.  As a result, Plaintiffs fail to state the essential
elements of a trespass claim.  

Whether Plaintiffs Adequately Plead Their Claims Against the Town

In Counts Four and Five, Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 against the Town alleging that the Site violates their
rights to substantive due process because it is a state-created
danger that interferes with their bodily integrity. The Town
responds that, as with their other claims, Plaintiffs have failed
to adequately plead their injuries and a theory of causation that
those injuries were caused by the Town's conduct.  

It is not enough for a Section 1983 plaintiff merely to identify
conduct properly attributable to the municipality. The plaintiff
must also demonstrate that, through its deliberate conduct, the
municipality was the `moving force' behind the injury alleged.

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege the Town was aware of
the risks to persons and property posed by the Site, deliberately
ignored this risk, took steps to conceal it, was aware that the
Site had the capacity to contaminate neighboring properties, was
aware that the Site was being used for recreational purposes, and
nonetheless failed to heed directives to notify neighbors and
residents of the Site's dangers. Although Plaintiffs have failed to
allege causation and their claims fail for that reason, these
allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to assert a claim
of deliberate indifference

A full-text copy of the District Court's August 5, 2019 Opinion and
Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yy2uh9l9 from
Leagle.com.

Alicia Bellafaire, Joshua Clark, Jennifer Flammger, Andrew Heim,
John Kehoe, Douglas Krull, Jennifer Page, Cynthia Penman, William
Penman, Jodee Riordan, James Stuermer, Salvatore Alessandra,
individually and on behalf of A.A., S.A. and I.A., Jonathan Bencic,
Jillian Bencic, John Corrigan, Joan Corrigan, Drew Dionne,
individually and on behalf of H.D. (I) and H.D. (II), Kyle
Faulkner, Nicole Faulkner, Charles Freeburg, Valerie Freeburg,
individually and on behalf of E.F. and C.F., Laurie Grady, Roger
Grady, Nicholas Iacona, Darleen Iacona, Pino Iacona, Robert
Jachimiak, Sara Jachimiak, Earline James, Steven James, Robin
James, Donna Johnson, Dorothy Koepsell, James Koepsell, Jason
Koepsell, Deborah Kramer, Steven Krolczyk, Michael Labushesky,
Helen Labushesky, individually and as administrator of the estate
of James Labushesky, Ann McClain, Andrew McClain, Scott McEldowney,
Leaann McEldowney-Howarth, Jane Neumann, Deanna Patterson, Matthew
Patterson, Paul Rados, Ruth Rados, Pamela Rados-Hall, Shawn Rance,
Mark Reist, Kayla Reist, Eric Reist, Mary Richards, Harry Richards,
Jr., Amanda Roeser, Thomas Skupien, Edward Stapleton, Rosanne
Stapleton, Craig Stonebraker, Winona Stonebraker, James
Stonebraker, Jourdan Sutton, Sherry Warner, Gail Warner, also known
as, Zachary Warner, Erica Wirth, Theodore Wirth, Donna Wirth,
Robert Zalewski, Chris Ellen Zalewski, individually and on behalf
of K.Z., Joshua Doroshenko, individually and on behalf of C.D. (I),
C.D. (II), C.D. (III), Nicole Doroshenko, Edward Guido, Jennifer
Guido, A. Alessandra, S. Alessandra, I. Alessandra, H. Dionne, H.
Dionne, II, E. Freeburg, C. Freeburg, K. Zalewski, C. Doroshenko,
C. Doroshenko, II & C. Doroshenko, III, Plaintiffs, represented by
Lilia Factor, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Ashley M. Liuzza, Stag Liuzza,
LLC, Louise R. Caro, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Michael G. Stag, Stag
Liuzza, LLC, Paul J. Napoli, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC & Tate James
Kunkle, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, 360 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor, New
York, NY 10017

Town of Wheatfield, a municipality located in Niagara County, New
York, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Niagara
Sanitation Company, Defendant, represented by Charles D. Grieco --
cgrieco@bsk.com -- Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC & Dennis K.
Schaeffer -- dschaeffer@bsk.com -- Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC.

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Individually and as Successor in
Interest to Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Kevin M. Hogan -- khogan@phillipslytle.com --
Phillips Lytle LLP, Andrew P. Devine -- adevine@phillipslytle.com
-- Phillips Lytle LLP, Deena Katherine Mueller-Funke --
dmueller-funke@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle LLP & Joel A.
Blanchet -- jblanchet@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle LLP.


WIDEOPENWEST INC: Bid to Dismiss IPO-Related Suit in NY Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
WideOpenWest, 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 is seeking
dismissal of a consolidated class action suit in New York related
to the company's initial public offering (IPO).

In June and July of 2018, putative class action complaints were
filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York and Colorado
State Court against WideOpenWest, Inc. and certain of the Company's
current and former officers and directors, as well as Crestview
Advisors, LLC ("Crestview"), Avista Capital Partners ("Avista"),
and each of the underwriter banks involved with the Company's
initial public offering (IPO).

The complaints allege violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the IPO. The
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased
stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO. The complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

The Company believes the complaint and allegations to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these
actions.

The Colorado actions have been stayed while the New York cases have
been consolidated with the court staying discovery until after a
determination has been made with respect to the Company's Motion to
Dismiss for which a hearing was held by the court on July 10, 2019.


A decision by the court on the Motion to Dismiss is not expected
for at least several months.  

The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome
of the litigation would have a material impact on the Company's
results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows.

WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high speed data, cable television, and
digital telephony services to residential and business services
customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as
WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc.
in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in
Englewood, Colorado.


[*] Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Class Action Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donald R. Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- of
Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
reports that class action settlements are different from other
settlements for several reasons. The most obvious difference is
that class action settlements are subject to a unique notice and
court approval process. The overriding purpose of the process is to
ensure fairness to members of the class. Judicial oversight is
deemed necessary because most class members have little knowledge
of the lawsuit and are unknown to plaintiffs' counsel yet will be
bound by the decisions counsel make on their behalf.

The nature of class action settlements and the process to which
they are subject fundamentally alter the roles of counsel and the
court. This post and the ones that follow will explore these
altered roles. We will start with the simplest one -- the role of
defense counsel.

Examining the role of defense counsel in a class action settlement
is simplest because, unlike plaintiffs' counsel, defense attorneys
generally possess no potential conflict of interest in the
settlement approval process. Their duty to their clients remains
undivided throughout the proceedings, subject only to their ethical
duties and responsibilities as officers of the court. The role
takes on different forms in the three key stages of settlement:
negotiating the key terms of settlement, drafting the settlement
agreement, and seeking settlement approval.

Negotiating the Key Terms
The goal of defense counsel in the settlement negotiation is
straightforward: negotiate the best possible deal for their client.
However, the best possible deal in a class settlement may not be
the same as the best possible deal in a private one. It must be a
deal that a court will view as fair, adequate, and reasonable for
class members. For this reason, a defendant that wants to achieve a
class-wide settlement cannot adopt a take-no-prisoners approach to
the settlement terms. Defense counsel's duty to their clients
certainly demands that they press hard to achieve their clients'
business objectives on favorable terms, but they must remember, and
may need to remind their clients, that getting plaintiffs' counsel
to accept their terms is only the beginning, not the end, of the
process. A defendant that overreaches by demanding terms that are
objectively unreasonable and unlikely to be approved puts the
entire settlement, and all of the substantial time and expense
incurred in pursuing it, at risk.

While plaintiffs' counsel have their own obligation not to sell the
class down the river, experienced defense counsel, knowledgeable
about the types of settlement terms that courts favor and those
courts disfavor, also must be prepared to advise their clients when
they are pushing too hard for terms that are unlikely to gain court
approval or withstand possible appellate review. And, as a
corollary, if plaintiffs' counsel are inexperienced or inattentive,
defense counsel may have to make an extra effort to ensure that
plaintiffs' counsel are not requiring terms or making procedural
errors that could create or perpetuate conflicts among settlement
class members or between the class and counsel that could put the
settlement at risk.

Drafting the Written Agreement
After the key terms are agreed upon, counsel for both sides begin
work on the written settlement agreement and all of its exhibits
(such as the class notices). Which side takes the lead on the
initial draft will vary depending on the case and the parties'
inclinations, but ultimately the drafting represents the collective
effort of the now more closely aligned interests. Until the
agreement is reduced to a signed writing, of course, counsel must
still be vigilant to protect and advance their clients' interests,
and there typically will be disagreements along the way. Still, in
this phase counsel for both sides can work through their
disagreements knowing that they share the ultimate goal of getting
the deal done. The settlement agreement will contain some standard
boilerplate, but much of it will need to be customized in
accordance with the basic terms that have been agreed upon and
tailored to the needs of the particular case. For defendants, the
most important provisions of a class action settlement are the
class definition and the release, and counsel will need to pay
careful attention to their scope and wording. Despite the more
friendly nature of the parties' relationship in this phase of the
case, the need for counsel to be alert to the many complex details
of the written agreement make it common for this drafting process
to take longer than expected. Defense counsel should do their best
to work efficiently with their client and with class counsel to
avoid unreasonable delays.

Seeking Court Approval
Once the parties have reached agreement on settlement terms and
prepared the written agreement, their posture towards each other
and towards the court fundamentally changes. Originally opposed,
their interests in obtaining approval are now aligned, though the
burden rests primarily on class counsel. Defense counsel typically
assume a more passive role in this third stage of the process,
focused primarily on making sure that everyone else is fulfilling
their responsibilities, such as meeting the settlement agreements'
deadlines for court filings, notice mailings, and settlement
account funding. Defendants may choose (and, in my opinion, are
usually well advised) not to join in the motions for preliminary or
final approval, but counsel will want to review and have input on
drafts of class counsel's motions, memoranda, and declarations
before they are filed. Their purposes in doing so include making
sure that class counsel's filings accurately describe the
settlement and the defendants' positions, and sufficiently
demonstrate to the court that the settlement requirements of Rule
23 (or applicable state rule) have been satisfied. Defense counsel
also will want to make sure, both in the settlement agreement and
through class counsel's filings, that the documents cannot be
interpreted to reflect an admission by defendant that the
requirements for certification of a litigation class are met, in
the event that the settlement is not approved and the parties are
returned to their adversarial positions. As with the motion papers,
class counsel ordinarily should take the lead in court in arguing
for approval, with defense counsel standing by fully prepared to
respond to any questions or concerns raised by the court that they
are in a better position than class counsel to answer.

If objections are filed, defense counsel also should be prepared to
support class counsel in responding to them. Similarly, if the
court decides to conduct an evidentiary hearing to entertain
objections, defense counsel should assist class counsel in the
conduct of the hearing to the extent appropriate to the case.
Defense counsel also should coordinate with class counsel in
briefing and/or arguing any appeal from the trial court's
settlement decision.

Conclusion
In sum, defense counsel's role in the class action settlement
process is significantly different from their role in negotiating a
private settlement agreement. Counsel must keep their eye on
several moving pieces, always working diligently to protect their
clients' interests, yet never forgetting that it is the court that
decides whether the settlement will occur. [GN]



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2019. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***